Source Of Reason When It Comes To Why Democrats Lost Comes From Unlikeliest Of People: British Economist

The Democratic Party lost big in the 2024 election because they are so woefully out of touch with normal Americans who are craving something different from their politicians.

So argues a New York Times op-ed published Sunday and written by a British economist at the London School of Economics, Daniel Chandler, perhaps the last person you’d expect to diagnose the Democrats’ post-election performance to a tee. In the opening paragraph, Chandler perfectly summarizes the Democratic Party’s biggest flaw: its status as the “protector of a despised status quo” and its inability to “connect with an electorate desperate for change.” (Stream Daily Caller’s latest documentary ‘Cleaning Up Kamala’ HERE)

Chandler then spends most of his piece arguing that Democrats should embrace the 20th century political philosopher John Rawls. He cites one of Rawls’s main ideas, the ‘veil of ignorance,’ a thought experiment in which you imagine what society would look like if you didn’t know your class, race or religion. Rawls argued that if we wore a veil of ignorance while designing a society, the world would inevitably look more fair, just and equal.

If Democrats followed Rawls’s core principles of equality and building an economy that created prosperity for all, Chandler argues, they would be forced to ditch their current agenda, which boils down to defending the status quo, and become a pro-working class party.

“A political party inspired by Rawls would stand up for an inclusive and tolerant society, a vibrant democracy, equality of opportunity and fair outcomes,” he writes.

“In practical terms for a modern political party, this would mean going all out for a pro-worker agenda to address the long-neglected concerns of non-college-educated voters — not simply for higher incomes but also for meaning, community and a chance to contribute to society,” Chandler goes on to say.

The economist also believes the party can achieve justice for women and minorities by simply making welfare programs more universal, not creating new programs based on identity.

I’m not here to totally knock Chandler. Even though he’s an unlikely, if a bit out-of-touch messenger, he’s spot on about why Democrats are losing voters to Republicans.

However, there is something absurd and comical about a British philosopher sugarcoating common sense — e.g., not making race-based welfare programs or engaging in identity politics — with high-brow philosophy.

If there’s anyone who knows how to relate to the working-class Hispanics living in the Rio Grande Valley who voted for Donald Trump this election year, it’s a British academic who specializes in John Rawls’s political philosophy.