This decision from the Democratic National Committee to block the publication of its internal autopsy report concerning the last presidential race is remarkable but entirely predictable. Opposed to unpleasant candor, the party's leadership apparatus operates more like a publicity machine rather than a political organization focused on building local power for winning elections.
An Environment of Conformity
Reluctant to challenge the party establishment's culture demanding unity, the committee has remained within that legacy throughout this past year. Releasing such a report would have indicated whether the leadership actually want to encourage public discourse about the strategic failures that enabled the former president to win re-election. Instead, the leadership is moving forward as if there is little to understand from the tragic debacle from the last cycle.
Our guiding principle: is this good for winning elections? Should the answer be negative, it is an unnecessary diversion from the core mission," an explanation which was presented to justify concealing the analysis.
Key Issues an Autopsy Could Have Addressed
A genuine analysis with any value would tackle head-on key points of failure. This encompasses:
- Voter Disenchantment: Failing to retain among a significant portion of the electorate who voted for the party's candidate during the previous election proved pivotal during the tight recent race.
- A Choice to Run: The unwavering choice of the incumbent to seek re-election, coupled with an extremely delayed withdrawal, has been criticized as denying the party's base of a genuine choice.
- Abandoning Core Democratic Voters: Amid economic anxiety, the electoral effort reportedly ceding to elite contributors while failing to confront the effects of profit-seeking.
- A Foreign Policy Effect: The failure to reconsider a stance on a major international conflict is cited as losing many voters, notably with young people, Arab-Americans, Muslim voters.
- Eroding Young Voter Support: Research shows a huge decrease of support for the party among the youth electorate.
A History of Evasion
The decision to withhold fits a longstanding habit to avoid hard truths. It echoes a situation where virtually every elected Democrat in Washington supported an incumbent's insistence on running for re-election until a catastrophic public debate performance forced an exit.
Meanwhile, overwhelming numbers within the party's base had been continually telling surveyors that they opposed that candidate to seek re-election.
Financial Concerns
A thorough autopsy might also probe questions about where money went, such as what sums went to insider consultants as well as ad buyers during an electoral effort that burned through a colossal war chest over a few months.
A Larger Implication
Ultimately, the suppression surrounding this report is symptomatic of a submission to the established hierarchy responsible for a losing electoral effort. The implication to the party's base – which includes countless dedicated activists – is that they do not be trusted to understand what party chiefs claim to have learned based on a report compiled from conversations with insiders.
An organization incapable to honestly assess its own failings is unlikely to break free from the cycle that proved so beneficial to their opponents.
