kamala harris

My reaction to Donald Trump’s recent victory was very different than the one I had when he was first elected in 2016. Back then, I was deeply upset about how it was that we had elected a narcissistic, misogynistic, xenophobic, inciter of violence. And I was anxious about what his presidency would portend for our future.

This year was different. Though still deeply distressed about what Trump’s reentry to the White House would mean for women, immigrants, the future of health care, labor rights and the environment, my overriding emotion was anger. Anger at the Democrat’s political campaigns and consultants who brought us this disaster. And anger at the collapse of the political parties as vibrant organizations that once brought people together, empowered them, and were responsive to their needs.

There was a time when it meant something to be a member of the Democratic or Republican parties. There was a structure to the party from the local to the national level. People belonged, went to meetings. and were proud of their association. Today, for most Americans, being a Democrat or a Republican means being on lists that get emails, text messages, direct mail, phone calls, or targeted social media messages. Most of these are asking for money. There is no organization, no sense of belonging, and no real opportunity to make your voice heard.

One problem with the political consultant class isn’t just the power they wield, it’s the judgements they make, and to whom they are ultimately answerable. It’s not to the political parties, or the voters. It’s to the donors who are paying their tab.

The parties, which once represented voters and empowered them, are now fundraising vehicles that amass billions of dollars each election cycle. These dollars go to consultant groups who use the money to raise more money to pay for advertising, conduct polling to shape messaging either to define and promote their candidates or to define and discourage support for their opponents.

Because they control huge amounts of campaign dollars, it is these consultants who set the agendas for the campaigns. They have effectively replaced the parties as the forces driving American politics. This class of consultants are today’s power brokers and they operate without accountability.

One of the byproducts of this situation is that there is increasingly less voter identification with the parties. The parties themselves have become less membership entities and more fundraising vehicles. This is why it was so easy for Donald Trump to take over the Republican Party and why the Democratic Party has become captive to its big donors and consultants who spend their money. This problem has become aggravated by the emergence of what are known as super-PACs—independent committees that can receive and spend unregulated contributions from billionaires who, hiring the same groups of consultants, now hold even greater sway over the political process than the parties themselves.

One problem with the political consultant class isn’t just the power they wield, it’s the judgements they make, and to whom they are ultimately answerable. It’s not to the political parties, or the voters. It’s to the donors who are paying their tab.

Another problem is how overly cautious, unimaginative, and out of touch these consultants are with voters and their needs. A former Obama official once decried the “foreign policy blob” which he described as a self-perpetuating cast of characters who had served in past administrations. They now populate the think tanks and the commentariat. They are out of touch with a changing world and yet offer the same ideas—a kind of groupthink of conventional wisdom—which failed before and are destined to fail again. The same is true of the political consultancy blob. They are out of touch with a changing electorate and have nothing more to offer other than the same old ideas that may have succeeded once but, given the changes that have occurred in the electorate, are destined to fail.

For example, those who ran this year’s Democratic campaigns failed to appreciate the economic insecurity of white working class voters, instead focusing their attention on what they called the “Obama coalition” of young and non-white voters, and college educated women. They rejected as too leftist increasing taxes on the richest 1%, providing universal health care, and raising the minimum wage. Instead of attending to the needs of working-class voters in key battleground states, they had Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris campaign with former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney believing that she would help win over moderate Republicans, and suburban women—which she could not. And of particular note, they failed to understand the impact of the genocide in Gaza on not only Arab American voters, but also on key components of their Obama coalition, in particular young, progressive, and non-white voters.