The move by the Democratic National Committee to block the public viewing regarding its internal autopsy report on the 2024 election seems remarkable yet not surprising. Averse to frank assessments, the Democrats' governing body operates closer to a PR firm than a political organization devoted to building local power capable of prevailing at the polls.
An Environment of Conformity
Reluctant to challenge the prevailing attitude of conformity, the committee has remained within the Biden-Harris shadow throughout this past year. Making public such a report might have shown whether the leadership truly desire to promote open debate regarding the missteps that paved the way for the former president to return to the White House. Yet, the leadership is moving forward as if there's nothing to understand from the stunning loss of 2024.
Our guiding principle: will this lead to victory? If not, it’s a distraction from our fundamental goal," an explanation that has been offered to justify concealing the document.
Major Failures an Autopsy Would Have Examined
An autopsy report of substance would not dodge key points of failure. Among them are:
- Voter Alienation: Failing to retain 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 Seek Re-election: The determined decision by the incumbent to run again, alongside an extremely delayed step-aside, is seen by some as robbing the party's base the chance for a genuine choice.
- Abandoning Core Democratic Voters: During a time of rising costs, the electoral effort is criticized for bowing to elite contributors and not managing to confront the role of corporate greed.
- A Foreign Policy Effect: An unwillingness to adjust an approach regarding the situation in Gaza is cited as alienating key demographic groups, especially among youth voters, Arab American communities, Muslim voters.
- A Decline in Youth Backing: Extensive evidence shows a huge decrease in Democratic support among young voters.
A History of Evasion
The decision to withhold fits a pattern to avoid uncomfortable facts. It echoes a dynamic in which virtually every elected Democrat in Washington acquiesced to an incumbent's decision for running for re-election right up until a poor public debate performance forced a change.
At the same time, large majorities of Democratic voters had been consistently telling researchers of their opposition to the incumbent to seek re-election.
Financial Questions
A thorough analysis could probe questions about campaign spending, such as the amounts were directed to insider consultants and media firms over the course of a campaign that managed to spend a staggering war chest over a few months.
The Larger Issue
Ultimately, the secrecy regarding the analysis is symptomatic of a deference toward the established hierarchy who engineered an unsuccessful electoral effort. The signal for ordinary supporters – which includes countless small donors – is that they cannot be trusted to know what the insiders claim to have learned based on a report compiled from extensive interviews.
A political entity unwilling to publicly examine its mistakes finds it difficult to climb out of the cycle which was so advantageous to the rival party.
