By Nicholas Merl
Since Nov. 5, Democrats have blamed their humiliating defeat on just about everyone but themselves. For some, the media failed to be sufficiently against Trump or for the “supremely qualified” Harris. Establishment Democrats have seized the opportunity to launch an attack on progressives. Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told the New York Times that “The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” days after the defeat. He took particular aim at transgender rights activists and liberal stances on immigration. His sentiments were mirrored by many other prominent Democrats, including Massachusetts representative Seth Moulton and former Texas party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa.
This isn’t the first time progressives have been blamed for a humiliating loss. In 2017, Hillary Clinton retroactively claimed Bernie Sanders was responsible for her presidential campaign failing. In 2020, a renewed Sanders campaign faced massive opposition from prominent Democrats. The absence of a Sanders-like figure hasn’t stopped pro-Biden media figures from diagnosing the Harris campaign with excessive progressivism. Some have insisted that ”stealth extremism” brought down an otherwise solid centrist campaign. Others singled out rhetoric from 2020, such as the slogan “defund the police.” Some may note that “defund the police” didn’t stop Democrats from winning in 2020. And of course, many were quick to lambast the pro-Palestinian uncommitted movement on social media.
The premise of the Democratic narrative is the assumption that most Americans are more conservative. As a result, the assumption goes, Harris’ campaign demonstrated excessive progressivism and thus failed to market to “moderate” voters. Of course, this story is a fabrication of convenience. It allows the Democratic center to sidestep any criticism of the Biden presidency. It allows them to gloss over glaring mistakes made during the campaign. And perhaps most importantly, it silences voices critical of corporate megadonors while providing Democrats an excuse to stifle progressive policy.
Upon close examination, this narrative doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. For one, there is no evidence of American voters specifically rejecting progressivism. Seven out of 10 states voted to enshrine constitutional abortion access, including several states where Harris lost. Red state voters in Alaska and Missouri passed several pro-labor rights policies, increasing minimum wage and expanding sick leave eligibility. Public polling demonstrates consistent support among the American public for progressive policies. Six in 10 Americans support medicare for all, an issue Harris largely abandoned. 67 percent of Americans support increasing taxes on the wealthy, an issue Harris was pressured to abandon by wealthy donors. A majority view Israeli military conduct in the Gaza strip negatively, yet Harris hewed to Biden’s disastrous policy on Gaza. Clearly, there was no lack of enthusiasm for “radicalism” among American voters. To the contrary, Harris failed to be “radical” where the vast majority of voters wanted her to be.
The myth that Harris’ campaign was too besotted with “wokeness” doesn’t hold up under investigation either. Compared to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign platform, the Democrats’ 2024 program looks meek. Despite historically being a moderate, Biden actively tried to portray himself as a passionate progressive. In 2019 he said he had ”the most progressive record” of any Democratic candidate. His platform unabashedly advocated constitutional abortion access, tuition-free community college education and the abolition of the death penalty. By contrast, Harris’ campaign website doesn’t explicitly name any of these specific positions as priorities. Biden went on to win in 2020 with more votes than any presidential candidate in American history. By contrast, Harris received more than 6.8 million fewer votes than Biden.
Far from “pandering to the far left,” Democrats tried to win over Republican voters much harder than their own voters. Harris practically imitated Trump’s rhetoric on immigration, including a promise to finish the infamous border wall. Harris practically abandoned LGBTQIA+ Americans, maintaining almost total silence on the issue of transgender rights. She stalwartly refused to break with Joe Biden’s unwavering support for Israel even as Israeli lobbyists bankrolled Trump. Most infamously, Harris campaigned with former Republican representative Liz Cheney in Michigan, despite Democratic advisors begging her not to do so.
Far from winning over “moderate” America, these efforts backfired spectacularly. Harris’ flirtation with the right didn’t gain her any supporters. Worse than that, it alienated her own supporters. Harris’ campaigning with Liz Cheney, daughter of infamous Iraq war architect Dick Cheney, in Michigan was especially self-destructive. Independents and moderate Republicans responded to Cheney’s visit unfavorably. For Michigan’s Arab-American community, proportionally the largest in the country, this was nothing less than a slap in the face. Michigan later narrowly turned out for Trump, ultimately cementing his victory. The loss of the Arab-American vote — 1.5 percent of the state’s population — played a decisive factor. And while winning Michigan wouldn’t guarantee victory, losing it guaranteed defeat.
Across the board, the Democratic party showed its supporters nothing but blatant disrespect. While Harris and Biden debased themselves in a pointless attempt to endear themselves to conservatives, the Democratic base was treated with barely-masked contempt. Left-wing voters were schooled to accept the wholesale betrayal of their values in silence. Dissent, especially on the topic of Gaza, was met with aggressive purges. Progressive radicals didn’t alienate voters. Reactionary Democrats did.
In fairness, Harris didn’t start Democrats on this slow, self-destructive creep to the right. Biden deserves much of the blame here. After winning on a platform of radical promises, Biden quickly spun to the right. Instead of lower taxes and social programs for working families, Biden cut taxes for corporations. Rather than supporting environmentalism, Biden subsidized oil giants. Far from enshrining reproductive freedom, Biden oversaw the greatest setback to abortion access in 50 years. And despite promising better foreign policy, Biden has overseen the greatest escalation in global tensions since the Cold War, from Ukraine to the Middle East. He even cut support for medicare.
Even worse, the Biden camp continually insisted that he was actually one of the greatest presidents ever. Biden’s policies barely curbed inflation, with economic conditions remaining worse than before the pandemic. Cost of living increased 20 percent for working-class Americans. As of 2024, 60 percent of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have led to massive disruptions of global supply chains, further exacerbating inflation. Yet despite this abysmal performance, Americans were subjected to constant self-aggrandizement by the Biden team. When you consider how little Americans’ lives improved under Biden, such colossal arrogance is simply insulting.
The insinuation that progressives cost Democrats the election is both intellectually and morally bankrupt. If anything, 2024 has demonstrated what happens when corporate Democrats are given too much power. Megadonors successfully pushed Harris to drop antitrust legislation, medicare for all and bans on fracking, alongside countless other policy proposals. In fact, they successfully got Harris to abandon most of her progressive positions. That goes without mentioning four years of systematic purges of progressives from all levels of power, spearheaded by wealthy lobbyists. Nobody stopped to consider how the party’s own voters might feel betrayed by this. Instead, Democrats cannibalized themselves in the name of billionaire donors and imaginary “moderate voters.”
Harris’ greatest miscalculation wasn’t “pandering to the far left.” It was expecting the Democratic base to have no self respect. In 2008, 2014 and 2020 voters backed Democrats who were willing to make bold promises. Yet after winning on the populist promise of “Hope,” Barack Obama bailed out the ultra-wealthy in 2009. After the even more progressive “Build Back Better,” Joe Biden cozied up to big business. Both Obama and Biden promised voters a broadly populist platform, only to abandon their promises later. Harris didn’t even make any such promises to begin with. In the words of the journalist Joseph Gubbels, “Democracy is not a customer loyalty program.” Democrats cannot demand blind loyalty from people they refuse to respect. From start to finish, Harris’ campaign told Democratic voters “we don’t actually care about you.” So why should voters have to care about Democrats?
Of course, there are lessons here. For one, Democrats need to stop pandering to right wingers. Harris’ strategy envisioned coaxing Republicans with reactionary rhetoric while keeping progressives in line by virtue of not being Trump. The result? Right wingers still rejected Harris as a ”far left radical”. Democrats, meanwhile, saw through her hollow promises of change. Instead of standing for unity and bipartisanship, Harris’ strategy showed Americans that she didn’t stand for anything at all. Trying to please everyone only leads to everyone hating you. If Democrats want to regain power next election they need to stand for their own voters, not those of their opponents.
The other major lesson is that “centrism” is a dead end. Both Biden and Harris tried to portray themselves as centrists protecting the status quo from “dangerous” radicalism. The problem is that most Americans want the exact opposite. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, six in 10 Americans thought the current political system didn’t work. 78 percent felt that actually important issues received too little attention. In another poll by the New York Times, 55 percent said that the political and economic system needed major changes. In view of this, it seems only natural for voters to reject Harris’ centrism. America doesn’t want people who defend the status quo. It wants people who fight against it. Donald Trump understands this. If Democrats want to win, they need to ditch impotent “centrism” and promise actual transformative change. As in all things, “audentes fortuna iuvat” – fortune favors the bold.
The third major lesson of this election is that it is wrong to assume that America is disproportionately conservative. Trump’s victory, while resounding, was far from an expression of popular sentiment. Trump’s supporter base remained mostly the same as it was in 2020, with some notable gains. However none of Trump’s gains measure up to the millions of Democratic voters who stayed home compared to 2020. Far from an endorsement of Trump, the outcome of this election was a rejection of Harris and her “centrist” platform. Most progressive ideas remain overwhelmingly popular with voters. And as aforementioned, Democrats’ most overwhelming victories – those of Biden and Obama – were won by unabashedly left wing populist rhetoric. Harris’ platform wasn’t too progressive for America; it wasn’t progressive enough. That should be the main takeaway from this election.
If American history demonstrates anything, it’s that people will never stop fighting for a more just society for all. Democrats once embraced progressivism as the positive manifestation of that historical process. It was the willingness to embrace progressive ideals that gave Democrats victories in 2008 and 2012. The American people demonstrated overwhelming support for progressive promises in 2020. The betrayal of those promises has now led to an equally spectacular downfall. But even where Americans rejected Harris — even where they embraced Trump — progressive ideals gained ground. The American people are not inherently stupid or racist or hateful. The possibility for real political transformation is there. The Democratic party just needs to want it enough.