There has been endless commentary on why Kamala Harris lost the election. Some Democrats attribute her defeat to racism and misogyny. Others have more specifically blamed black men, white women, young people, Hispanic men, and others. Much less, however, has been written about the possibility that Harris lost because of unpopular and unclear policies embraced by her and her party. And when Democrats suggest that policy might be part of their problem, it gets ugly.
Consider the case of New York Rep. Tom Suozzi, who found himself in the crosshairs after saying, “I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.” LGBTQ activist Elisa Crespo called the Long Island Democrat’s opinion “insulting,” and “dangerous.” Fellow activist Allen Roskoff chimed in, saying Suozzi’s remark was "disgraceful, bigoted and dangerous,” punctuating his attack with the F-word.
A few days earlier, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democrat from Salem, Massachusetts, found himself in the same bind. In offering his critique of the election, Moulton said his party’s policy on transgender ideology was “out of touch with the American people.” He illustrated his point by saying, “I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on the playing field by a male or formerly male athlete. But as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
The backlash was swift, slanderous and unrelenting. “Congressman Moulton’s comments with respect to trans and non-binary children do not reflect our values,” wrote Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo and the town’s school committee. State Democrat Party Chairman Steve Kerrigan said Moulton’s remarks “do not represent the broad view of our party.” Massachusetts state Rep. Manny Cruz characterized Moulton’s comments as a betrayal of LGBTQ support. Salem City Council member Kyle Davis denounced Moulton’s words as “hate speech,” and called them “transphobic,” before demanding Moulton’s resignation from Congress.
These criticisms confirm Moulton’s belief that there is a “Democratic Party purity test,” on this issue. But given the steady leftward drift of his party, that’s unsurprising. What Democrats are doing today mirrors how the ideology of Soviet communism was enforced. There’s even a term for it - protecting the myth of infallibility.
According to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, “Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought total power and claimed communist ideology made their rule as infallible and inevitable as history itself.” Protecting this myth of infallibility requires “a system of organized lying,” which we saw in the Soviet response to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. First they didn’t acknowledge it to the world, then they said it wasn’t that bad, then they said it resulted in only about 31 deaths.
This myth protection racket was articulated early in the Cold War by diplomat George Kennan, who served as the American charge d’affaires in Moscow. In his then-anonymous 1947 essay on containment policy toward the Soviet Union, entitled The Source of Soviet Conduct, Kennan described “the infallibility of the Kremlin,” and how the myth of infallibility, “requires that the party leadership remain, in theory, the sole repository of truth.” Anything contradicting the Soviet version of truth represents “precisely that which the Kremlin cannot and will not permit.”
Moulton and Suozzi are witnessing how the myth of infallibility is protected. Their position on transgender ideology is supported by nearly 70% of Americans, but this contradicts the party’s custodianship of truth, so it’s not allowed. The vociferous denunciations of Moulton and Suozzi by their party’s commissars are a warning to other Democrats.
The inability of Democrats to even consider the possibility of being wrong on the issues feels like they’ve taken a page out of the Soviet playbook. If they believe their ideology truly is infallible, they must necessarily protect the myth. On LGBTQ issues, Democrats might even double down. It’s one of the few voter groups with which Democrats enjoyed an increase in support at the polls this year.
Instead of pillorying members of their own party, Democrats would be smart to learn the lesson Bill Clinton did after the 1994 midterm elections, which saw Republicans take control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in generations. As leader of his party, Clinton was contrite and pragmatic. He worked with congressional Republicans to enact welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act, regulatory reform, lower capital gains taxes, even a balanced budget. In a phrase, Clinton moved to the middle. He then went on to win reelection in an Electoral College landslide two years later.
Part of me hopes Democrats keep doing what they’re doing simply because it’s a recipe for electoral failure. But they’re still consumed with finger-pointing, and with no defined leadership heading into the new year, anything is possible. Given the rising radicalism within the party, they may continue defending this Soviet-era myth of infallibility. We’ll see what the American people have to say about that.