AI Sees the Pattern Democrats Keep Missing

Photo by Andrea De Santis on Unsplash

The 2024 election has left Democrats scrambling for explanations. Although, many of the proposed theories seem more focused on finding someone to blame than offering real insight. “Trump won because of economic anxiety”, “Too many MAGA radicals fell prey to Trump's cult of personality,” “Biden took too long to step down,” and “Harris didn't clarify her positions.” Others reflect shallow thinking, like “Democrats lost touch with working class voters.” And still others lean heavily on fallible assumptions of racial resentment, like “America would never elect a Black woman president.”

While each of these may have played a role, the Democrat party is going to continue to dig its own grave ignoring the one factor that stands above the rest.

Our educational system has taught generations of students certainties about the world that have led to the moral condemnation of people who disagree. Is it any surprise that many Americans, tired of being labeled racist, sexist, transphobic, or fascist for questioning these, decided to stop listening entirely? I suspect voters understand Trump comes with a list of flaws, but that there’s a lot people will overlook just to put an end to the sanctimony. After all, no one likes being the target of condescension.

Economic or demographic explanations often struggle to account for voting patterns across different groups and personality-based theories can't explain consistent phenomena across elections. But the explanation provided below identifies a fundamental mechanism in how our national political conversation has broken down.

I recently demonstrated this pattern using Claude AI. I asked it a series of simple questions, all the same form: What are the moral judgments that are likely to result from treating [this statement] as certain? The first one I input was "Systemic racism is to blame for persistent inequality in education, wealth, health, and other outcomes." And it gave me,

• Anyone examining other factors is a racist apologist.

• Those who study cultural influences are blaming the victims.

• People questioning systemic explanations deny obvious oppression.

• Anyone suggesting individual agency matters is promoting white supremacy.

• Those researching family structure are using racist dog whistles.

Interesting, I thought. So, I tried again. "Biology and gender are completely unrelated," I typed. My screen filled quickly with:

• Anyone noting biological factors is transphobic.

• Those studying sex differences deny trans existence.

• People who see any connection promote harmful pseudoscience.

• Anyone mentioning biological sex enables discrimination.

• Those researching biological influences are bigots denying science.

I wanted to see if the pattern held with one more. "Gender is a spectrum," my fingers flew across the keyboard. Claude returned:

• Anyone who sees gender as binary is promoting hate.

• Those who use traditional pronouns enable oppression.

• People questioning gender fluidity deny others' existence.

• Anyone supporting single-sex spaces is transphobic.

• Those who maintain gender distinctions perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

The nature of the link wasn’t new to me—after all, I’ve published a book called “The Certainty Trap.” What surprised me was that AI picked up on the pattern so clearly. So, I decided to do one more. I put in the following, "Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state." Here’s what it returned:

• Anyone defending Israel's self-defense legitimizes apartheid.

• Those condemning Hamas attacks support ethnic supremacy.

• People calling for Israeli security enable colonial oppression.

• Those demanding Hamas free hostages normalize Zionist occupation.

• Anyone mourning Israeli civilians is whitewashing colonialism.

• People supporting Israel's military response justify ethnic cleansing.

• Anyone advocating for Israel's security perpetuates colonial violence.

Sound familiar?

Why is this explanation the one you should take seriously? Because it connects educational practices directly to political outcomes through a clear causal chain. When the claims that lead to moralizing on contentious topics are presented as definitive, it creates a pattern of thinking and discourse that automatically condemns questioning or nuance as moral failure.

This pattern is observable across contexts, making it more robust than explanations that focus solely on immediate factors like candidate qualities or economic conditions. It also explains why traditional political messaging often fails: when people feel they'll be morally condemned for even questioning certain positions, they stop engaging with the message entirely, regardless of its merit.

While other factors certainly play a role—economics, demographics, personality politics— there is a deeper cultural mechanism that underlies and amplifies all these other elements. It's not just about what's being communicated, but how our educational and cultural practices have shaped how we think. 

Until Democrats recognize that presenting complex social and political realities as unquestionable certainties, they will continue to lose voters who might otherwise be open to engaging with their ideas.

---

If you find these ideas interesting or just want to know more, please check out The Certainty Trap book on Amazon or more of my work at www.ilanaredstone.com!