As the Democratic Party struggles to regain its footing after the resounding defeat in the last presidential race, some Democrats appear to be doubling down on identity politics and divisive social theories. A notable figure who seems committed to this approach is none other than the failed vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz. His recent comments suggest that he believes the party should boldly embrace divisive concepts like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), which critics argue alienate more voters than they attract.
Walz’s insistence that “our strength is our diversity” might sound like an inspiring soundbite in a utopian fairy tale, but in the real world of politics, it appears more like a failed marketing strategy. While Democrats wish to redefine DEI and other woke policies—like they’re tweaking a commercial for a product gathering dust on the shelves—their messaging needs substance, not just a new jingle. Imagining DEI as apple pie with a splash of star-spangled charm might be their idea of making these notions more appealing, but frankly, sold-out stadiums would be the least of their concerns if reality matched this fictional dream.
The grand narrative lays the blame on old white men—a demographic that Democrats conveniently target when searching for a scapegoat. Walz’s rhetoric critiques this group of reliable voters, pointing out their regular disappointments and implying that the Democrats’ future lies in marginalizing them further. One would think the Democrats might consider how this vilification could be turning many potential voters against their ticket instead of inviting them to a party. Yet, Walz somehow believes that throwing social issues at every corner will ignite a firestorm of support among disenchanted voters.
More surprisingly, Trump’s approval ratings have soared among groups Democrats relied on by default, questioning whether their current strategy is déjà vu of the last cycle. While Democrats muse over sophisticated campaign maneuvers, other realms of political discourse are celebrating numbers showing increased support for Trump even among the Black and Hispanic communities. Perhaps it turns out that offering tangible solutions rather than checklist approaches to social justice is the wind beneath the wings of those now flocking toward Republican ideals.
In this era of political theater, Walz’s speeches might resonate with what’s left of the woke choir, but they sound quite out of tune with current national sentiments. Reports suggest growing optimism about the country’s future, yet figures like Walz are adamant about anchoring Democrats to a sinking identity ship. Setting sail with a narrative that has already been tested and found adrift—that’s the real wonder. If anything, Walz’s strategy seems less about positioning for victory and more about clinging to the illusion that speaking louder about social constructs will somehow recreate the spark that never ignited in the first place.
