The move from the DNC to suppress the public viewing of its internal post-election analysis concerning the 2024 election is remarkable yet entirely predictable. Averse to hard truths, the party's leadership apparatus operates more like a PR firm rather than an electoral entity devoted to building a volunteer base to secure victories.
A Climate That Avoids Dissent
Reluctant to challenge the prevailing attitude of conformity, the committee has stayed under the Biden-Harris shadow throughout this past year. Making public the findings would have indicated that party leaders actually want to promote public discourse about the missteps that paved the way for the former president to become president again. However, the leadership is moving forward under the pretense that there's nothing to be learned from the stunning loss of 2024.
"Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it becomes a sideline issue from what truly matters," a justification that has been offered for withholding the analysis.
Major Failures an Autopsy Might Have Addressed
A genuine analysis worth its salt would tackle head-on certain uncomfortable matters. Among them are:
- Voter Alienation: The loss of millions of voters who voted for the Democratic ticket in 2020 proved pivotal during the tight recent race.
- A Decision to Run: The determined choice by the incumbent to stay in the race, and an extremely delayed exit, is seen by some as denying Democratic voters of open primaries.
- Abandoning Everyday Americans: Amid inflation, the electoral effort allegedly accommodating corporate donors' interests while failing to confront the role of big business.
- A Foreign Policy Effect: An unwillingness to shift an approach regarding a major international conflict is cited as driving away key demographic groups, particularly with young people, Arab American communities, Muslim voters.
- Losing Young Voter Allegiance: Extensive evidence demonstrates a huge decline in support for the party from young voters.
A History Shunning Scrutiny
The decision to withhold fits a pattern to avoid hard truths. This mirrors an episode in which nearly all elected Democrat in Congress went along with a sitting president's decision for running for re-election until a catastrophic public debate performance compelled an exit.
Concurrently, overwhelming numbers of the electorate had been continually telling surveyors that they opposed that candidate to seek re-election.
Campaign Spending Concerns
A substantive analysis would also examine questions about financial allocations, such as the amounts were directed to insider consultants and media firms over the course of an electoral effort which expended a colossal amount over a few months.
A Broader Issue
Ultimately, the suppression regarding the analysis points to an allegiance toward the existing power structure that oversaw an unsuccessful national race. The message for ordinary supporters – which includes countless loyal volunteers – appears to be that they cannot have a right to know what the insiders have learned based on an analysis compiled from conversations with insiders.
A political entity incapable to publicly examine where it went wrong finds it difficult to escape the pattern that ended up being so beneficial to the rival party.
