Outsmarted: How Anti-Intellectualism Beat the Democrats
Last November, Americans went to the ballot box to send Democrats a crystal-clear message: they messed up.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris suffered a bitter, decisive defeat to President Donald Trump, receiving 226 electoral college votes to his 312. President Trump also carried the popular vote by a 2.3 million vote margin, the first Republican candidate to do so in 20 years. In subsequent months, Democrats from across the country have emerged dazed and confused from the ashes of what felt like a vigorous whirlwind of a campaign—what could have gone so horribly, impossibly wrong?
The “Red Wave”?
The issue extends far beyond Harris and Trump themselves. 2024 was not only a victory for Trump, but also for Republicans down the ballot. In the Senate, Jim Justice won over Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Tim Sheehy over Jon Tester in Montana and Bernie Moreno over Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Republicans also flipped several House seats, and members of the far-right “Freedom Caucus” retained their seats.
This wholesale shift to the right is also not a uniquely American phenomenon. An ideology that some political scientists dub ‘NatCon’—National Conservatism—has swept across much of Europe in full force in recent years, a drawing inward in response to what they see as the destruction and anxieties of globalism. Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and the Czech Republic currently have hard-right politicians in power, and even in countries where the left wing currently hold executive power have right-wing influence in elections and parliamentary bodies on a greater level than ever before.
This pattern makes it clear that Harris didn’t lose solely because she’s a Black woman, as some Democrats believe. Yes, Donald Trump won resoundingly among the group of Americans that are overtly racist and sexist. And yes, anyone that voted for Trump is comfortable with a certain degree of racism and sexism from their exalted head of state—they just voted a man into office who believes Kamala Harris can turn Black through sheer power of will, and thinks “grabbing women by the p——” is one of the chief perks of his celebrity. Yet, the evidence of a rightward shift of every single state, a popular and electoral college vote sweep and complete swing state domination points to a more complex explanation.
Everyone Hates Democrats
Some Democratic pundits believe that the answer instead boils down to discontent over a series of unpopular Democratic policies. Dissatisfaction with the economy was, unsurprisingly, the top issue for voters in 2024. The electorate largely blames Joe Biden and the Democratic Party for high gas and grocery prices—perhaps when Trump began to campaign behind his (albeit economically mystifying) tariff plan to bring prices down and return jobs to American workers, voters flocked to him en masse.
Others insist that the Democrats’ increasing focus on what they angrily dub “DEI politics” or “wokeism” cost them crucial votes. Although Harris left out the obvious fact that her victory would be a historic one from much of her campaign messaging, some believe that her nomination in the first place was solely based on identity politics instead of merit (you know, despite her decades of experience as an attorney, Senator, and Vice President). Many propose that Democrats should stay silent on issues like race, gender and sexuality in an effort to bring back white working class voters to the base, and simply wait for the electorate to become more accepting of different identities before bringing those conversations back to the spotlight.
Joe Biden’s dismal approval ratings seem to further indicate that voters were simply looking for a relief from perceived Democratic mismanagement of government. Biden left office with an approval rating of 36%, the lowest of his term with numbers even lower on issues like immigration, foreign policy and the economy. It seems at this point that voters were willing to do anything to escape the blunders of the Biden administration on inflation, Gaza, and the border, even those who could never have seen themselves voting for Trump just four years prior.
Actually, Everyone Hates Politics
However, an often overlooked statistic lurks in the background: Americans aren’t simply angry at Democrats, they’re angry at politics as a whole. Yes, 79% of voters believe that the country is currently on the wrong track, but that number hasn’t been below 50% in over twenty years. Both the presidency and the House of Representatives have switched parties four times since the year 2000, representing the most volatile period in government since the 19th century—evidently, voters aren’t happy with either party’s politics.
This throws a wrench in the narrative that Democrats fumbled the election through bad policies alone, and that all Democrats need to do to win next time is make policies more like Republicans. Polls from the Pew Research Center show that 83% of Americans do not think elected officials of either party care what people like them think, perhaps the only idea with broad bipartisan support these days. The overwhelming sentiment is not one where voters simply hate liberal politics and moved rightward in a sudden resurgence of conservative ideology, but rather where voters believe that the establishment in both parties have been continuously failing the American people for decades.
By recognizing and taking advantage of this attitude, Trump was able to market himself as a political “outsider” who would shake up Washington for the better, averting the elephant in the room of his former presidency and its fiery end. Although he is now the dominant figure of the Republican Party and fully entrenched in the political scene, voters view him as a significant change from old guard McCain and Romney Republicans, and certainly from the lukewarm Democratic establishment. If Biden, Harris, Pelosi and the like couldn’t make effective changes in all their time in politics, why would we trust their party to do so now?
Anti-Intellectualism and its Political Consequences
How did we get here? Why are Americans so pessimistic about the future regardless of what party is in power or what policies are being passed?
Part of the answer lies in the fact that voters don’t really know what policies are being passed at all. Political scientists have shown that voters barely ever link any policies to the politicians that champion them. The Affordable Care Act, for instance, a flagship of the Obama administration which completely overhauled the American healthcare system and affected lives across the country, barely moved the needle on the partisan spectrum.
I don’t buy that this is simply a byproduct of human nature. Although anyone reading this probably knows someone who’s “not into politics,” I’d be willing to bet they care a great deal about the price of their groceries, the safety of their communities and the quality of their children’s education. They should, then, also care about what Congress cuts in the budget, how the President gets involved in foreign affairs and the qualifications (or lack thereof) of the President’s Cabinet picks, since those decisions have repercussions that will affect their daily lives.
In reality, however, anti-intellectual sentiment from political leaders dissuades people from engaging critically with issues they deem too “elitist” to care about. President Eisenhower famously described an intellectual as a man who “take[s] more words than necessary to tell more than he knows,” and President Trump similarly described scientific and political experts as “terrible” and not to be trusted on the issues. If our own leaders are suggesting that rigorous inquiry is a pursuit reserved for the out-of-touch elite, what incentive do we have to apply that same rigorous inquiry to politics? To changing the status quo that we’re all vaguely unhappy with into something different and better?
This populist attitude, stemming from an entirely valid critique of the Ivy League elite, has the (unintended? I’ll let you decide) consequence of reducing complex issues to politically convenient soundbites and undermining the ability of political discourse to motivate positive social change. It allows for politicians to discredit the real ability of scientists, researchers and experts to critically analyze society by portraying that process as fundamentally anti-American. Those who aim to substantially address issues like climate change, systemic racism and corporate greed can be easily waved away as out of touch with American daily life, and attempting to weaponize the privilege of university education against the average American. People instead idolize TikTok influencers who present their opinions as fact without substantial evidence, leading to a never-ending cycle of misinformation that experts become powerless to combat.
Democrats Got It Wrong
Democrats like to think that they’re the party of true intellectuals, and Republicans simply haven’t educated themselves enough to agree with them. They tout maps that prove a state-by-state correlation of higher education and Democratic affiliation, and point fingers at the vast swaths of rural, conservative America that have comparatively lower rates of higher education. “Clearly,” Democrats tell themselves, “conservatism is reserved for uneducated, backwards people. If people simply were smarter, they’d realize our position is the right one.”
This exact attitude is what turns these demographic groups, which used to be the very core of the Democratic party, to MAGAism in droves. What working class American would feel allegiance to the Democratic party when told that they are too “uneducated” to comprehend issues like race, class and gender? Why would they vote for politicians that tell them their reactions to issues they face in their communities are only bred from ignorance, where in reality, it’s probably true that workers in rural Appalachia have a better understanding of class struggles than a Phillips Exeter-Harvard graduate does?
In their attempt to resist anti-intellectualist sentiment and its harmful consequences, the Democratic Party has perpetuated the idea that the only way to research, to think critically or to direct policy objectives is through the elite universities. They take critiques of their ideas, which should be met with the same academic rigor as any counterexample would be in a peer-reviewed chemistry paper, to stem from ignorance and hate—exactly what the anti-intellectualism movement does themselves. They’ve created a policy platform based on dogma, hiding under the veil that because it comes from academics, it’s academically rigorous.
What Do We Do Now?
Simply giving up on any conversations that are deemed too “elitist” for the public is a shallow and unsustainable solution to this problem. The Democratic Party shouldn’t cater to those that think fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, dismantling systemic racism or combating rampant sexism is a waste of time simply because they’re unpalatable to the general electorate. Where would we be today if Democrats of the 1960s shied away from the Civil Rights Act, for example, simply because it was controversial?
Instead, Democrats must expand their definition of intellectual inquiry and a “facts-based” approach to policy making to include not just the elite class of Harvard-grads-turned-political-consultants. True progress is made in dialogue between, yes, PhDs and political scientists, but also farmers, schoolteachers, retirees, auto workers, truck drivers and stay at home parents: between those who study and analyze the average American life and those who live it.
This can’t begin happening until Democratic leaders start to change their messaging and make it more obvious that abstract issues are applicable to every American, not just the elite class. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez framed this approach well in a 2019 debate on the Green New Deal: “You want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist? Tell that to the kids in the south Bronx which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. Tell that to the families in Flint.”
The same approach should be used on political issues from across the spectrum. Show communities on the border straining under exhausted resources that radical immigration reform isn’t just a fantasy fit for a master’s thesis—if we work together, and apply expert historical and sociopolitical analysis to the testimonies of residents and community members, change is achievable. Show farmers in the Midwest that the extreme weather ripping through their fields and harming their livelihood that climate change affects each one of us, and in return, listen to their insight on how the land has changed in the generations that their family has been managing it. Show workers supporting families on poverty wages that addressing corporate greed and resisting the billionaire oligopoly isn’t just a talking point for those that care about who was sitting behind who at the inauguration, but a genuine policy proposal that lawmakers need their help to fight for and implement.
My plea to the Democratic Party is this: become the party of true intellectual inquiry again. Do away with a dogmatic, defensive approach to policy-making, and listen to people’s real concerns that the party has become elitist and out of touch. Don’t fall into the trap set by those who want to keep working class Americans out of real policy discussions, and don’t perpetuate some nonexistent correlation between “intellect” or “awareness” with class and zip code. Instead, work to unify a broad coalition of people with a variety of perspectives that can truly build the change everyone has been chasing for decades.
Only by coming together can we finally stamp out ignorance and hate for good.
Photo from Free Malaysia Today, licensed under Attribution 4.0 International