Kamala Harris’ defeat in the 2024 presidential election was a shock for many Americans, especially considering the margin by which she lost. Many media outlets, including the Register Forum, have theorized that Harris lost because her campaign was too progressive. However, this theory stands in direct opposition to facts of the campaign and also disregards the current U.S. political climate.
Between appealing to gun owners and cozying up to the Cheneys, it is clear that the Harris campaign went out of its way to appear more moderate. The same holds true for her policy positions, such as her support for fracking and tightening the border.
Republicans, meanwhile, have moved further and further to the right. Instead of being alienated by radical ideas, the modern Republican voter is more likely to acclimate to their party changing than they are to break with it. In the light of these changes, traditional political theory—that a party must be as moderate as possible to gain the most votes—is no longer applicable.
In addition, running on progressive ideals has worked for Liberal candidates in the past. From 1933 to 1953, the progressive economic policies of the New Deal secured 20 straight years of Democratic control. When Democrats move left, they win elections.
The other common argument against progressivism is based in bigotry. After Harris lost the election, some moderate Democrats began to blame the few progressive ideals she campaigned for. In the process they have employed bigoted arguments. An example is the anti-trans rhetoric invoked in a statement by Massachusetts’ 6th district representative Seth Moulton: “I have two girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” Other examples include CNN contributor Paul Begala saying that Democrats should stop discussing systemic racism and privilege: “Not only did we explain it [systemic racism]—We rubbed their noses in it,” he stated. Texas 28th district representative Henry Cuellar claimed that providing support to undocumented immigrants was the issue: “[His constituents] are frustrated by the support the federal government has given to undocumented immigrants, in the form of food, shelter and health care.” NYT columnist Ross Douthat wrote that the Democrats’ response to Black Lives Matter was too drastic: “[Democrats] embraced radical and fanciful ideas to a degree that I had not imagined possible… For instance: After the liberal establishment was radicalized by the killing of George Floyd into a temporary repudiation of normal policing on anti-racist grounds.”
The truth is, moderate Democrats would rather collaborate with centrists and Republicans than the far left—even though the latter would actually win elections. The party remains stuck in this losing position because the alternative would mean accepting socially and economically progressive policies that they are not comfortable with. Despite all of Kamala Harris’ rhetoric about supporting marginalized groups, very few of her policies actually supported them in the same style as the New Deal. Instead she co-opted many of her opponents policies in an attempt to win over swing voters that failed spectacularly. The Democratic party needs to start moving to the left and committing to policies that help the disenfranchised, rather than blaming this loss on them.
This article also appears in our January 2025 print edition.
