Postmortem of an Election
Over the past couple of days, I have watched and read with considerable interest the postmortem of the Presidential Election. The excuses began early Tuesday evening among a left-leaning mainstream media. Most persons expected razor thin margins with results in key Battleground States perhaps not being known for several days. Within hours of the polls closing, however, it was clear that some things were not going as planned. Trump was overperforming, as he also did in the two prior elections. Media talking heads still expressed hope … I mean embraced the possibility … that Kamala would also over perform in the democratic dominated urban areas in order to counter a growing red wave among rural counties and “flyover states.”
Among the Democratic Party base, day-after excuses followed the same myopic lens through which they view the electorate and the populous generally: Identity Politics. Democrats were (and remain) adamant that Harris lost only because she is a woman and a person of color. Misogyny and Racism were identified as the reasons why nearly 73 Million voters might choose Trump over Harris. Supposedly, more than 70 million Americans, including family, friends, and neighbors, are entrenched MISOGYNISTS, among them millions of WOMEN. Even more interestingly, is the apparent belief that more than 70 million Americans are overt RACISTS, including among them millions of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.
It was quite telling that there was little consideration demonstrated among the Party faithful that there might have been a problem with the MESSAGE and the MESSENGER. Adherents zealously embraced the dogma of a leftward-lurching Democratic Party. They defended their preferred candidate with a religious fervor. The message was presented loudly and incessantly with an air of condescension, unbridled arrogance, and relentless patronization. Those who refuse to convert and to embrace the faith are considered heretics, apostates, and infidels. Opponents are routinely described as “mindless” and “uneducated,” as if no intelligent person could possibly have a reasoned position contrary to their own.
The mindset of liberal progressives can be summarized:
If only you were smart enough, you would agree with us. … If only you knew what was good for you, you would do as we tell you to do.
The People, up to an including a “democratic majority,” rejected that message. Voters firmly rejected a Party, administration, and candidates, who vociferously lied to the American People (allegedly for the people’s “own good,” of course). Democrats lied about Biden’s decreasing capacity and competence, and those lies continued frequently and loudly until they became so incredible as to be believable by no one. They lied about Kamala’s “evolution” on a plethora of contentious issues. A desperate Party sought to remake Kamala into something that she conspicuously is not: a political moderate. The “new” Kamala was a facade, fiction, and fraud, and all but the self-delusional could peer easily through that flimsy facade.
Eight years ago, Trump defeated the Democratic heir apparent, HRC. Among Democrats, there was an expectation bordering on a command that voters MUST elect HRC. It was her turn. It was time that a woman was President. It was almost as though she were divinely appointed. After decades on the public stage, HRC was well-known but not particularly well-liked. The electorate was supposed to forget the many very real reasons why she might be disliked and why she might not be trusted. They were supposed to ignore any reservations about her capabilities, motives, and objectives. In short, the people were expected to suppress their own interests and personal preferences and to advance the will of the Party (and presumably that of the Collective).
The people spoke defiantly, and Trump was elected President. In a fit of hubris and in demonstrations of arrogance, the Party refused to listen to the electorate. Instead, it continued a collective march toward the political left. However, the Party sought to hide its true motives and inclinations behind a declining Biden. They successfully presented the elder Biden as a moderating influence and calming grandfatherly figure, but he was only a figurehead. Party handlers remained staunchly committed to their Collectivist goals.
After a doddering Biden metaphorically collapsed on the debate stage, a desperate Party quickly moved to coronate Harris as its nominee. Harris has never received a single vote as a candidate for the party nomination — not in 2024 or in 2020 when she withdrew before the Iowa Caucuses. She made an early exit from the race because she was then too liberal even for the Democratic Party. She just recently had been named “Most Liberal” Senator in a legislative body, which included the self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders. Far from being a political moderate, Harris follows closely in the footsteps of her Marxist Father.
As VP, Kamala’s excessive staff turnover identified her as someone, with whom it is hard to deal and for whom it is difficult to work. She never demonstrated convincingly any noteworthy managerial skill or particular political acumen. Until her reluctant coronation, Kamala was not even respected within the Biden White House or well-liked within the Democratic Party. As the designated “Border Czar,” she failed miserably and spectacularly, allowing millions of illegal aliens to flow unchecked over an “Open Border.” She and Biden were responsible for what can only be described as an incremental invasion of a sovereign nation. Harris cast the deciding and tie-breaking votes twice on spending bills, which were directly responsible for generational inflation.
There are legitimate reasons not to like Kamala Harris. There is more than ample justification not to support her for President. Her supporters, including those who would benefit directly from her march toward Socialism, are privileged to ignore her conspicuous shortcomings and to vote consistent with their perceived self-interests. More than 68 million voters did just that. Similarly, 73,000,000 persons voted for an admittedly flawed Trump because they believe that what he proposes is more in line with THEIR interests. They chose the “devil that they know” as the “lesser evil.” Such also is their prerogative.
