Journalist Arturo Dominguez was clear that while misogyny and racism played a part in Kamala Harris’ loss, the Democratic Party has failed because they attempted to be Republican-lite.
Arturo Dominguez on Latino man problems.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary
In this detailed discussion, journalist Arturo Dominguez critiques the Democratic Party’s rightward shift during the 2024 election, arguing it alienated progressives and failed to mobilize key voter blocs, particularly Latino communities. He highlights how issues of misogyny, racism, and colorism intersected to harm Vice President Kamala Harris’s candidacy, especially among Latino men. We underscore the role of a disconnected consulting class and the broader failure of grassroots outreach, emphasizing that the party’s abandonment of transformative policies cost them dearly. We must work towards a return to progressive principles and authentic engagement with marginalized communities to build a stronger coalition.
Key Points
- Rightward Shift Cost Democrats: Democrats’ efforts to court conservatives alienated progressives, echoing past strategic failures.
- Misogyny and Racism in Voting: Vice President Kamala Harris faced unique challenges due to systemic biases, particularly from white men and women and specifically from Latino men influenced by machismo and colorism.
- Latino Vote Nuances: The Latino electorate is not monolithic, with Cubans, Mexicans, and others voting along racial and cultural lines tied to historical and systemic inequities.
- Consulting Class Disconnect: The Democratic Party’s reliance on consultants rather than grassroots organizers failed to mobilize critical voter bases.
- Progressive Policies Ignored: Democrats abandoned transformative policies on healthcare, trans rights, and criminal justice reform, disillusioning their core voters.
The Democratic Party’s failure in 2024 is a stark reminder that abandoning progressive values for centrist compromises will not energize a diverse, working-class coalition. To regain trust and momentum, the party must reject conservative pandering, confront systemic issues like racism and misogyny, and prioritize transformative policies that resonate with marginalized communities. True progress comes from bold action and grassroots connection, not catering to a base that will never support them.
Arturo Dominguez’s critique of the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2024 election is a pointed examination of where and why the party fell short, especially among critical demographics like Latino voters. His insights illuminate the interplay of identity politics, strategic missteps, and broader systemic issues influencing the election’s outcome.
The Core Problem: A Shift Rightward
Dominguez identifies the Democrats’ overarching shift to the right as a central miscalculation. By attempting to court conservative voters—many of whom were unlikely to ever vote for a Democratic candidate—the party alienated progressive and leftist constituencies. This strategy echoes Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, which similarly tried to appeal to moderate Republicans while sidelining progressive policies and candidates. If you give voters a choice between a Republican and someone trying to be a Republican, they’ll vote for the Republican every time. The 2024 election proved this adage correct, as disillusioned progressives stayed home or shifted their support to third-party candidates.
This rightward pivot extended beyond messaging to substantive policy shifts. Dominguez notes Democrats’ tepid responses on issues like trans rights, immigration, and criminal justice reform. Vice President Kamala Harris’s non-committal stance on trans rights—responding that they would “follow the law” rather than affirming trans rights as human rights—exemplifies this failure to energize progressive voters. The party’s unwillingness to firmly stand on transformative policies likely contributed to its losses, particularly among younger, more progressive voters.
The Role of Identity Politics and Misogyny
Dominguez argues that identity politics played a double-edged role in the election. While Republicans often weaponized white identity politics to galvanize their base, Democrats struggled with how to incorporate identity politics effectively. Vice President Harris, as a Black and Indian woman, faced entrenched misogyny and racism, particularly from white men, white women, and Latino male voters. Dominguez highlights how machismo within Latino communities contributed to a gendered voting gap, with Latina women supporting Harris in higher numbers than Latino men.
This machismo is tied to a broader cultural context, where patriarchal norms remain deeply ingrained. Dominguez notes that even among progressive Latino men, there is an ongoing struggle to unlearn societal expectations of dominance and control. This cultural undercurrent, coupled with systemic racism and colorism, created significant obstacles for Harris and the broader Democratic ticket.
Colorism and Latino Voters
The issue of colorism, especially among Latino voters, played a significant role in shaping electoral outcomes. Dominguez draws attention to the Cuban-American community in Florida, where the predominantly white Cuban diaspora leaned heavily Republican. He contextualizes this trend by revisiting the history of Cuba, where white Cubans fled after the revolution to maintain their privilege. This historical context underscores how race and class dynamics influence political allegiances among Latino groups.
Beyond Cubans, Dominguez critiques the broader Latino electorate for internalizing anti-Black and anti-woman biases. He points to the significant number of Mexican-Americans and other Latino groups who voted for Trump, suggesting that these votes were often more a rejection of Harris than an endorsement of Trump’s policies. This rejection is emblematic of how colorism and misogyny intersect to shape political behavior within the Latino community.
The Consulting Class and the Failure of Outreach
Dominguez and others have criticized the Democratic Party’s reliance on a “consulting class” that is disconnected from the realities of working-class and marginalized communities. These consultants, who often shape campaign strategies, failed to engage Latino voters or address their specific concerns and prejudices effectively. Despite spending $1.2 billion on the election, the party did not allocate sufficient resources to grassroots outreach or independent journalists like Dominguez, who could have mobilized Latino communities with authentic messaging.
This disconnect highlights a broader failure in Democratic strategy. While Republicans have successfully built networks to engage voters on issues like abortion, immigration, and gun rights, Democrats have often relied on superficial outreach efforts that do not resonate with the lived experiences of their base.
Conclusion: A Path Forward for Democrats
Dominguez’s analysis underscores the need for the Democratic Party to return to its progressive roots. Rather than pandering to conservative voters, the party must invest in policies and messaging that energize its base. This means addressing systemic issues like healthcare, economic inequality, and climate change while also combating racism, misogyny, and colorism within its ranks and the electorate.
The party must also prioritize grassroots organizing and community engagement over the advice of disconnected consultants. By centering the voices of marginalized communities and adopting bold, transformative policies, Democrats can rebuild trust and momentum among voters who feel left behind. The 2024 election was a wake-up call, and the lessons learned could shape the party’s trajectory for years.
