By Bret Stephens
A tale from chess history recounts the illustrious Danish-Jewish player Aron Nimzowitsch, who, during a tournament in the mid-1920s, faced off against the German master Friedrich Sämisch. Frustrated at the prospect of losing to someone he deemed lesser, Nimzowitsch leapt onto the table and exclaimed, “Must I lose to this imbecile?”
It’s a sentiment that may have crossed the minds of several liberal commentators and Democratic high-ups late Tuesday, as Kamala Harris’ aspirations for the presidency began to noticeably wane.
How, indeed, did Democrats suffer such a significant defeat, given their perception of Donald Trump — a twice-impeached ex-president, a convicted felon, a fascist, a bigot, a clown, a deranged old man, and an object of unending late-night ridicule and ceaseless moral outrage? Many Democrats might gravitate toward the theory that a nation rife with racism, sexism, xenophobia, and sheer ignorance succumbed to the kind of demagoguery that once seduced Germany into elevating Adolf Hitler.
This theory holds considerable explanatory power — albeit of an unintentional variety. The overarching failure of liberals to grasp Trump’s political charisma, save for interpretations that flatter their views, is a critical piece of understanding his historic, and entirely preventable, resurgence.
What led to Harris’ defeat? Numerous tactical blunders occurred: her selection of a progressive running mate who wouldn’t aid in securing crucial states like Pennsylvania or Michigan; her inability to dissociate from President Joe Biden; her ill-advised labeling of Trump as a fascist, which indirectly suggested his supporters were similarly quasi-fascist; her excessive reliance on celebrity endorsers while struggling to present a convincing rationale for her candidacy; her failure to directly disavow some of the more extreme positions she took as a candidate in 2019, other than through clichéd phrases like “My values haven’t changed.”
Further compounding the issue was the significant error of bestowing the nomination on Harris without political competition — a disservice to the democratic process that nominated a candidate who, as some of us cautioned at the time, was exceptionally fragile. This situation arose because Democrats did not adequately address Biden’s apparent mental decline until the debacle of June’s debate (and then allowed him to hold onto the nomination for several more weeks), making it difficult to conduct even a minimal primary.
Yet these tactical blunders are embedded within three larger mistakes of perception. First, the belief among many liberals that everything was essentially okay, if not outright excellent, in Biden’s America — and that anyone who disagreed was either a right-wing disinformer or a fool. Second, the refusal to recognize how overwhelmingly off-putting modern liberalism has become to a substantial portion of the country. Third, the insistence that the only suitable style of politics in relation to Trump is characterized by Resistance — with a capital R.
On the first point, I’ve lost count of how often liberal commentators have sought to direct readers to obscure data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve to justify why Americans should cease panicking over sharply rising consumer prices or escalating financing costs for homes and vehicles. Or asserted that there was no crisis of migration at the southern border. Or maintained that Biden was as sharp as ever and that anyone suggesting otherwise was simply rude.
Yet when Americans perceived and experienced matters differently (as extensive survey data indicated), the typical liberal reaction was to dismiss complaints as not only unfounded but also morally objectionable. This response served to alienate voters while rendering Democrats oblivious to the validity of the issues. Observations of this dismissiveness were evident whenever Harris noted, in response to questions regarding the border, that she had funded the prosecution of transnational criminal groups: Her comments were unresponsive to the primary concern that there was a migration crisis affecting numerous communities, regardless of whether migrants engaged in criminal activity.
The condescension with which liberals approached these matters was indicative of another issue: a dismissive attitude toward the moral qualms many Americans hold regarding various progressive agendas. Concerned about gender transitions for minors or male athletes competing in women’s sports? You’re labeled a transphobe. Troubled by tedious, obligatory, and often counterproductive diversity, equity, and inclusion training sessions that frame white individuals as inherently problematic? You’re a racist. Frustrated by new terminology intended to be more inclusive but that feels as though it’s taken from “1984”? That’s deemed doubleplusungood.
The Democratic Party, at its finest, stands for equity and freedom. However, the contemporary left’s politics heavily emphasize social engineering based on group identity. Furthermore, it increasingly advocates for the forced adoption of unconventional cultural norms among millions of Americans who wish to live freely without being dictated on what to say or think. Many liberals lost sight of this principle, which clarifies how a figure like Trump, with his loud and explicit rejection of liberal taboos, could reclaim the presidency.
Lastly, liberals believed that the most effective way to counter Trump was to regard him not as an objectionable political player with unappealing policy positions but as an existential threat to democracy itself. Regardless of whether he truly poses such a threat, this manner of opposition misled Democrats. It incited them into their own form of anti-democratic politics — attempting to remove Trump’s name from the ballot in Colorado via the courts or trying to imprison him on complex charges. This diversion detracted them from the essential work of devising and communicating superior policy solutions to the legitimate public concerns he was addressing. Additionally, it made liberals appear exaggerated, if not hysterical, especially since the nation had previously endured one Trump presidency reasonably unscathed.
Currently, the Democrats have evolved into a party characterized by self-righteousness, grandstanding, and arrogance. This may offer a sense of righteousness, but how will such a stance ever translate into electoral success?
I cast my vote for Harris with reluctance due to my apprehensions regarding what a second Trump term might entail — concerning Ukraine, trade policies, civic life, and the moral fiber of the conservative movement as a whole. At this moment, my more significant fear is that liberals lack the self-reflection necessary to acknowledge their missteps, the discipline to improve in the future, and the humility to adapt.
