This decision from the Democratic National Committee to suppress the publication of its own post-election analysis on the last presidential race is stunning yet not surprising. Averse to hard truths, the party's leadership apparatus often functions closer to a communications shop than a political organization devoted to building grassroots capacities capable of prevailing at the polls.
An Environment of Conformity
Hesitant to challenge the party establishment's culture demanding unity, the committee has continued within the Biden-Harris shadow all through this past year. Releasing such a report could have demonstrated that party leaders actually want to foster open debate about the missteps that enabled Donald Trump to win re-election. Yet, the committee is acting as if there is little to understand from the tragic debacle from the last cycle.
"Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission," a justification which was presented for withholding the analysis.
Major Failures an Analysis Would Have Addressed
Any valuable post-mortem of substance would tackle head-on key points of failure. These include:
- Voter Disengagement: The loss of millions of voters who voted for the Democratic ticket during the previous election became a critical factor in the narrowly decided recent race.
- A Choice to Run: The unwavering insistence of the incumbent to stay in the race, coupled with an extremely delayed exit, is seen by some as denying the party's base of a competitive nomination process.
- Failing the Working-Class Base: While facing economic anxiety, the electoral effort allegedly accommodating powerful financial backers while failing to address the role of big business.
- The Gaza Impact: The failure to reconsider a policy position concerning the situation in Gaza reportedly led to driving away significant blocs, notably among youth voters, Arab American communities, Muslim voters.
- Losing Young Voter Allegiance: Polling data shows a huge decline in votes for the candidate among voters aged 18-29.
A History Shunning Scrutiny
The decision to withhold aligns with a pattern of evading hard truths. It echoes a situation where the vast majority of elected Democrat in Washington went along with an incumbent's insistence on running for re-election right up until a catastrophic public debate performance compelled an exit.
Concurrently, large majorities within the party's base had been consistently telling researchers of their opposition to that candidate to run again.
Campaign Spending Questions
A substantive analysis might also probe matters about where money went, such as the amounts went to insider consultants and ad buyers during an electoral effort which expended a colossal amount in a short period.
A Larger Implication
Ultimately, the secrecy of the official autopsy is symptomatic of a submission to party leaders that oversaw an unsuccessful presidential campaign. The implication for the party's base – including countless dedicated activists – is that they do not be trusted to understand the lessons the insiders have learned from hundreds of interviews based on feedback from all states.
An organization unwilling to honestly assess its mistakes finds it difficult to climb out of the pattern that ended up being so helpful to the winning candidate.
