Democrats Doomed to Cling to Their Poisonous Policies, Says … The Atlantic?

The phrase “quit while you’re behind” comes to mind … for everyone else but Democrats, apparently. Now, even The Atlantic has begun sending warning flares.

The current freakout over Louisiana v Callais may fill up campaign coffers, but the party’s determination to cling to racial set-asides in all areas of policy has alienated its former core constituency, warns Richard D. Kahlenberg. Working-class voters want policies that improve their lives directly much more than they worry about diversity, equity, and inclusion quotas in either the public or private sectors. Watching Hakeem Jeffries et al propose utter nihilistic destruction of public institutions as a response to color-blind policies and rulings will shortly spell disaster for Democrats:

Racial preferences in college admissions have long been deeply unpopular, and three years ago, the Supreme Court declared them unlawful, in a sweeping ruling that portended doom for other race-conscious policies to promote diversity or remedy past discrimination. Some research indicates that, in the aftermath of the civil-rights era, the achievement gap between rich and poor students now dwarfs the gap between white and Black students. Even so, well-intentioned blue-state Democrats keep pushing for race-based affirmative action, to their own political detriment, rather than supporting a much fairer policy of providing a leg up to economically disadvantaged people of all races.

In February, the California State Assembly passed, by a 54–14 vote, a measure seeking to place on the November ballot a change in the state constitution to allow racial preferences in K–12 education and in higher-education scholarships. (The state Senate has not yet acted on the measure.) In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a 375-page Racial Equity Plan last month that said, “New York’s history has been one of colonization, exploitation and racial oppression”; among other measures, the plan reaffirms the city’s intent to steer contracts to minority-owned businesses. Late last year, Democratic supermajorities in the Maryland House and Senate overrode Governor Wes Moore’s veto of legislation to study reparations for the descendants of enslaved people.

In huge swaths of the country, the Democratic brand has become anathema. The party will struggle to recapture the White House and reclaim the Senate unless it can persuade some red-state voters to take a fresh look at it. One obvious move would be for the Democrats, who have hemorrhaged working-class voters, to abandon their stubborn support for politically radioactive racial preferences. Significantly more Americans believe that economically disadvantaged people of any race deserve special consideration in admissions and employment decisions, and such efforts do not run afoul of laws against racial discrimination. Nevertheless, many Democrats cannot bring themselves to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling—or the public’s attitude—even when doing so would help their prospects immensely.

“Anathema” would explain the 2024 election results … had Democrats nominated someone who could speak competently and coherently on policy. Unfortunately, Kahlenberg’s eventual theory went untested because Democrats anointed Kamala Harris to replace Joe Biden on the ticket after Biden’s senility went on full display in the June 2024 presidential debate on CNN. Harris not only couldn’t speak on policy, she also avoided policy entirely as part of the Democrat strategy to “disqualify” Trump and set up Democrats as the only alternative. That strategy blew up in their faces as Trump won the popular vote and all seven swing states to dominate the Electoral College, but Democrats have refused to change their strategic approach since then. 

We’ll get back to that point again shortly. First, Kahlenberg wonders why Democrats won’t listen to voters. He quotes a study from professors at UC Berkeley (!) and Yale that recognizes how unpopular their positions on DEI, LGBTQ, Israel, and social policies in general are with voters, particularly in the working class. A move away from these positions would generate enough benefit at the voting booth to make them competitive, but … 

First, there is substantial variation across issues in the effects of moving to the elite middle. For  Democratic candidates,  the largest gains from moving to the elite middle tended to be on social and cultural issues, such as affirmative action and  LGBTQ  issues, where the party’s standard positions are relatively unpopular. For Republicans, the largest gains tended to be on economic issues (healthcare, minimum wage, and Social Security), where the party’s standard positions diverge most from voter preferences.

In other words, there’s gold in them thar middles, for politicians willing to credibly stake their claims and policies there. Abigail Spanberger and Virginia Democrats succeeded by doing just that – only to betray voters with an extreme-Left power grab that blew up in their faces. Just because Spanberger lied through her teeth doesn’t negate Kahlenberg’s argument, although it does make it more difficult for voters to trust Democrats claiming to be moderates. 

So why won’t Democrats give up support for these policies? The party has suffered an ideological capture by the Left, not through working-class liberal populism but by Academia-based, Queer Theory activists determined to rule rather than govern. John wrote earlier about Jamelle Bouie’s argument, which explicitly makes the case for rule rather than governance. Bouie wants to save the democracy village by destroying it, to use the old Vietnam War reference; Democrats aren’t interested in winning hearts and minds, to extend the analogy further. They are only interested in power, to impose their agenda on a populace that keeps rejecting it. 

If anyone doubts this, Virginia serves as an example again. Having violated the state constitution in their attempt to impose a gerrymandered map, Democrats now want to eliminate the state supreme court and the entire state government rather than appeal to voters legally and legitimately on policy. Instead, their approach can be summed up thusly: You will be made to care.

By any means necessary. 

Editor’s Note: The Democrat Party has never been less popular as voters reject its globalist agenda.

Help us continue exposing Democrats’ plans to lead America down a dangerous path. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.