The Democrats’ Non-binary Dilemma

The Democrats have once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in what should have been a slam-dunk. Their self-sabotage was painfully apparent: the rigged primary process, reminiscent of 2016 and 2020, left voters disillusioned. From the elimination of challengers to Biden, to the reshuffling of primaries in his favor, to the gaslighting about his cognitive state, and the insistence on Kamala Harris—despite her evident vulnerabilities—the Democrats ignored the electorate. The candidate wasn’t chosen by the people; she was foisted upon them.

Whatever excesses mark the upcoming Trump presidency, they should be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrats, whose hubris paved the way. Every outrage over the next four years will be a direct indictment of their failures.

However, to grasp what happened we must look beyond the immediate and examine deeper currents. As the saying goes, the product is what it is; the brand is what you make people believe it is. The Democratic “product” was once synonymous with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s civil rights advancements—policies for the working class and racial equality.

But two major shifts disrupted the alignment between the product and the brand.

Erosion of Working-Class Policies

The economic shift didn’t begin with Bill Clinton, but his presidency marked a turning point in the Democrats’ abandonment of pro-working-class policies in favor of courting wealthy donors and corporate interests. Under Clinton, the party embraced neoliberal economic policies, including deregulation and free trade agreements like NAFTA, which benefited big business but gutted American manufacturing and hollowed out working-class communities.

Clinton’s calculus was effective: core Democratic supporters, particularly union workers and the working poor, had nowhere else to turn. The strategy allowed the party to rake in massive donations from Wall Street and the business elite while taking their traditional base for granted. For decades, this balancing act held, but it finally collapsed in 2016. When it disintegrated further in 2024, Bernie Sanders underlined it with characteristic bluntness:

It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.

Of course, it’s the same message Sanders has been repeating for the last 25 years or more, so there's little expectation it will be heeded now. Lack of information is not the Democrats' problem.

The Democrats kept selling themselves as champions of the working class, but the rhetoric rang hollow. Voters saw through the façade, and eventually the betrayal was undeniable. The product had changed, but the messaging about the product persisted.

Rise of Identity-Based Politics

At the same time, the Democratic brand was undergoing a profound shift, moving away from the liberal principles that underpinned the civil rights movement—universal equality, free speech, and the belief in shared humanity—and toward an agenda increasingly defined by the illiberal tenets of Critical Social Justice (CSJ). The civil rights movement of the 1960s sought to expand individual freedoms and dismantle systemic barriers, aiming for a society where all people could participate as equals. However, after those monumental victories, activism gradually pivoted to focus on narrower identity-based grievances centered on race, sex, sexual orientation and gender.

By the 2010s, a tacit alliance had developed between CSJ and establishment Democrats. CSJ, with its emphasis on group identity, systemic oppression narratives, and moral absolutism, had come to dominate left-leaning spaces, aligning neatly with the Democrats’ political strategy. This alignment offered the party two significant tactical advantages:

Electoral support from specific identity groups whose grievances became central to the party’s messaging, but whose actual needs could be given short shrift.

A diversionary focus that shifted attention away from the party’s economic policies, which had increasingly favored the wealthy and contributed to growing inequality.

The result? The Democrats embraced “woke” policies to secure these gains while leaving systemic economic inequities untouched. This tenuous alliance between CSJ and the Democratic establishment could thrive—so long as cultural activism didn’t threaten the economic status quo. Policies like a living wage or universal healthcare were non-starters, but performative gestures were palatable—costing relatively little while effectively propagating woke ideology. The DEI and transgender-related policies that were enacted were implemented through executive orders, administrative rulemaking, or guidance from federal agencies. This shielded them from the scrutiny, debate, and public accountability that come with Congressional deliberation, leaving their broader popularity and practical implications untested.

This cozy arrangement may have blinded CSJ activists to the reality of their limited appeal and the significant backlash their policies were provoking. Their dominance in elite institutions, from universities to media, fueled a sense of overconfidence, deluding them into believing their success within progressive bubbles could lead to broader societal acceptance. They failed to recognize, or more likely ignored, the growing resistance to their ideas, which were not just unappealing to many but profoundly repellent.

The “Trans Rights” Flashpoint

Of all the “woke” issues, transgender activism proved especially divisive. After the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage in 2015, activist groups pivoted to trans rights, ensuring an uninterrupted flow of funding and ideological continuity. But trans issues have a minuscule constituency—less than 0.5% of Americans—and the policies pushed (like “gender-affirming care” and men in women’s sports) alienate much of the electorate.

In the 2024 campaign, Republicans exploited this vulnerability ruthlessly. Ads like “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” struck at the heart of the Democrats’ messaging. According to data from AdImpact, GOP campaigns spent $215 million hammering this issue, amplifying its toxicity to the Democratic brand. Polls (see below) showed swing voters overwhelmingly swayed by cultural concerns, with Harris’ focus on “transgender issues” cited as one of the top reasons for rejecting her.

Harris’ campaign failed to counter these narratives. Her silence on transgender issues meant the Republican attacks reverberated without being rebutted, and vague gestures toward economic policies like curbing corporate price gouging fell flat. Too little, too late. This wasn’t just her failure—it was the culmination of decades of Democratic ineptitude and misconduct.

In short, the Democratic collapse wasn’t a problem with the product or the brand, it was both:

• Their economic betrayal alienated working-class voters.

• Their embrace of cultural issues like transgenderism and DEI alienated moderates, independents and swing voters.

Looking at the reasons people voted against Kamala Harris, in their post-election poll ranking the relative persuasiveness of different criticisms, Blueprint found a telling pattern:

The results paint a clear picture: Democrats were punished for inflation, misalignment on immigration and cultural issues, and Biden. The top three reasons not to vote for Harris were:

1. “Inflation was too high under the Biden-Harris Administration” (+24) 

2. “Too many immigrants illegally crossed the border under the Biden-Harris Administration” (+23) 

3. “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class” (+17). 

This suggests that Harris was weighed down heavily by the Biden administration, particularly by inflation and their track record on immigration. Harris was also weighed down by voters’ belief that she focused on liberal cultural issues. In fact, this was the most frequent criticism among swing voters who broke for Trump (+28). 

Foreign Policy and Gaza

Finally, Biden’s unwavering support for Israel’s actions in Gaza further alienated key Democratic constituencies. Harris’ refusal to distance herself from this stance cost her youth, black, brown, and Arab-American voters in swing states. Many didn’t even vote, disgusted by what they saw as complicity in genocide. Although those non-voters won’t show up in exit polls, it’s hard to imagine they didn’t play a role in losing Michigan. How much of a factor this was is difficult to ascertain.

Looking Ahead

This debacle wasn’t caused by a single misstep—it was the culmination of decades of political malpractice. The Democrats abandoned the working class while doubling down on divisive cultural politics. They alienated their base, ignored economic grievances, and underestimated the broader electorate’s rejection of “woke” policies. All this, despite the many warnings they received, not least their previous loss in 2016.

The solution is not for voters to pin their hopes on the Democrats to mount a credible resistance. No, the party is long overdue for a reckoning—and for the ouster of its leadership. It needs to be stripped and rebuilt from the ground up. Those in power will concede nothing without a demand, so it's critical that reformers be clear on what that demand must be.

The future lies in a party that realigns with the economic interests of everyday Americans and casts off the divisive dogmas of woke ideology. Democrats must do both if they expect to have a future.