🔗 Share this article

The decision from the DNC to suppress the publication of its internal autopsy report concerning the last presidential race seems shocking but not surprising. Opposed to hard truths, the party's leadership apparatus operates closer to a PR firm rather than an electoral entity focused on building local power to secure victories.

A Culture of Conformity

Reluctant to depart from the party establishment's culture demanding unity, the committee has continued within that legacy all through this past year. Making public the findings might have shown whether party leaders truly desire to promote honest conversation about the missteps which allowed the former president to become president again. Yet, the DNC is proceeding as if there is little to glean from the tragic debacle from the last cycle.

"Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? Should the answer be negative, it’s a distraction from the core mission," a justification which was presented for withholding the report.

Major Failures an Analysis Might Have Examined

Any valuable post-mortem of substance would tackle head-on certain uncomfortable matters. This encompasses:

• Electoral Disengagement: Losing among millions of voters who supported the Democratic ticket during the previous election was decisive during the tight recent race.
• The Decision to Run: The unwavering insistence of a party leader to stay in the race, coupled with an extremely delayed exit, is viewed as denying the party's base of open primaries.
• Losing Touch With the Working-Class Base: Amid economic anxiety, the electoral effort reportedly bowing to powerful financial backers and not managing to challenge the role of profit-seeking.
• A Gaza Impact: An unwillingness to shift a stance concerning a major international conflict allegedly caused driving away key demographic groups, notably with young people, Arab-Americans, Muslim voters.
• A Decline in Young Voter Backing: Extensive evidence indicates a major decrease in votes for the candidate among voters aged 18-29.

A History Shunning Scrutiny

This refusal aligns with a longstanding habit to avoid uncomfortable facts. It recalls a dynamic in which nearly all elected Democrat in Congress went along with a sitting president's decision for running for re-election right up until a poor public debate performance compelled an exit.

At the same time, a significant majority within the party's base had been consistently telling surveyors that they did not want that candidate to seek re-election.

Campaign Spending Concerns

An honest report might also probe matters about where money went, such as how much money flowed to insider consultants as well as media firms over the course of an electoral effort that burned through a staggering amount in a short period.

A Larger Issue

At its core, the secrecy regarding the analysis is symptomatic of an allegiance toward the established hierarchy responsible for a disastrous electoral effort. The message to ordinary supporters – which includes millions of loyal volunteers – is that they do not have a right to see the lessons party chiefs say they discovered based on hundreds of interviews drawing from conversations with insiders.

A party incapable to honestly assess its own failings finds it difficult to climb out of the rut that proved so beneficial to their opponents.