Electoral problem for Democrats: it’s neoliberalism, stupid

While Democrats ponder the reasons for their election defeat, mutual accusations are in full swing. Following in the footsteps Article by Mark Lilla from 2016 which marked the beginning of this genre, many stopped at blame “awakening” In short, the Democrats lost because of the game of “identity politics”: focusing on the specific concerns of everyone except straight white men who float through the world, identity-free, as human beings in their untainted essence. Or perhaps, having appeared, proximity to interest groupsto do this.

These statements become even more outrageous now that we are faced with authoritarian rule. The authoritarian scenario requires fomenting a counter-revolution against a revolution that never happened. They argue that the most marginalized people in society have somehow come to power, and it is up to “real citizens” to take it back. Assessing that Democratic failures are due to giving immigrants and transgender people too much power requires accepting this fiction.

These election showdowns and suspensions are replete with evidence of how Kamala Harris worked with various groups of voters to argue—without irony—that identity-based categories no longer matter electorally. Indeed, trying to analyze election results through the conventional lenses of race, gender, education level and age does not provide much explanatory power. So perhaps those who criticize Democrats for their supposed fixation on minority groups should consider chilling them by seeing things through that lens. Or at least in statements about “class realignment”, perhaps pundits could point out that the people screwing over the working class are billionaires and that Democrats have focused their ire too little in that direction, given what Donald Trump has brought us to “bro-ligarchy”.

Of course, we should be wary of any single explanation for actions—or inaction – millions of individual Americans. Something as complicated as an election cannot be summarized in any single grand theory. But attempts to make sense of what just happened must at least be based on… what actually happened. So let’s start with this.

First, we must abandon the fiction that this was some kind of massive shift in American political preferences. The count continues at a rapid pace, but at the time of writingHarris has 48.5 percent, a figure that rises to Trump’s 50 percent and then declines, a difference of 2.5 million votes to more than 153 million votes cast. It is unlikely that the mandate that dictator Donnie claims gives him the power to appoint a cabinet of kleptocrats and remake the federal government. Still, Trump won more votes, both popular and popular vote, than Harris, and that’s worth considering.

Reality-based occupations of the world—such as correctly assessing inflation, crime, and border crossing rates—prove to be a fairly reliable indicator of whether people intended to vote for Harris or Trump. polls. So perhaps we can say, “This is misinformation, fool.”

Next, we are in the moment global rejection of incumbent parties left and right. Since the beginning of the pandemic, people have been looking at what their lives are like now and saying, “I want something different than this.”

In the US, voters rightly resent the status quo because a handful of billionaires and corporations hoard the wealth that the rest of us create by buying politicians and Supreme Court judges to let them do whatever they want. While some lament that trust in institutions is at an all-time low, we should instead recognize that people are wise to understand the fact that “defending democracy” is not a very compelling move when democracy has never paid them rent payment, not to mention providing them with medical care. or higher education.

So perhaps the pre-election explanation is: “It’s a change, fool.”

Crucially, Harris failed in large part because Joe Biden’s 2020 voters didn’t turn out. According to the current count, while Trump did increase his vote total by about 2.5 million, Harris received 7 million fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. Overall, the electorate has shifted forward rather than to the right. Any explanation of what happened must take into account what caused the people who delivered the Democratic victory in 2020 to miss the event.

Over the past two years of weekly focus groups and frequent polling involving swing states and disaffected Democratic voters, three things have surfaced again and again. First, voters clearly remember that they received a check from Trump—a payment he withheld to sign off on those money orders. Biden’s Unsigned Checksmeanwhile, did not register, likely because he prioritized upholding tradition over understanding that there is no louder message than personal verification. The Trump checks and price hikes that occurred during the Biden administration were tangible memories that could not supplant abstract future threats.

Add to that months spent hyping up landmark legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act and committing cardinal messaging sins. First, Democrats repeat that dreaded “i-word” to voters over and over again. Further, many voters do not understand that inflation is rate of change and they believe that its reduction should lead to a fall in prices, which, of course, in most cases did not happen. All this, and attempts to tout gains and implement “Bidenomics” only to backtrack on it, has made Democrats seem out of touch. Hearing “the economy is good” when it really isn’t creates a disconnect at best and perhaps sounds like blaming voters for their own problems.

Second, voters willing to support Trump or abandon the election were, and still are, deep in what I call the “chasm of credulity”: finding Project 2025’s right-wing agenda abhorrent but dismissing it as unlikely. In an August poll conducted by the Research Collaborative and Data for Progress, 58 percent of Democratic voters believed Republicans would implement Project 2025 if they gained power, with 28 percent saying they would try and fail, and 14 percent They think they won’t do it. even try. In contrast, 21 percent of Republican voters believed the Project 2025 agenda would pass, 28 percent said it would fail, and a majority—51 percent—believed Republicans would not take up the agenda.

This mistrust persists. In a post-election poll conducted by the Research Collaborative with Hart Research, Harris voters scored 87/13 on the question of whether it is likely or unlikely that Trump will deport millions of immigrants, including those who are here legally, but Trump voters The issue was divided 60/40. Only 18 percent of Harris voters think a national abortion ban is unlikely, while 69 percent of Trump voters give that answer. Indeed, when it comes to what might happen under a Trump administration and the associated outcomes, Harris and Trump voters are almost mirror opposites in their predictions. In other words, the differences between these voters cannot be characterized as a thirst for disparate government programs, but rather as a belief that policies that the majority dislikes will be implemented.

Third, these conflicted voters viewed Democrats as unable or unwilling to fight for them. Fair or not, “all of this happened under the watch of the Democrats” – “this” means the fall Roe v. Wadethe passage of anti-voter laws, the economic struggles they faced, such was the cry of the conflicted voter. Or, as they often told us: “You told me to come out in 2020 to protect us from MAGA, so I did, and it didn’t do anything. Why would I believe the same thing again?”

Namely, after the election, 51 percent of voters agreed that “Democrats talk about defending democracy to try to get elected, but have not tried to do anything meaningful to defend it,” as opposed to the view that Democrats defended democracy or took it seriously . try.

“Democrats don’t fight for us” — not pronouns or support for open borders or Black Lives Matter marches — was what conflicted voters raised again and again as the main arguments in hundreds of focus groups. Sure, you can get them to grumble about “cultural issues,” and Republicans have certainly spent a fortune to bring those issues to the forefront. But, ironically, it is Democrats’ willingness to capitulate on these issues—running from values ​​rather than from them—that only deepens voters’ sense of weakness. By offering “fat” and “low-calorie” versions of the same agenda, swing voters are choosing “former” voters and disaffected surge voters are staying home.

Democrats should consider that, outside of hardcore partisans, most voters believe that most politicians lie most of the time. After the election, 72 percent of voters said Republican leaders sometimes or always lie, while 70 percent said the same about Democratic leaders. This is hugely beneficial for Republicans, as fearful voters routinely tell us that “Trump just says things, he doesn’t mean them.” And this is extremely damaging to Democrats because voters do not believe their messages about past achievements, plans for the future and warnings of a MAGA dictatorship.

What people think about Democrats is not based on what they say. This is why the denial of right-wing and centrist criticism that Harris did not actually say during the 2024 campaign and would not have been implemented because the policy simply does not work. And staying silent on the issues of race, gender and background that Republicans continue to introduce doesn’t mean they will go away. This ensures that voters only hear about hate speech from the opposition.

The idea that voters fell in love with what Trump was offering and that Harris was pushing some far-left agenda cannot be justified. Harris’ team campaigned with Liz Cheney, displayed the “military deadliest” Glock patriotism, and promised a Republican-sponsored border bill.

In addition, progressive ballot initiatives fared much better than Democrats, with voters across the country enshrining abortion protections, raising the minimum wage, providing paid time off for family care, and strengthening the right to join a union. Even in Florida, where the abortion amendment fell short of the required 60 percent, 14 percent more Floridians voted for it than for Harris.

Assuming that voters will still have some semblance of a say in choosing who will govern in two and four years (which cannot be assumed given the current mass voter purges, lies on social media, not to mention promises of much more draconian anti-democratic measures in the future), in general, the nature of the elections suggests that the Republicans will be rejected.

But until Democrats show, rather than tell, that they are fighting for the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people, against billionaires, corporations, and MAGA Republicans hell-bent on harming them, they cannot hope to fend off the dual lure of authoritarianism rooted in the siren song of accusation some “others” – and cynicism – based on the belief that “both sides” owe money, and not much. In other words, “it’s neoliberalism, stupid.”

Anat Schenker-Osorio is a political strategist and communications researcher for progressive campaigns.

More from Rolling Stone

Best of Rolling Stone

Register for RollingStone Newsletter. To stay up to date with the latest news, subscribe to us Facebook, TwitterAnd Instagram.