🔗 Share this article

This decision by the DNC to suppress the public viewing regarding its internal post-election analysis on the last presidential race is remarkable however entirely predictable. Opposed to unpleasant candor, the Democrats' governing body behaves closer to a PR firm than an electoral entity devoted to building a volunteer base capable of prevailing at the polls.

A Climate Resistant to Internal Critique

Unwilling to break with the party establishment's culture demanding unity, the DNC has stayed under the influence of the previous administration throughout this past year. Making public the findings could have demonstrated whether party leaders actually want to foster public discourse regarding the errors which allowed the former president to win re-election. However, the leadership is moving forward under the pretense that there's nothing to glean from the tragic debacle from the last cycle.

"Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? Should the answer be negative, it is an unnecessary diversion from our fundamental goal," an explanation that has been offered to justify concealing the analysis.

Major Failures an Analysis Could Have Addressed

An autopsy report of substance would tackle head-on key points of failure. These include:

• Voter Disengagement: Failing to retain among a significant portion of the electorate that backed the Democratic ticket during the previous election was decisive during the tight recent race.
• A Insistence to Seek Re-election: The stubborn insistence of the incumbent to stay in the race, and a last-minute exit, has been criticized as robbing Democratic voters the chance for open primaries.
• Abandoning the Working-Class Base: Amid rising costs, the campaign reportedly ceding to powerful financial backers and not managing to confront the role of corporate greed.
• The Gaza Impact: The failure to shift a policy position regarding a major international conflict reportedly led to alienating many voters, especially with young people, Arab-Americans, Muslim voters.
• Eroding Young Voter Allegiance: Polling data indicates a major decrease in Democratic support from voters aged 18-29.

A History Shunning Scrutiny

The decision to withhold is consistent with a recurring tendency of evading difficult realities. It echoes a situation in which virtually every elected Democrat in Congress supported an incumbent's decision for seeking another term right up until a poor campaign event led to an exit.

At the same time, a significant majority within the party's base had been repeatedly informing surveyors that they did not want that candidate to be the nominee.

Financial Issues

A substantive report would also investigate issues regarding campaign spending, such as what sums were directed to high-priced advisors as well as media firms during an electoral effort that managed to spend an enormous sum over a few months.

A Broader Problem

Ultimately, the blockage regarding the analysis is symptomatic of a deference toward party leaders who engineered a losing electoral effort. The signal to rank-and-file members – including countless small donors – is that they do not be trusted to know the lessons party chiefs have learned from hundreds of interviews drawing from conversations with insiders.

An organization unable to critically review where it went wrong finds it difficult to break free from the pattern which was so beneficial to the rival party.