There have been countless comments about why Kamala Harris lost the election. Some Democrats attribute his defeat to racism and misogyny. Others have more specifically blamed black men, white women, young people, Hispanic men and others. However, much less has been written about the possibility that Harris lost due to unpopular and unclear policies adopted by her and her party. And when Democrats suggest that politics might be part of their problem, things go wrong.

Consider the case of New York Representative Tom Suozzi, who found himself in the line of fire after saying, “I don’t think biological boys should play girls’ sports.” » LGBTQ activist Elisa Crespo called the Long Island Democrat’s opinion “insulting” and “dangerous.” Fellow compatriot Allen Roskoff weighed in, saying Suozzi’s remark was “shameful, bigoted and dangerous,” punctuating his attack with the F-word.

A few days earlier, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democrat from Salem, Massachusetts, found himself in the same situation. In his criticism of the election, Moulton said his party’s policies regarding transgender ideology were “out of touch with the American people.” He illustrated his point by saying: “I have two little girls. I don’t want them to get crushed on the playing field by a male or former athlete. But as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

The backlash was swift, slanderous and relentless. “Congressman Moulton’s comments regarding trans and non-binary children do not reflect our values,” wrote Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo and the city’s school committee. Chairman of the State Democratic Party Steve Kerrigan said Moulton’s remarks “do not represent the general views of our party.” Massachusetts State Rep. Manny Cruz called Moulton’s comments a betrayal of LGBTQ support. Salem City Council member Kyle Davis denounced Moulton’s comments as “hate speech” and called them “transphobic.” demanding Moulton’s resignation of Congress.

These criticisms confirm Moulton’s belief that there is a “Democratic Party purity test” on this issue. But given his party’s steady drift to the left, this is not surprising. What Democrats are doing today reflects how the ideology of Soviet communism was applied. There’s even a term for it: protecting the myth of infallibility.

According to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation“Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought total power and claimed that communist ideology made their rule as infallible and inevitable as history itself.” Protecting this myth of infallibility requires “a system of organized lies,” as we saw in the Soviet response to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. First, they failed to admit it to the world, then they said it wasn’t that bad, then they said it only resulted in about 31 deaths.

This myth protection racket was articulated at the start of the Cold War by diplomat George Kennan, who was American charge d’affaires in Moscow. In his then-anonymous 1947 essay on the policy of containment toward the Soviet Union, entitled The source of Soviet behaviorKennan described “the infallibility of the Kremlin” and how the myth of infallibility “requires that the party leadership remain, in theory, the sole repository of the truth.” Anything that contradicts the Soviet version of the truth represents “precisely what the Kremlin cannot and will not allow.”

Moulton and Suozzi demonstrate how the myth of infallibility is protected. Their position on transgender ideology is supported by almost 70% of Americansbut this contradicts the party’s guarding of the truth, so it is not allowed. The vehement denunciations of Moulton and Suozzi by their party commissioners serve as a warning to other Democrats.

The Democrats’ inability to even consider the possibility of being wrong on these issues makes it seem like they have taken a page from the Soviet playbook. If they believe that their ideology is truly infallible, they must necessarily protect the myth. On LGBTQ issues, Democrats could even redouble their efforts. This is one of the rare groups of voters with whom Democrats benefited from a raise in support of this year’s elections.

Instead of pillorying members of their own party, Democrats would do well to learn a lesson from Bill Clinton after the 1994 midterm elections, which saw Republicans take control of both houses of Congress for the first time. times for generations. As the leader of his party, Clinton was contrite and pragmatic. He worked with congressional Republicans to enact welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act, regulatory reform, lower capital gains taxes, and even a balanced budget. In one sentence, Clinton moved to the middle. He was then re-elected in an Electoral College landslide two years later.

Part of me hopes that Democrats continue to do what they’re doing simply because it’s a recipe for electoral failure. But they’re still busy pointing fingers, and without defined leadership heading into the new year, anything is possible. Given the growing radicalism within the party, they may continue to uphold this Soviet-era myth of infallibility. We’ll see what the American people think.