Among the many theories propounded by pundits with 20/20 hindsight vision: Kamala Harris lost because she was too “woke.” People just got tired of identity politics; they rejected “defund the police,” “protect transgender people,” and every other slogan that made straight white people feel unappreciated.
But they were wrong. Kamala seldom mentioned her race and gender. She always spoke of her great love for this country. She never said “defund the police.” And she avoided the transgender issue. It was the Republicans who kept bringing up issues that made Democrats appear out of touch. Her campaign was stubbornly centrist, even to the point of campaigning with Liz Cheney.
Zeeshan Aleem of MSNBC makes the same argument. I should carry copies of it and hand it out whenever someone claims that Kamala lost because she was too “woke.” (I confessed my personal view that Putin hacked the election. Maybe it’s just my deeply ingrained belief that women would not have voted in large numbers for a man who boasts about taking away an important right.)
He writes:
The Democratic Party is in crisis. In three contests against Donald Trump, it lost one, narrowly squeaked by in another, then lost more decisively than the first time. In Trump’s latest victory, over 90% of counties across the country shifted in his direction. Now people across the left are scrambling to diagnose what ails the party and offer a prescription.
A group of center-left commentators and party operatives have converged on a diagnosis that could be summarized as “the wokes lost it.” This set argues that social justice activists who focus on oppression tied to identity had too much influence on the Democratic Party and helped torpedo Harris’ campaign. Working class people were alienated, they contend, by issues such as defund the police, trans rights, reparations for Black Americans, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, campus “cancel culture,” diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and the ever-evolving academic-sounding jargon that surrounds these issues. The solution, many of them imply or explicitly say, is for Democrats to become more socially conservative and stop opening their arms to “identity politics” or social justice advocacy.
This narrative is seductive for many veterans in the Democratic establishment, whose instincts have long been to mimic the right when in trouble. But this narrative is mostly wrong. It rests on a fictional account of the past, a handful of indefensible analytic leaps, and easily debunked scapegoating. A more careful reading of the facts helps illustrate how the party would benefit from a wholesale reorientation toward economic populism.
“The wokes lost it” narrative relies on describing a fantastical presidential campaign that never existed. Harris did not run on defund the police or identity politics or any niche social justice issue. Harris brandished her track record as a former tough-on-crime prosecutor. She virtually never mentioned her racial or gender identity. On the hot-button issue of immigration, Harris promised to enact some of the most restrictive immigration and border policies in decades. She also distanced herself from the trans community by refusing to take a clear position when asked if transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care in this country. Harris ran mostly on a mix of positive vibes, an anodyne “opportunity economy” program, a pledge to maintain the international order and a promise to defend democracy, civil rights and normalcy. Harris’ efforts came after Biden ran a defensive and visionless campaign that banked almost entirely on fear of another Trump term and never came close to approaching anything “woke”-coded. In sum, there was no evidence of niche activists controlling the party….
There is a way for Democrats to both tap into universalism and into widespread frustration with the economy: aggressive economic populism. Tap into people’s class identity through class-first left-wing politics that pits working Americans of all backgrounds against billionaires, corporations and the 1%. Under this paradigm, bigotry of all kinds is framed as a tool by which elites distract and divide Americans from their economic exploitation. Conversely, anti-bigotry should be viewed as a war cry of freedom-lovers and a weapon for keeping the citizenry’s focus on class war. Economic proposals would not just be about incremental improvement but bringing down costs and reimagining freedom through the offerings of social democracy and cracking down on corporate greed. This would of course cause a bit of discomfort for an actuallyinfluential interest group that somehow the “the wokes lost it” crowd always forgets to mention: economic elites. But it would unite and excite the people and pave the path for a life of greater freedom in every sphere of life.
Democrats ought to stop whining about social movements, which are a fact of political life. They also ought to stop implying that movements and subcultures possess power that they don’t, while ignoring how wealthy donors shape the party’s economic agenda. The reality is political leaders and parties will always have to manage unruly coalitions and stake out positions that are in dialogue with but distinct from interest groups. Trump fairly successfully distanced himself from the national abortion ban advocates in the Republican coalition, and he successfully deceived many into thinking he would protect Social Security over the instincts of fiscal hawks in his party. Democrats, as the ostensible party of social change and egalitarianism, will always bear this burden of engaging movements even more heavily than the GOP. But a party must have an identity and that identity should be grounded in an economic sensibility. It’s time for Dems to wake up and build a real economic centerpiece for a party that has failed to establish a clear sense of self since the Reagan era.
Diane Ravitch's blog 