The Electoral College: A Complex Landscape

White racism and Black sexism are pivotal issues that loom large in the discussions surrounding President Biden’s administration. Should Vice President Kamala Harris face defeat in the upcoming presidential election, a plethora of excuses will likely be proffered by Democrats for their failure against an opponent who is both deeply flawed and widely disliked. Alongside these explanations, there may be murmurs suggesting that Harris was never the strongest candidate to begin with—perhaps the party would have been better served by elevating a more charismatic political figure like Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania or Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan.

There is a kernel of truth in these assertions. However, they conveniently overlook the primary culprit: the prevailing approach taken by leading liberal voices in government, academia, and the media in their political strategies today. To understand this, let’s break down its key components:

• The Politics of Condescension: This is epitomized by former President Barack Obama’s recent claim that Black men might hesitate to support Harris simply because they “just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.” Such a perspective is not only condescending but also dismissive of the more tangible realities that voters face. For instance, median weekly wages for full-time Black workers surged during Donald Trump’s presidency but have essentially plateaued under Biden, according to data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve. Why resort to an insulting explanation when a more rational analysis is available?
• The Politics of Name-Calling: This phenomenon manifests every time Trump supporters find themselves labeled as racists, misogynists, or even fascists. Such derogatory terms are not only gratuitous and counterproductive—what kind of voter is likely to be swayed by insults?—but they are also largely inaccurate. The majority of Trump’s supporters are individuals who feel that the Biden-Harris administration has not benefited them or the nation. Perhaps liberals should consider engaging in meaningful dialogue rather than resorting to belittling rhetoric.
• The Politics of Gaslighting: This is illustrated by the numerous MSNBC pundits who have consistently vouched for Biden’s mental sharpness, even when, as noted by Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, the president’s cognitive decline has been evident for years. Simultaneously, these commentators extol Harris as a brilliant and seasoned leader, a claim that may hold some truth but is contradicted by her apparent struggle to move beyond a narrow range of talking points or the challenge of identifying significant political or legislative achievements where she played a pivotal role.
• The Politics of High-Handedness: Do liberals genuinely believe that there are no lingering resentments stemming from Harris’s ascent to the nomination, which was largely facilitated by the immediate endorsements of party elites, bypassing primary contests and challengers? While many Democrats may be comfortable with this reality, it is crucial to recognize that the votes of skeptical independents could be more influential than ever in this election. A Democratic Party that claims to champion democracy while neglecting to practice it will struggle to win over the voters it desperately needs.