When Democrats Pretend - 12/22/25

Winston Churchill famously said that "those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 

But there’s no record if Churchill ever talked about the advisability of pretending that history didn’t ever happen at all. That is the approach that the Democratic National Committee’s leaders are taking as they attempt to move on from the 2024 presidential election, seemingly determined to learn nothing from that defeat—or to make sure that no one else does.

The Democrats have had a very good month, winning several off-year elections by larger margins than expected due to Republican demoralization, Donald Trump’s declining poll numbers, and continued inflation. But significant obstacles remain: only 18 percent of voters approve of how congressional Democrats are doing their job, including less than half of their own party’s members. And the national committee had to borrow $15 million this fall to finance last month’s elections, compared to the massive $90 million-plus war chest their GOP counterpart has amassed. There is still work to be done.

When DNC chairman Ken Martin announced last week that the party would not publicly release the self-audit he had commissioned earlier this year, he suggested that sharing the results of their investigation would be a “distraction” in their efforts to develop a winning strategy for 2026 and 2028. But the decision to bury their findings makes the party’s leaders look defensive, anxious, and more than slightly frightened of any future internal debate about their path forward.

The elements of the DNC audit that have become public make it clear how much the party’s discord hurt them in last year’s campaign. Most notable was the recommendation that Democratic candidates must be more forceful when discussing issues relating to immigration and crime. But what the investigation refers to as defensiveness actually represents an immense disagreement between the party’s progressive and centrist wings about how to address these policy challenges. An essential ingredient for an aggressive response is an agreement on what that response should be.

Similarly, the study laments the lack of attention that Democrats paid to young voters, taking them for granted under the assumption that Generation Z and millennials would be their reliable supporters before Trump snagged significant backing from young working-class men. Winning these young people back isn’t simply about sending them more text messages and streaming videos. The content delivered to these voters and the issues emphasized in these communications are even more important. Progressives and centrists have very different ideas on what to say to young people. Pretending that these substantive differences don’t exist is a poor way of resolving them.

In the meantime, potential candidates are moving forward on their own. The party’s current presidential frontrunner, California Governor Gavin Newsom, recently told an East Coast audience that Democrats needed to be “more culturally normal,” implying that the party’s focus on social and cultural issues has been unhelpful. Newsom has also said that “We have to be a party that understands the importance and power of the border, substantively and politically,” and suggested that he believed that allowing transgender athletes to participate in college and youth sports was “deeply unfair.” And he is encouraging other party leaders to follow his example in adopting a more combative attitude toward Trump. These seem like the type of discussions that could—and should—be led by the national party, shaped by a comprehensive examination of last year’s shortcomings, and provided as guidance to down-ballot candidates across the country. 

The review also raises a number of logistical concerns, such as shortcomings in the Democrats’ voter outreach programs, necessary technological upgrades, and the lack of early voter engagement. It’s worth assuming that other tactical questions were addressed in the audit; it’s difficult to see how Democratic candidates will be better prepared next year by having these findings withheld from them. 

This column began with a familiar quote from Churchill. Let’s conclude with an even less sympathetic observation from the author Michael Crichton:
 
“If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree.” 

A leaf that isn’t aware of its origins is not a particularly flattering analogy for a political party committed to regaining its majority. But it is perhaps a fitting one for a party that appears that it would rather avoid fleeting moments of public awkwardness in an odd-numbered year than be as prepared as possible for the challenges of the upcoming campaign season.