TORONTO – The Public has moved on from debilitating “culture wars” and DEI. The USA is now decidedly under the control of those who have spurned “the progressive” side of politics. It has nothing to do with character and/or morality, just with who won after the counting was over. 

There is no need to parse the reasons why the Democrats “lost” the election last week. It was never “theirs” to lose. In any democratic environment, eligible voters or collections thereof group together to secure a desired outcome.

Two venerable Democratic strategists responsible for victories dating to the Clinton an Obama years (James Carville and Dan Axelrod) offered this non-partisan analysis that should send shivers down the spine of Canadians political parties who hade been hanging on with bated breath before they consider a winning electoral strategy. American public had had enough of the phoney culture wars, the wokeism of entitlement and the hypocrisy of inclusivity.

Carville’s analysis, replete with never-before heard expletives characterized by the infamous F*** word is as condemning as anyone can be when referencing incompetence, arrogance, stupidity and condescension by a government in power towards its boss – the electorate. Readers can find his synonyms here (see the podcast below).

Carville is blunt and direct. The Democrats had “developed” a game plan that no one could convert to victory. As a result, on the only three results that matter, Republicans/Trump received 58% of the Electoral College seats, just under five million more tallies of the popular vote and sweeping majorities in both Houses of Congress. From a tactical and strategic perspective, there has rarely been a more decisive approval of a candidate and what he/she represents.

The outcome? A total rejection of the “progressive agenda”. While the Republicans focused on winning, the Democrats occupied themselves with smug, “we know better” politics.

Ron Dicker, Huffington Post, November 9, quotes David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama during his presidency, as saying  Democrats have “become a smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated party”. He did not stop there. Dicker cites Axelrod’s interview on CNN where he claimed,  “The only group that Democrats [made gains] with in the election […] was white college graduates. And among working-class voters, there was a significant decline.”

Actions always speak louder than words. Voters know more than strategists are willing to acknowledge, he seemed to say,

“The only group … Democrats [secured electorally] were people who make more than $100,000 a year,” Axelrod said. “You can’t win national elections that way, and it certainly shouldn’t be that way for a party that fashions itself as the party of working people.”

“You can’t approach working people like missionaries and say, ‘We’re here to help you become more like us.’ There’s a kind of unspoken disdain, unintended disdain in that,” he said… “The party itself has increasingly become a smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated party”.

That approach leads to the almost complete rejection Democrats suffered on election night.

Harris (politicians) wanted to talk about abortion, reproductive rights, human rights and “democracy” and DEI. The public wanted to talk about getting and keeping a better job, immigration and security (economic and military).

It sounds so eerily similar to conditions here in Canada… but who wins the election sets the agenda.