After the announcement of President-Elect Donald Trump’s sweeping victory in the 2024 presidential election, Vice-President Kamala Harris’ Instagram account shared a striking image of her at a podium in a darkened arena. She is surrounded by hundreds of faint lights held by her supporters. Accompanying the image, Harris writes, “There is an adage: Only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time. For the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. But, America, if it is: Let us fill the sky with the light of a billion brilliant stars.”

At first glance, this post seems to be a powerful message of resilience and hope. However, I find Harris’s use of light and dark troubling.

Darkness commonly symbolizes ugliness, ignorance, and evil. The implicit message here frames Trump supporters as dwelling in “darkness,” suggesting ignorance or moral inadequacy. Meanwhile, Harris’ supporters are cast as “lights,” implying a virtuous, enlightened stance. Such language risks reducing complex political differences to simplistic moral judgments.

This rhetoric is not uncommon among the Left. Even after the presidential race has ended,  Trump is continuously barraged not for his policy, or lack thereof, but for his personal life and beliefs. By placing a focus on demeaning the very character of the head of the Republican party, the Left places itself as morally and intellectually superior. Instead of attempting to engage with those of opposing beliefs, it deems its political counterparts to be morally bad, irredeemable, and in need of vilification. In the meantime, the Left bestows political righteousness and an exonerated conscience upon each of its members, regardless of whether or not they know anything about politics.

Recently, the Left has moved on from targeting the personal beliefs and actions of politicians to criticizing the everyday voter. By continuously policing and condemning others’ behavior based on their moral views, the Left pushes away the very base it claims to support.

Consider former president Obama’s admonition of Black men who were contemplating voting for Trump. The former president addressed Black men directly, saying, “Part of it makes me think that you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”

As Obama “persuades” these men to vote for the Democratic Party, he shames them and accuses them of misogyny. In doing so, Black men who consider an alternative candidate become part of the ignorant, the “darkness.” Their opinion is invalidated and their character criticized. Who wants to support a party that thinks it is better than you? Indeed, twice as many Black men between the ages of 25 and 44 voted for Trump in the 2024 election compared to that in 2020. 

Very few are safe from the Left’s moral high ground, and monitoring a person’s vote is only one way that the Left polices its members. One’s everyday language, interactions, and relationships are under constant scrutiny within an increasingly narrowing ideological frame. 

Keeping up with the Left’s cultural and ideological expectations requires both time and access to education — resources not readily available to everyone. It is the privileged individuals who continue to develop the Left’s “rules,” even if their “ethical” codes are disconnected from those they are meant to benefit (e.g. the politically correct term “Latinx”). This emphasis on understanding and adhering to the Left’s ideological framework favors those with greater privilege while isolating the working-class Americans to whom this knowledge is often inaccessible.

One need only glance at the Democratic Party’s current base: urban centers and college towns. These epicenters of education and affluence create echo chambers, reinforcing progressive ideologies that feel disconnected from the day-to-day experiences of rural and working-class communities.

As a sophomore at WashU and an editor for StudLife, I find myself a member of the very communities I critique. Although I am sympathetic to the incredibly real implications of a Trump presidency and understand the emotional gravity of this situation, I was struck by the shock and outrage many students expressed in response to the election results. Many pointed fingers at the marginalized communities that they believed should have voted Democratic — based purely on identity, not policy. Across campus, I heard professors and students alike voicing disbelief at the idea that anyone could vote for someone as amoral as Trump.

In the meantime, throughout these last two years, I’ve witnessed students walk out of group meetings and classes after being shamed for their nonliberal political beliefs. I’ve met others who were forced to transfer from elite institutions like NYU, having been ostracized for their “unprincipled” views. 

It is this exact shaming that drives many Americans toward the MAGA movement. 

Over these last eight years and beyond, Donald Trump has performed countless absurdly hateful actions. However, he is proudly unremorseful. Under this unapologetic rhetoric, many Americans find a sense of liberation from the moral scrutiny that often reigns in elite educational institutions.

The Democratic Party, the Left, the progressives — whatever you want to call them — must come to terms with the fact that they are no longer the “party of the people.” Though many consider the Republican Party to curate toward the elite, today, it is the Democrats that often appear distanced from the working class, rural communities, and those without access to higher education.

Their underlying message is clear: “Vote for us, because we are better than you. We know what is best for you. We know you better than you know yourself.”

In retrospect, it appears to be no surprise that Trump won the election; the Democratic Party has become steeped in purist and elitist ideology. Even though both parties are arguably targeted toward the elite in some fashion, it is clear which has engaged the average American and which has pushed them away. 

If the Left seeks meaningful change, it must first confront its own sense of superiority. By setting aside their moral posturing, the Left has the opportunity to forge a coalition built on invitation rather than exclusion.