The Thrill of Victimy, The Agony of DEIfeat
The Thrill of Victimy, The Agony of DEIfeat
Look on thy Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
I won’t argue that Republicans deserved to win the 2024 presidential election, but Democrats absolutely deserved to lose it. Had Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump, this essay would have catalogued the ways in which Republicans blew it by overlooking Trump’s foibles and choosing him over, say, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, or Mike Pompeo. But it would be a waste of pixels to offer electoral advice to people who have just laid waste to America’s ruling political party and staged the most dramatic Restoration in American history. Today, their president-elect can wave off criticism with the same chilly missive that Barack Obama offered Republicans in 2009: “I won.”
There will be ample opportunity to critique Republicans next year, so today’s essay offers helpful hints to Democrats who currently face two options: (1) Blame Harris’s debacle on deplorables, human garbage, Fascism, Nazism, anti-Americanism, misogyny, racism, misinformation, and disinformation; or (2) Look inward to understand how Democrats are responsible for Trump’s return. Those interested in Option (1) might book hotel rooms today for President Vance’s 2029 inauguration. Those willing to try Option (2) can begin by recalling the immortal words of Walt Kelly: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
[1] HERE ARE SOME OPTIONAL PRE- & POST-READINGS.
You might begin your journey of introspection with three of my recent essays:
KAMALA HARRIS’S OAKLAND PROBLEM: Dear Readers ... Help me write an uplifting paragraph about the vice president.
BUBBLE, BUBBLE, TOIL AND TROUBLE: On the perils and pathologies of political self-isolation.
LEFT COAST EXOBIOLOGY: A San Franciscan Ponders Alien Species that Don’t Defecate on Sidewalks
Most readers correctly understood that these pieces didn’t advise anyone to vote for Donald Trump, but rather asked why a party that loathes Donald Trump would nominate a candidate as unaccomplished, inept, and off-putting as Harris. (Today’s essay has the same purpose.) Not once this year, in writing or in private, did I suggest to anyone how they should vote. No one was persuadable, and I had no desire to pointlessly rankle anyone.
[2] IN 2019, DEMOCRATIC VOTERS WERE SMARTER THAN DEMOCRATIC LEADERS.
Democratic voters and donors emphatically rejected Kamala Harris before the first caucus votes were cast in 2020. Primary voters were on the verge of sending the aging, stumbling Joe Biden to the cornfield with Harris. Then, party grandees rescued Biden, and more capable candidates scurried for the exits. In recent years, the American Left had made race and gender (i.e., Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or “DEI”) their central organizing principle, and Biden was pressured to choose a woman of color—an avatar of two “victimized” groups—as his running mate. This effectively limited his choices to a handful of Congressional backbenchers, a couple of mayors, the deeply problematic Susan Rice, and Harris—whose most memorable campaign moments were withering before Tulsi Gabbard’s questioning and accusing Biden of racism.
[3] SINCE 2021, PARTY LEADERS GASLIT THEIR OWN VOTERS ABOUT BIDEN.
Throughout his presidency, Biden’s physical and cognitive decline was evident to anyone who cared to notice, and party leaders certainly knew the full extent of his infirmities. But those leaders chose to gaslight Americans by extolling Biden’s limitless energy, tireless work habits, and razor-sharp mental acuity. They should have demanded that he forgo a second run or face a wide-open primary. A mid-2023 debate would have ended his bid a year before his disastrous debate with Trump. And the vacuous, tongue-tied Harris would likely have crumbled before abler contenders like Josh Shapiro, Steve Bullock, Andy Beshear, Gavin Newsom, Gina Raimondo, Mark Warner, Michael Bennet, Wes Moore, Mark Kelly, Roy Cooper, Amy Klobuchar, or Jared Polis. Trump would have faced a competent, battle-tested nominee. I’d have suggested Shapiro—or Warner, for whom I’ve voted once or twice. (I excluded Gretchen Whitmer and Pete Buttigieg because of the former’s Dorito mocking of Catholic ritual and the latter’s Olympic-level ineptitude as Transportation Secretary.)
Why did party leaders prop up a fading Joe Biden? The usual explanation returned once again to DEI—because Harris was untenable as a nominee and her race and gender made it impossible to bypass her for an abler candidate.
[4] HARRIS’S WEAKNESSES WERE NO SECRET.
From her VP inauguration till her presidential nomination, Democrats penned endless “How do we get rid of her?” articles, including recurring fantasies (in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024) about Biden appointing her to the Supreme Court as a means of exorcising her from the White House. Her approval ratings were consistently abysmal. Her office is a pit of turmoil, and she alienated Biden’s team. In October 2023, the New York Times Magazine published “In Search of Kamala Harris,” whose subtitle summarized Harris’s decades-long flaw:
“After nearly three years, the vice president is still struggling to make the case for herself—and feels she shouldn’t have to.”
Harris responded this year with swag bearing the slogan:
“HARRIS WALZ—OBVIOUSLY.”
Why struggle to make the case when you can simply declare it to be “obvious”?
[5] TIM WALZ REPRESENTED EVERYTHING WRONG WITH HARRIS’S CANDIDACY.
Once Harris was nominated for president, her obvious running mate was Josh Shapiro, not Tim Walz. Shapiro is centrist, attractive, intelligent, a riveting speaker, sharp under questioning, accomplished at governance, and wildly popular in the single most important battleground state. Instead, Harris chose an awkward, bumbling leftist whose verbal pratfalls led him to self-identify as a “knucklehead” and who sought to explain his serial fabulism with “my grammar isn’t always correct.” Varying theories have been floated about the Walz-over-Shapiro choice: (1) Shapiro’s strongly pro-Israel stance and his Judaism might offend Muslim voters in Michigan and Minnesota (who ended up voting in surprising numbers for Trump and Vance)? (2) Shapiro’s verbal dexterity might make Harris look bad? (3) Pelosi pressured Harris to bypass Shapiro for Walz?
I don’t know the true reason for the Walz pick, but whatever it is, Democrats owe a gigantic apology to Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin.
[6] HANDLERS HID HARRIS FROM THE PRESS AND PUBLIC.
Harris’s speaking style is an all-you-can-eat word-salad buffet, with toppings of empty platitudes and hallucinogenic epigrams. Asked about inflation, jobs, trade, whatever, she reflexively answered with pablum: “I come from a middle-class family,” “We need an opportunity society,” “Let’s turn the page,” “Imagine what can be, unburdened by what has been,” and “Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump.” She couldn’t answer simple, achingly predictable questions from sympathetic questioners (on The View, 60 Minutes, CNN Presidential Town Hall, Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Call Her Daddy). On a podcast hosted by a devout Muslim, Harris waxed lyrical about using bacon as a seasoning; when the interviewer said he doesn’t eat pork and asked her to talk about Gaza, she changed the subject and discussed how much she likes anchovies on pizza.
With a weak résumé and verbal ineptitude, Harris offered memes, invective, and outlandish assertions. Her campaign was about JOY!!! till it was about FASCISM!!! Trump entertained the Al Smith Dinner; Harris emailed in a cringe video whose principal message—delivered by a fossilized comedienne—was that Harris is a Woman. She denied having raised bail money for Minneapolis rioters in 2020—while leaving her plea for funds on X. One week, the internet (and my email inbox) exploded like Hezbollah pagers with identical, simultaneous assertions that Trump “looks tired, exhausted.” Trump has many flaws, but lack of energy isn’t among them. Harris promised CHANGE!, but, asked how her policies would have differed from Biden’s, said, “Not a thing comes to mind.”
[ADDENDUM: I suggested to a highly placed Catholic friend that the elect-me-because-I’m-a-woman plea that Harris sent to the Al Smith Dinner ought to be referred to as her “Agnus DEI” video. He said I should mention that here. Done.]
[7] HARRIS ARGUABLY HAS THE THINNEST RÉSUMÉ OF ANY MAJOR-PARTY NOMINEE IN HISTORY.
She accumulated few noteworthy accomplishments in 20 years as district attorney, attorney general, senator, and vice president. Since 1788, roughly 84 individuals have been nominated for president by a major party. Around 80 percent had previously served as Governor, General, Secretary of State/War/Defense/Treasury, Ambassador/Minister, Corporate CEO, Congressional leader (Speaker, Majority/Minority Leader/Major Committee Chair) or President—roles demonstrating leadership and/or policy mastery. Almost all the rest were celebrated opinion-makers (Lincoln, Douglas, Bryan, Greeley, Goldwater, McGovern). A few had achieved significant accomplishments as VP (Mondale, Gore). I can only find three with résumés as thin as Harris’s: Willie Mangum (1836), Alton Parker (1904), and Warren Harding (1920).
[8] HARRIS’S POLICY VIEWS WERE MYSTERIOUS AND FECKLESS.
Democratic Party leaders assumed that “She’s not Trump,” “She’s a woman of color,” and “Abortion, abortion, abortion,” comprised a comprehensive, compelling, worldview. She renounced her major domestic policy stances from 2019 without explaining why. Retroactively, her once-touted role as Border Czar vanished from history. Her foreign policy views were muddled, obscure, and self-contradictory. She asserted Israel’s right to defend itself while threatening the Jewish State if it sent troops to Rafah, where the terrorists were. Concerning Iran’s threatened missile attack on Israel, Harris impotently warned: “Don’t!” She (and Biden) were relatively silent about the wave of antisemitic demonstrations on campuses and city streets across America.
[9] OBSEQUIOUS JOURNALISTS AND ENTERTAINERS HAVE DAMAGED DEMOCRATS’ COMMUNICATION SKILLS.
Democratic leaders anointed Harris, secure in the knowledge that biased, incurious, and clueless reporters would not demand substance or policy details from her. Fawning entertainers reinforced this flaccidity—culminating in her dreary appearance on Saturday Night Live.
In contrast, hostile reporters and biting satirists have honed Republicans’ communication skills. If Democratic politicians faced similar trials-by-fire, party leaders would have hesitated to choose a nominee as intellectually and verbally torpid as Harris. If somehow nominated in that sort of environment, hard-hitting journalists and clever comedians might have forced Vice President Harris to up her game (if such was possible). Over time, Democrats lost their sense of humor along with their fluency. Trump’s stunts with McDonald’s and a garbage truck were funny and effective. Humorless Democrats responded with the same hysteria that leads them to vilify stand-up comics and wail about microaggressions.
[10] HECTORING IS A POOR RHETORICAL TACTIC.
In private conversations, I often observe the old chestnut, “Never discuss religion or politics.” Thus, I often decline to discuss how I plan to vote. In my personal experience, Trump voters generally said, “OK” and moved on. In contrast, many (not all!) Harris/Biden voters responded to my reticence with rage, finger-pointing, demands that I respond, insults, whining, incomprehension—and emailed links to feverish bloggers whose meanering posts PROVED why I must, MUST vote for Harris. No such diatribe has ever persuaded me, and I doubt that I’m unique in this.
[11] VILIFYING AND STEREOTYPING ARE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE RHETORICAL STRATEGIES.
Imagine a hypothetical voter who dislikes Trump and is considering voting for Harris. But then she hears the following:
Kamala Harris says Trump is “Fascist,” thereby besmirching his supporters.
Kathy Hochul says they’re “anti-American.”
Joe Biden says they’re “garbage.”
Barack Obama accuses African American men of misogyny if they don’t support Kamala Harris.
Democratic voices routinely accuse Trump and his supporters of racism, xenophobia, and stupidity.
Hillary Clinton (she of “deplorables” fame) says that by virtue of meeting at Madison Square Garden (where Nazis met in 1939), Trump supporters should remind us of Nazis. Somehow, the same logic did not apply to MSG events featuring Franklin Roosevelt, the “We Shall Never Die” anti-Holocaust pageant, John Kennedy, … and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Now, this prospective Harris voter thinks:
“My husband and my sister support Trump, and they certainly aren’t Fascists, anti-American, garbage, misogynous, racist, xenophobic, stupid, or Nazis. I can’t vote for people who hate my family. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Trump.”
[12] RIDDLE FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS ON YOUR IDEOLOGY.
Harris explicitly owes her nomination as vice president to her race and gender. When Biden was ousted last summer, public chatter focused on the impossibility of bypassing a woman of color, even if it meant a stronger candidate with whom to oppose Donald Trump. Barack and Michelle Obama focused on her demographic characteristics when demanding that African Americans fall in line. As noted above, her core message to American Catholics (i.e., the Al Smith Dinner video) was that it was time to elect a woman. In truth, her candidacy and its spectacular failure are the logical terminus of DEI.
Widespread unpopularity of progressive policies contributed mightily to Harris’s catastrophic loss to Trump. As you spend four long years anticipating the 2028 election, you’ll have plenty of time to consider how your party’s policies disturb Americans. I would suggest that you begin with DEI and recalling where it got you on November 5, 2024.
ON THE F-WORD AND THE N-WORD
Compare Donald Trump and the Republicans to authoritarian leaders and movements, and I’ll listen with interest. He reminds you of Perón? Marcos? Ataturk? Nkrumah? Cromwell? The Shah? Henry VIII? Batista? Indira Ghandi? Louis XIV? Wilhelm II? Tell me more. I might well share some of your concerns. Once you’re done, I’ll explain why, as a devotee of economic liberalism and civil order, I harbor similar unease with numerous contemporary figures—including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Compare Trump and Republicans (or Biden and Harris) to Fascists, and I’ll roll my eyes and, if you’re open to learning, gently explain Fascism to you. Quick summary: Fascism was a variant of Socialism. Orthodox Socialism seeks to exert iron control over society and all its individuals via a centralized, corporate HQ model (like In-N-Out Burger); Fascism seeks to do the same thing using a franchise model (like McDonald’s). Neither Trump nor Biden nor Harris has the organizational vision or wherewithal to do either.
Compare Donald Trump and the Republicans to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, and our conversation has ended. In uttering this comparison, you exhibit a staggering ignorance of history and a disgraceful predilection for demagoguery. By trivializing the uniquely horrific nature and legacy of Hitler and Nazism, you defecate on the ashes of six million murdered Jews.
Harry Truman, whom I mostly respect, seems to have originated this blood libel. He pasted the “Nazi” label on Tom Dewey—the mild-mannered liberal Republican whose greatest legacy was recruiting Dwight Eisenhower to run as a Republican in 1952. Truman (who tried recruiting Eisenhower to run as a Democrat) called Dewey a Nazi when the ovens at Auschwitz had barely cooled. Ever since, Democrats have applied the smear reflexively and idiotically to Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and, most recently, Donald Trump.
The irony in all of this is that over the past year, sizable swaths of the American Left, not the Right, have shown tolerance of, and in some cases, outright sympathy for the Hamas government in Gaza—which does, in fact, trace its historical roots and philosophy to Nazi Germany. Another story for another day.
Brilliant, as always
> SINCE 2021, PARTY LEADERS GASLIT THEIR OWN VOTERS ABOUT BIDEN.
Since 2019 at the very least. People have been noticing that Biden's brain isn't braining properly since Julián Castro called him on it in the Democratic primary debates, which immediately sent the establishment into a freakout. "Don't say that!" they screamed, "or the Republicans might hear!"
> Harry Truman, whom I mostly respect, seems to have originated this blood libel. He pasted the “Nazi” label on Tom Dewey—the mild-mannered liberal Republican whose greatest legacy was recruiting Dwight Eisenhower to run as a Republican in 1952. Truman (who tried recruiting Eisenhower to run as a Democrat) called Dewey a Nazi when the ovens at Auschwitz had barely cooled.
Also, it's worth noting that Dewey made some significant achievements in his career as a prosecutor by successfully going after Nazis and Nazi agents in America. This just shows that the Democrat penchant for turning reality on its head when they make accusations against their opponents is nothing new.