A theory of why the left lost

American Thinker ^ | 12 Mar, 2025 | Anthony Matoria

[MtnClimber]

The left's politics of destabilization has long been observed by Eric Hoffer and other thinkers. Democrats are well onboard that particular train.

The left seems to be perplexed by its recent electoral losses.

It lost despite many obvious advantages: a congenial and compliant media, a relentless lawfare campaign against the leading opponent, accommodating state election officials, access to seemingly unlimited campaign cash, and a partisan bureaucracy.

Here is a possible explanation of why the left lost:

There are two approaches to achieving political change in reasonably functional modern societies.

The first depends on persuasion. It consists of interested parties making their case to the public at large and trying to persuade a significant number of people of the desirability of a particular change. The goal is to reach a sufficient consensus, and then implementing change through established institutions. In civil, functioning societies, those opposing the change accept the popular consensus, and pursue additional changes through ongoing persuasion. In societies with elected legislatures, this model represents the republican and democratic ideal. It is civilized and orderly. It relies on civic discourse, the open expression of opinions and reporting of facts, and respect for popular judgment as the basis of political change.

The second approach relies on destabilization rather than persuasion. The idea is to create conditions under which a society's institutions may be taken over by the most expedient means, including subterfuge, abuse of authority, fraud, or violence. These conditions include the perception that the existing order is unsustainable, cruel, unjust, and exploitive. The goal is to get society to relinquish the institutions that reflect its values to reformers with their own agendas. Rather than trying to persuade the public at large, this approach focuses on establishing and motivating "militant groups" to attack and delegitimize the established order.

[Sicon]

They had the advantage of a historical destabilizing opportunity, the COVID pandemic

They CREATED the destabilizing fraud that was/is "COVID".

[cnsmom]

I think hate was a huge part of the loss. Michelle Obama has always hated America and they together just kept trying to destroy it.It was an obsession for them. Nothing was off limits. They hated the Bidens so much that they let the Bidens be destroyed too. Every right feeling person knew they were witnessing elder abuse and it was disgusting.I think people just had enough of feeling terrible about everything and wanted nothing to do with the democrat party. They felt diseased and rotting from within.I don’t think the democrat party can ever rid themselves of their disease any more then the Obamas can.

[TornadoAlley3]

Rahm Emmanuel is running for President in 2028.

[CIB-173RDABN]

What the Democrats have tried to do is nothing new, I give you the history of Akhenaten

https://www.dailyhistory.org/How_did_Akhenaten_Radically_Change_Egyptian_Religion_and_Culture

“In 1353 or possibly 1351 BCE, Amenhotep IV ascended to the throne of Egypt. In the fourth year of his reign, he changed his name to Akhenaten. He created a new monotheistic religion devoted to a single god named the Aten. However, the pharaoh’s loyalty was not enough, and soon Akhenaten required that all of Egypt adopt his new god and abandon their old pantheon in favor of sun worship. This religion consumed his reign, and the changes he made were remarkable. The most notable effects of his conversion included an entirely new religious philosophy and style of artistic expression, the establishment of a new capital city, and a ruinous disregard for foreign policy. His efforts would ultimately prove to be futile, as Akhenaten and his sun cult were all but forgotten in the years following his death. “

Pharaoh were considered gods in Egypt, yet he tried to change Egypt and paid the price. Democrats no matter what they think of themselves are most certainly not “gods” and in the end they will pay a price, perhaps going the way of the Whig party.

[central_va]

The writer misses the point that the left are just plain old Marxists. 20% of the USA are militant Marxists. But they are physical cowards that don’t want to risk their lives and spill blood for the “revolution”. They think they can do it by other means.

[redangus]

And one might theorize that the only thing standing between success and failure in method #2 is Amendment #2. In a country where those in power have no fear of the people they seek to rule, method number 2 would be rapidly pushed to its successful conclusion.