admin

The Democrats lost the 2024 presidential election, lost the Congress, and effectively forfeited any influence they had on the Supreme Court. Many have been wondering how something like this could have happened and whether the Democratic Party can make some sort of comeback and save democracy in the U.S.

It seems likely that misogyny, racism, and MAGA’s radicalization of young men played some role in the Democrats’ losses. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) is also likely right that a good portion of the blame lies in Democrats' neglect of the needs of the working class, especially when attention to those needs amounted to little more than pandering.

Yet there is another factor that has been underestimated in the overall calculus of what went wrong and why the current Democratic Party will not save the U.S. from Trump and Republicans' embrace of MAGA fascism. In short, it’s the Democratic Party’s own undemocratic character.

The Democratic Party has doubled down on a losing strategy, and it has done this now publicly and shamelessly in the face of voters who recognize it for what it is.

In the 2016 primaries, the contest eventually narrowed to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. In July of that year, WikiLeaks revealed that DNC insiders had been tilting the scales in Clinton’s favor. The DNC denied the report, but eventually then-Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned over the scandal. The aftermath? Wasserman Schultz was named an honorary co-chair of the Clinton campaign.

In October 2016, her replacement, Donna Brazile, also faced controversy after being accused of forwarding debate topics to the Clinton campaign — an accusation Brazile initially denied but later admitted, saying it “compromised the party’s integrity” and was “a mistake I will forever regret.” Like her predecessor, Brazile faced no real consequences.

These moves were seen by some as undemocratic or evidence of a “rigged” system. The denials and lack of any real accountability or remorse suggested that Clinton and the DNC had no real qualms about it. It’s likely this resulted in a loss of trust and votes from many Democratic and independent voters.

You’d think the DNC would have learned its lesson, but the 2020 primary showed otherwise. Sanders was back — this time with momentum. His message had broken through to a wider public, and at a Fox News town hall he even drew cheers from the conservative studio audience.

Although Sanders was not a clear frontrunner, his performance in Iowa and New Hampshire raised the real possibility of a contested convention. Yet, right before Super Tuesday, remaining moderates Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer abruptly and simultaneously dropped out and endorsed Joe Biden, while Elizabeth Warren, the only other progressive in the race, stayed put. The result was a split in the progressive vote that left Biden to consolidate moderates and secure the nomination. 

Sanders saw this as another undemocratic move made behind-the-scenes by DNC insiders. Buttigieg landed a prime slot in the Biden administration, and reports of Obama phoning Buttigieg right before he dropped out only further tainted perceptions. Klobuchar would be considered for the vice presidential role but ultimately withdrew herself from consideration. Steyer became co-chair of Biden’s Climate Engagement Advisory Council.

It gets worse. In the lead up to the 2024 election, Biden’s refusal to bow out until the primary window had closed meant that Democrats were denied any contest at all. Instead, his vice president, Kamala Harris — who had mounted one of the weakest primary campaigns in 2020 — was effectively anointed as the Party’s candidate. That coronation robbed Democratic voters of the chance to choose their nominee. Instead, they were simply told to fall in line behind Harris or risk another Trump presidency.

The great irony of the current Democratic Party has been its call to “save democracy” while undermining the democratic process at every turn. Voters have noticed this and rightly been turned off by it.

Democrats put more effort into squashing popular progressive candidates than into letting voters decide who should lead them. Prominent Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have backed Andrew Cuomo — a disgraced former New York governor credibly accused of sexual harassment — over Zohran Mamdani, the party's mayoral nominee who has a commanding lead in recent polls. Harris, pressed twice in a recent interview, avoided directly endorsing Mamdani, instead half-heartedly replying “I support the Democrat in the race, sure,” before quickly changing the subject.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have both declined to endorse Mamdani, who won the nomination fair and square. Apparently, “Vote Blue No Matter Who” applies only to candidates approved by Democratic leadership.

Many Democrats also continue to support Israel’s actions in Gaza, despite B’Tselem calling out Israel for apartheid, and South Africa and an independent U.N. commission accusing Israel of genocide. Apartheid and genocide also seem pretty undemocratic.

Why are Democrats so hypocritical when it comes to democracy? Part of the answer is that the policies of old-guard Democrats are primarily shaped by the interests of their wealthy, corporate, and special interest donors rather than the needs of the people. Many Democrats have seemed to be more concerned with protecting their own relative power or their ability to enrich themselves. That's why they keep losing.

Shawn Simpson is a research fellow at North-West University in South Africa.