The Opinions - The Hubris That Cost Democrats the Election

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

The New York Times Opinion columnists Lydia Polgreen and Tressie McMillan Cottom discuss what was revealed about America on Tuesday, why the Democrats failed and what individuals can do about the future.Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail]. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is The Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it. I'm Lydia Pullgreen, a columnist for the New York Times. And I am Tressie McMillan Cottom, also a columnist here at the New York Times. And on Tuesday, we found out that the nation really, really wanted to change. Not only did Donald Trump take the presidency, but Republicans took the Senate and made gains in blue states like my home state of New York. and big gains in New York City, too. So before we dive into a big ideas and what this means and future-facing discussion,

let's just check in. How are you feeling today, Tressy? Yeah. I am feeling exhausted, as I suspect many of us are this morning. I wish I could say I was feeling surprised, Lydia. I'm not surprised. I take no pleasure in having thought going into the election that this was Trump's election to lose. But I really, really wanted to be wrong. And I really want it to be surprised.

And so part of the sort of despondency for me this morning is that things are exactly as I thought they are. You talk about the electorate wanting a change. And in some ways, what I think they wanted was a return. I don't live in New York full time. I live in the South. I spend a lot of time with working class people, people who live in the mountains and rural parts of the country. And I also saw a sort of acceptance and integration of Donald Trump's vision of an America where no one has to give up anything to win. And it appeals a lot to Hispanic voters, to working class voters, especially working class men.

it appealed a lot to people in rural parts of the state of all races. And that concerned me. It concerned me the entire campaign. Yeah. You know, I think I was a bit more optimistic in part because, to me, this election really turned on this question of who has a stake in the system as it currently exists and who feels that they could benefit from just blowing it all up. And this was a big thing that came up for me in 2016 when Bernie was running. I ultimately thought Bernie is not going to be able to win because there are just too many people who have 401ks who think, like, if this guy is elected, tomorrow my 401k is going to, like, be worth 40% what it is now. And I know I can count on Social Security, you know. So that sense of having a stake in the status quo. And, you know, the Harris campaign, if it was about anything, it was about a kind of, well, we got ain't perfect, but we got to hold on to it. So, you know, I think I felt hopeful that. that here we had a generic Democrat who had these kind of just real plain vanilla policies

that were not that exciting, you know, tried to address around the edges some of the issues that people needed from government. I thought, you know, maybe that could work. Maybe there's just enough chaos, just enough of a sense that this is too dangerous. And that gamble was just wrong. And ultimately, you were right. So I think here we are. You know, we've got the diagnosis.

Again, I take no pleasure in that because if I am right, I am right because I thought and now have evidence that the anger that Americans feel cannot be directed towards the truth, right? I think there's a lot of anxiety and anger. And, you know, I reject this whole economic anxiety argument, not because it isn't, you know, doesn't have some empirical truth to it, but the way it's been misused to paper over racial differences. racial differences and gender differences and et cetera. But there is something to the fact that there is a deep wellspring of anxiety about the fundamentals of American social institutions not being sustainable, not being predictable to your point about a 401K. When people are talking about housing costs, when they are talking about inflation, even when they're talking about the price of eggs, what they are talking about is an anxiety about their ability to predict their security in. to the near and distant future. And so I always thought that there was a way and an opportunity for Democrats to reclaim a righteous anger. What Donald Trump has done on the other side is he's given a story, a clear, by the way,

articulate story about toxic anger, a way to direct that anger in that anxiety in a toxic direction. 100%. I mean, I think that the reality is that we're in this political moment where the right is offering a very clear story about where we're going. And where we're going is backward. You know, we're going to make America great again. It's a mythical time. It's fake. It's lies. America has always been what it is. It's always been this hot mess. There have always been people who've been left out of the story. There's always been inequality. All of these things

have always existed. But as long as you can project yourself as subject, and you could be a Latino man. And you could be an undocumented migrant, you know, and you could project yourself into that story, into that glorious past. And the only antidote to that kind of story is a story about the future. It is a story about progress. And progress has become a dirty word. And there is no party on the center right or the center left

anywhere in the world that is offering anything but a politics of amelioration. All they're saying is, we're going to tinker around the edges, we're going to find a way to hold on to the elements of globalization that work. We're going to find a way to hold on to, you know, the technology, to all of these things that have fundamentally left people feeling alienated and alone and scared about the future. And nobody's saying, no, over there on the horizon, there is some new thing, this new thing that we're building together. And I think that that is the just, like, absolute global failure that I see.

and it's way, way, way beyond the United States. The other thing is that, you know, we are living in this zero-sum moment where people think that giving something to someone else means taking something away from me. You know, there was that moment where J.D. Vance was talking about how, you know, if immigrants made countries rich,

then Springfield, Ohio would be the richest city in the world and the United States would be the richest country in the world. Well, newsflash, the United States is the richest country in the world. So, I mean, this idea of the zero-sum, I mean, how do you get beyond that? Like, where does the idea of progress come from? So one of the things that J.D. Vance is actually very good at that Donald Trump is not as good at is he figured out how to take something that is a problem about relative differences. And he makes it feel like an absolute loss.

There are some relative losses, right? Sure. Part of being a leader in a globalized society means that the United States has lost some, like, direct power, but still has a disperful. share of soft power around the world, you know, still dominates in economics and markets and in culture, by the way, which I don't think we pay enough attention to. But that relative loss, despite the fact that objectively they are still doing okay is enough when turned into anxiety and fear and aggression, which Donald Trump is very good at doing, feels like an emotional catharsis. And then J.D. Vance comes behind and says, not only are you losing, but they

yes, your loss is coming because someone else is gaining. What we do not have on the other side, to your point, is either a center or center left, and I even argue a Democratic Center right story that captures that emotion in the same kind of way. And I'm afraid that we took the wrong lessons from the last four years about the importance of the left to the Democratic Party in crafting that kind of message, right? What we have said is, look, abolish the police failed. Americans don't want that. People don't want Occupy. We tried that, you know, your so-called identity politics and it failed. And so we're going to retreat into this tinkering around the edges that you so eloquently described because when we presented a grand vision that included some elements of what

the left wants, America rejected it because we're more conservative than the left wants to believe. what I think we should have taken from how Americans understood that message and how they responded was do better at that messaging, right? The fundamentals of the rising cost of housing, for example, do not change because you refuse to tell people a story about how you can make it better. They actually do want that story. They just didn't maybe like the one that we gave them. But one of the things that is important for the left's role in the Democratic Party is writing that story. That's what populism on the right has done for the GOP. And the message we took was our populism on the left is too toxic and too dangerous for us to even entertain salvaging the best parts of their storytelling.

Yeah. And I think that the idea that the Democratic Party has to work within a set of defined rules of the existing order is just like a brain disease, right? Yeah. The other thing is that, and I'm curious to hear what, you know, look, abortion, obviously. was supposed to be the thing that kind of rode into the rescue. So there was a reductrous headline that said, Nation rejects far-left position of, quote, woman. Yeah.

I mean, let's talk about gender in this election because, you know, this was supposed to be the one. You know, white women were supposed to finally abandon the Republican Party and see their self-interest. Let me tell you. And, you know, we are not going back. No more backroom abortions. women bleeding out in an emergency room parking lots.

Like, what happened? Oh, what happened is what always happens, which is why I kept saying to people, listen, I am hopeful on your behalf, but I do not have my own high hopes that you are going to see a mass exodus of white women from the Republican Party and from carrying the Republican line,

not even around abortion. I agree that women are angry and that they were angry across the ideological spectrum. But anger doesn't mean that they will make the same actions, right? Once you get to the realm of social action, your anger gets filtered through a whole lot of identities and through a whole lot of relationships. And at the end of the day, gender did matter, but it was how people thought gender should matter that mattered the most, right?

This is what I mean. If you looked out at the post-Dob's reality and you're a conservative woman who may not be particularly religiously conservative, where I think the religious case for being against abortion is a slightly different thing. But you know, you're a little bit more secular and you do believe that women should have bodily autonomy. If you looked at that, though, and you thought two things. One, my husband won't allow that to happen to our children, right? That's number one. And number two, this decision has been made.

I now need to survive the decision, right? And if you want to survive Dobbs, there is a strong conservative case for saying, Okay, then you make better choices than a mate who won't put you in that position. And more importantly, you get enough economic security so that you can buy your way out of the consequences of Dobbs. And if that is how you're looking at gender, if you are feeling anxious about your security as a woman, hitching yourself to a man's economic security is actually a type of solution. And it is certainly a solution that doesn't challenge your core identity as a conservative, as a soccerman. mom as a mama bear, right? You get to keep all of those identities. Yeah, yeah. And the other,

the other demographic that I think that Democrats have traditionally banked on was young people. And one of the places where, and I'd love to hear your perspective on this as someone who's on campus and who's been dealing with this, I mean, I've been spending a lot of time thinking about and writing about the war in Gaza and how that is playing out in the kind of hearts and minds of young Americans. And I have to say that, you know, the way in which the campaign pain, you know, bear hugged the Cheney's. Thought it was such a mistake. And just like gave the middle finger to the uncommitted movement.

The reality is that there was just a complete and total theory of the case that was, we can just ignore this. So what went wrong here? I think there are two sides of that because there's also a youth conservative movement, right? And so on the one side, I think there's been a level of organizing young conservative people's interest to the benefit of the Republican Party, especially sanitizing Trump for them in a way that makes voting for him palatable. On the other side, the complete disavowal of young, I won't even call them leftist. I would actually just call them like, you know, young moral voters.

And theirs, to be fair, is a morally righteous cause. It is the mass death and destruction of people across the world. I think that's fair. And it is fair to think that you're elected, if not capable of changing the geopolitics, should at least acknowledge why you are so angry about this. So to your point, people may not vote on foreign policy. They do vote on apathy. I think it will go down as a major mistake. I think it will go down as really an arrogance and a hubris on their part

that I thought was really unfounded. I mean, you lost to Donald Trump a few years ago. How dare you have any hubris about thinking you can write off parts of the Democratic base. I thought that was ridiculous. And I also think they underestimated how well the Republicans are doing with young voters on the other side. I think that's right. So what happens now to the Democratic coalition? Where do we go from here? Because I don't think that it's simply a matter of you know, kind of getting the gang back together again. And also like, I wonder if there are generative possibilities in the breakups of these coalitions, you know, does depolarization

race and by class and by gender and by geography. Does that create opportunities? Thank you for putting it that way, because I actually think if there is a hopeful glimmer, it is that. One of the things that has happened is that I think the categories that we have relied on to sort of do this like consumer approach to dividing up the electorate so that we can tailor a message to your particular needs, those categories are crumbling. I think one of the challenges that the Democratic Party has is that they are going to have to rediscover the language of class and not what class meant in the 1960s. But the understanding that really the working class today are women and women of color. And so, yeah, building a new factory actually is not responding to their economic needs.

So we're going to have a lot of people listening to this who are really down in the dumps, disappointed by the results and wondering where to go next. I mean, I'm curious, like, what are you going to tell you, your students are going to ask you this, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. What are you going to tell them? And what would you tell our listeners and readers? I think maybe I would tell them both the same thing, because I think in moments like this, we're all kind of students in the sense that we are looking for someone to help us make sense

of the world. And what I have said to them before and what I will say to them in class on Tuesday if they are listening is you know how to do this. You may not believe you know how, right? But you actually have already done this. We have lived through this once before. That is not to say that there is not a great existential threat and danger. I think there is.

And I've always thought there was. But I always think it's important to remember something my mentor told me years ago when I would be despondent about like, you know, reparations programs or something. And I thought, you know, this thing is never going to happen, right? And he said to me, yeah, that's what they once said about ending slavery, Tressy. You know, the thing is you don't know your moment in history until. it's long gone. So you can't treat things like, you know, your moment in history. You really do have to operate as if tomorrow is happening. Totally. So if you want to feel empowered to do something, know that history actually is only written after the things are settled. And it is our job

to settle them. I think Donald Trump is not the last gasp of the GOP's descent into chaos and madness, but he is a sign that the only strategy they have, they only have one tool. If there's an upside today, is that, yeah, the tool worked this time, but they only have one, right? Yeah, yeah. That means there's plenty of opportunity here to build more and better tools, and that's our job right now. Yeah, no, I totally agree. Tressy, I don't know about you. I feel a little better just hearing your voice. Thanks so much for talking with me today. Thanks for having me. If you like this show,

follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sophia Alvarez Boyd, Vichaka, Fiby Lett, Christina Samuelski, and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek, and Annie Rose Strasser.

Engineering, mixing, and original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Saburo, and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Audience Strategy by Shannon Busta, Christina Samuelski, and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Dresser.