Here is a possible explanation of why the left lost: 

 

There are two approaches to achieving political change in reasonably functional modern societies.

 

The first depends on persuasion. It consists of interested parties making their case to the public at large and trying to persuade a significant number of people of the desirability of a particular change. The goal is to reach a sufficient consensus, and then implementing change through established institutions. In civil, functioning societies, those opposing the change accept the popular consensus, and pursue additional changes through ongoing persuasion. In societies with elected legislatures, this model represents the republican and democratic ideal. It is civilized and orderly. It relies on civic discourse, the open expression of opinions and reporting of facts, and respect for popular judgment as the basis of political change. 

 

The second approach relies on destabilization rather than persuasion. The idea is to create conditions under which a society's institutions may be taken over by the most expedient means, including subterfuge, abuse of authority, fraud, or violence. These conditions include the perception that the existing order is unsustainable, cruel, unjust, and exploitive. The goal is to get society to relinquish the institutions that reflect its values to reformers with their own agendas. Rather than trying to persuade the public at large, this approach focuses on establishing and motivating "militant groups" to attack and delegitimize the established order. 

 

The destabilizing tactic for achieving political change has a long history, dating back at least as far as the French Revolution, and likely back to the time of the first political institutions. Its theories and tactics also have an extensive literature, which may be sampled in writings such as Sergey Nechayev's Catechism of a Revolutionary, Georges Sorel's Reflections on Violence, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

 

A description and analysis of the "militant groups" that are the destabilizing agents is provided in Eric Hoffer's The True Believer, and are also referenced in George Orwell's 1984.

 

Achieving political change through destabilization is not a recent innovation. 

 

In present American politics, the political right, and the public in general, prefer the first, i.e., persuasive, approach to political change. A significant portion of the progressive left, and in particular the extreme left, adopt the second, destabilizing, approach. This helps explain some of the puzzling political behavior of the left, and the developing rifts within the Democrat party. 

 

Identity politics, which has been a centerpiece of Democratic political strategy, explicitly endorses the creation of destabilizing "militant groups." These are readily identified: sexual eccentrics, climate anxiety patients, and racial grievance devotees. Teachers' unions are another group that act as destabilizing agents. Their purpose is to destabilize the existing order to achieve political objectives. They do this by actions that are meant to intimidate, demoralize, silence, and discourage political opposition. They are not interested in rational discourse, preferring instead ideological narratives, myths, emotional appeals, and occasionally, disruptive action. 

 

The targets of these militant groups are those institutions and societal structures that historically have provided for social and political stability: the family, the institutions of law and order, education, churches, and sense of community cohesion.   

 

Adherence to the destabilization approach helps explain why a significant number of Democrats actively embrace the 20% position on 80/20 issues such as allowing transgender-identifying males to compete in women's sports. In their view, it is more important to maintain the "militant group" for its destabilizing potential, than it is to appeal to the broader society. This has created tension within the Democrat party, as some Democratic voices, such as California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and political operative James Carville, recognize that near-total institutional control, that appeared so possible during the Obama and Biden presidencies, failed to produce lasting change. The pragmatists within the Democrat party realize this but the ideologues do not. 

 

A significant cause of the Democrat's disarray is that the basic strategy of taking over institutions to produce lasting political change, even in the absence of popular support, did not work.

 

Following the electoral successes of 2008, 2012, and 2020, the conditions seemed perfect for completing Rudi Dutschke's "long march through the institutions." The progressives had firm control of the media, higher education, and entertainment. They had infiltrated, some would say corrupted, the FBI, intelligence agencies, the administrative agencies, the military, and the courts. They had the advantage of a historical destabilizing opportunity, the COVID pandemic, which provided cover for election anomalies, ruinous educational disruptions, persecuting churches, and imposition of a surveillance apparatus.

 

Furthermore, the George Floyd riots provided an opportunity to further undermine law and order, stoke racial discord, and delegitimize prevailing notions of equality and personal responsibility. Yet, Donald Trump was subsequently elected president with control of both houses of congress, and is now undoing much of the institutional vandalism that resulted from progressive policies.  

 

The reason for the Democrats' chagrin is that it is not possible to achieve lasting political change without at least some degree of popular consensus. One cannot “fundamentally transform” a country simply by placing progressives in positions of authority. 

 

Furthermore, there are inherent obstacles to achieving political change through a process of institutional capture enabled by political destabilization.

 

The first is that militant groups provoke the creation of opposing groups that are, if not militant, at least activist. This is why parents who organized in opposition to unrestrained transgender ideology in schools were met with opposition from corrupted legal and law enforcement authorities. It is also why speech that opposes the destabilizing group is suppressed, by labeling it as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” or “disinformation.” Impairing free speech also serves the purpose of impeding the processes of the persuasive approach to political change, since it makes robust debate difficult.  

 

One of the most stubborn obstacles to radical change, particularly in counties with high standards of living, is the cultural coherence of its people. This is unlikely to be undermined by rhetoric, propaganda, or legislation. Savvy progressives realized decades ago that the most effective way of destabilizing this cultural coherence is to import a large number of people with incompatible cultural values, and discouraging assimilation. “Open borders” is, whatever else it purports to be, a destabilizing political tactic.  It also, paradoxically, provides an opportunity to persuade the public that the left's embrace of it is dangerous.

 

The leftist experiment of achieving political change through destabilizing and capturing established institutions seems to have failed this time. This is so even though they did succeed in capturing many institutions. The progressives confused cause and effect. The institutions existed because they served the purposes of a society and culture that had a particular set of values. Societal values give relevance to institutions, and changing the institutions does not change those values. 

 

Enduring political change requires changing societal values, not transient perceptions. Any political change that involves denigrating the family, law and order, religion or community bonds is unlikely to endure.