It seems that every liberal pundit, politician and partisan has become the judge, jury and executioner of the Democratic Party. The crime is apparent: soundly losing to the despised Donald Trump. In 2016, they could dismiss their loss as one reliant on an electoral technicality; today, they need something, or someone, to blame.
Some justifications are quite generous to the party and its platform. They strip it of its agency and disarm any arguments for substantive change. Some liberals mention, for instance, the institutional obstacles they face: single-choice voting, campaign finance, misinformation and its lack of regulation, and the dawning realization that voters in noncompetitive states stayed home because of the electoral college.
A similar perspective looks at the broader picture, reminding us that a zeitgeist of discontent has swept up the entirety of the liberal democratic world. In the Netherlands, commentators laureled their centrist Prime Minister with the epithet “Teflon” because they saw him as electorally indestructible. Then, his party was whacked out of power by the triumphant rise of a right-wing populist. In South Korea, the President suffered a landslide defeat in the parliamentary elections followed by gridlock so frustrating that he saw fit to declare martial law. In Britain, mainstream dissatisfaction and a rebellious bolt of the right-wing skinned the Conservatives of two-thirds of their seats in Parliament. The political Grim Reaper is now stalking the governing regimes of Germany and France. Some Americans, then, shrug their shoulders, conveying that it was simply their turn to lose.
These arguments diagnose some Democratic ills but fail to prescribe quality medicine. Electoral laws indeed stack up against Democrats. Still, reform can’t leap out of editorials and into law until an election goes blue. But it’s a tough sell to independents that they should vote blue so some campaign operative loses stress and can sleep.
And, really, what’s the use of blaming global circumstances? If liberal democratic governments are shaking under the weight of popular uproar, there is only more incentive to win. There is little reason to believe that the anti-liberal thrust is just a case of bad political weather impelled by a post-COVID gloom. Since 2006, according to Freedom House, global democracy has been retreating without pause. This kind of climate change cannot be waited out. It must be rooted out, and the United States, the oldest and most powerful democracy, can — even must — be the ideal example of a nation doing so. Then, now is the hour of course correction.
That will require a long and dynamic discussion within and beyond the “liberal” cohort of the American public. But, already, conclusions are being drawn, narratives are being woven, and factional banners are being flung. Some deplore the “identity politics” of the party, ostensibly embalmed by the Republicans in their “Kamala Harris is for they/them” ad. And Progressives cast a light on economic populism, writing Jeremiahs on the fate of the Democratic Party that relies on the neoliberal consensus.
I will not now make any claim on who is right and what these ideas mean for the future of the Democratic Party. But I do implore readers to put an active ear into these critical discussions so that the liberal ideal does not become besmirched by electioneering and so ideological purity does not blind us to the needs of today. Fear and frustration can lead to a jaded disengagement from the body politic, but they can also imbue us with a zeal to reconstruct our message.
This election is sure to give us a great bounty of lessons that we are due to respect. Sifting through the troves of data and ideas will require everyone’s prudence; don’t let the blanks be filled in only by the most opinionated and self-assured. I won’t yet tell you that the next election will be the most consequential in history, where everything can go right or wrong, but I am sure we will need to grasp and participate in the national discussion to secure a more just future.
