Kamala Harris Lost Due to Democrats Guilt-Tripping Americans: Opinion

Photo : AP

Kamala Harris's loss in the 2024 election cannot simply be attributed to misogyny, as some would suggest. The real explanation behind her defeat lies in the insincerity that underpinned both her campaign and the broader Democratic approach during the election cycle. This insincerity, in fact, mirrors the broader issues within the Democratic Party's strategy, which contributed to the Republican Party’s decisive victory and the return of Donald Trump to the White House.

Stay informed with the latest news. Follow DXB News Network on WhatsApp Channel 

Harris was thrust into the presidential race as a late decision, after Joe Biden, in all likelihood, would have lost to Trump had he run again. Her selection seemed more about combating anti-incumbency than it did about offering a genuine alternative. The Democrats' desperation to fight off the specter of anti-incumbency led them to select Harris as a token candidate, but in doing so, they failed to address the core concerns of voters, particularly those dissatisfied with Biden's presidency.

The Harris-Walz campaign utilized guilt as a political tool, attempting to manipulate voters into feeling morally obligated to support the Democratic cause. Instead of engaging with voters on a level that acknowledged their concerns, the campaign sought to shame them for considering any alternatives. This lack of self-awareness proved disastrous. By insisting that voters were morally obliged to support Harris, the Democrats ignored the possibility that their policies—whether domestic or foreign—were to blame for voter dissatisfaction. The perception that the Democrats were smugly dismissing these concerns, while using collective guilt as a weapon, only further alienated undecided voters.

A prime example of this tone-deafness was the party’s handling of the Middle East conflict. Despite a year of anti-war protests and campaigns, the Democrats persisted in their hawkish stance, undermining their claims of seeking peace. This inconsistency between their supposed ideals and their actions alienated anti-war voters, some of whom opted to either abstain, vote for Trump, or support third-party candidates in protest. The failure to address these contradictions, particularly in light of the war in the Middle East, was a critical misstep.

The Democrats’ embrace of “thick cosmopolitanism”—which encourages nations to take responsibility for global injustices and respond with a helping hand—also proved problematic. This approach, particularly in the context of immigration and global aid, backfired when voters saw it as hypocritical. Many of the same voters who supported Trump, particularly within diaspora communities, viewed this ideological stance as an insincere attempt to virtue-signal. The theory that guilt could be used to motivate people into supporting the Democrats did not hold water, and instead, it triggered a defensive backlash, leading many to reject the Democrats.

This defensive reaction was amplified by the Democrats' constant accusations of racism and sexism. Rather than offering a positive vision for America’s future, Harris and the party consistently leaned into attacking the past, further alienating those who did not see themselves as part of this historical narrative. The constant focus on correcting historical wrongs, without offering clear solutions for current issues, left many voters feeling disenfranchised and disillusioned.

Meanwhile, the Republicans, despite their own lackluster campaign, capitalized on anti-incumbency sentiment. With the memory of Trump’s first term fading, voters were more inclined to focus on the present and their immediate concerns, such as rising inflation and economic stagnation. Trump’s campaign successfully played to this need for short-term solutions, while Harris's camp relied on long-winded calls for correcting past injustices that many Americans were not ready to face.

Furthermore, Harris's campaign struggled to define her candidacy in any substantive way. Despite raising and spending more money than Trump, the campaign struggled to convey a clear message beyond the broad and nebulous “Save America from Trump.” Without clear, concrete policies, voters who were grappling with high inflation and a struggling economy saw little to distinguish Harris from her opponent. The inability to articulate a clear vision for the future made her campaign appear directionless and out of touch.

In addition, the unwavering support from the Biden administration for Israel, despite growing anti-war sentiment within the party, compounded the sense of frustration among many Democrats. The party found itself mired in internal contradictions, and the leadership, along with the voters, stopped listening to one another. The message became muddled, and the Democrats failed to articulate a coherent strategy or vision for the future.

To simplify Harris's defeat as a result of misogyny is to ignore the broader systemic issues within the Democratic Party. The campaign’s reliance on guilt, defensiveness, and tone-deafness failed to resonate with the electorate, and the result was a loss for the Democrats. It is not a matter of gender, but of political strategy gone wrong. Democrats would do well to introspect and reassess their approach if they hope to regain the trust of the American people.