Why are Democrats Wrong So Often? (Part 1)
Why are democrats wrong so frequently? I don’t mean wrong in the sense that I disagree with their policies or I dislike their candidates—I mean wrong in the sense that their views and beliefs disagree with known facts or, if the facts can’t be known with absolute certainty, they disagree with reasonable conclusions based on intelligent, unbiased assessments.
Below are some issues for which I argue democrats have been clearly wrong. For each issue, I’ll try to summarize the views of a majority of democratic voters based on my reading and talking to those on the left. I’ll touch briefly on each issue with the goal of highlighting a larger pattern, not to definitively settle each topic. I’m not saying that all democrats hold these views or that no independents or republicans are incorrect, but there’s a strong correlation between these views and democratic voters, along with the left-leaning news organizations they tend to favor. I’m sure I’ll get a few of these wrong, but, again, I’m looking for an overall pattern. Each topic could be a whole article on its own, so please excuse the lack of detail.
I have so many examples this post will be presented in three parts.
In a follow-up post I’ll posit my theories about why democrats are so often wrong. If you agree with my basis here, that democrats are often wrong, I’d like to hear your theories about this phenomenon.
In alphabetical order, here is a list of the things I think democrats so often get wrong:
Americans Should be Ashamed of Our Country’s History
There have been shameful aspects of our country’s history—slavery, displacement of native people, racism, sexism, violence—and yet our country and other western societies have made great progress in fixing those problems.
Every society started out pretty rough and some have progressed. The United States of America is in the latter group. The abolition movement began in this country, especially among Quakers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The women’s suffrage movements also started here.
Our country has been on the leading edge of fixing age-old problems, which all Americans and people everywhere should celebrate.
Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Deborah Birx Promoted Science During COVID-19
The recommendations of Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Deborah Birx went largely against recognized policies to combat a pandemic. Most of the pronouncements public health authorities made during COVID-19 were diametrically opposed to the conclusions public health authorities had drawn in the decades leading up to 2020.
Further, their recommendations ignored or incorrectly stated information that was current at the time. For example, ignoring all science, they claimed that natural immunity wasn’t protective, when the best available evidence suggested that it was far more protective than that generated by vaccines. Of course, this summary hits just a few of the points that have been discussed in numerous articles and books.
Assault Rifles are Bad
Assault rifles are simply semi-automatic rifles that look scarier. They don’t shoot farther, faster, or with more power.
Three-fourths of American fatal shootings are committed with pistols, not rifles, let alone so-called assault rifles.
California Bullet Train
There is no business case for this boondoggle that has ballooned from $33 billion to $231 billion and, nearly 20 years later, and has yet to carry a single passenger.
California’s bullet train is proof that you don’t need tracks to go off the rails.
COVID-19 Had Natural Origins
Of course, we still don’t know with absolute certainty, but it looks highly likely SARS-CoV-2 came from gain-of-function lab experiments in Wuhan, China. Documents show that Anthony Fauci and other scientists originally believed that SARS-CoV-2 originated in Wuhan before deciding to deride the theory as a “conspiracy theory.”
The zoonotic argument (arising from nature) for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 have largely relied on the story of the Huanan Seafood Market. Recent papers have shown evidence that there were cases preceding those at the wet market, among other critical flaws of the theories that rely on the market.
Eating Meat is Bad for You
There are studies which conclude that eating red meat is bad for you. However, there are also studies that report the opposite. I know people who are adamant that eating meat is bad for us. They have reached this conclusion by choosing to ignore the scientific evidence that disagrees with their prior conclusions.
Electric Vehicles Save the Planet
Maybe. However, the widespread use of electric vehicles will require a massive increase in electrical energy production and transmission, both of which are difficult to accomplish and cause pollution. And there’s the issue of mining and refining the materials needed to manufacture the batteries for the cars. Based on the research of Mark Mills at Manhattan Institute, each EV battery needs approximately 500,000 pounds of material to be mined from the Earth. And that’s before the processing and manufacturing steps. That’s not very green.
I’m not saying EV’s are less green than regular internal combustion cars—I would need better data before I make that conclusion—but they are far from the panacea that people claim will save the planet.
Fossil Fuels Will Go Away Soon
Even with a $2 trillion investment in so-called green energy, the proportion of energy produced by fossil fuels hasn’t declined substantially. So much for a world without fossil fuel use.
Ultimately, as some economists have argued, green energy doesn’t replace fossil fuels, it enables more energy consumption overall. Fossil fuels will be with us until something better comes along.
Genetically Modified Foods are Bad
For most of human history, farming has consisted of modifying the environment to match the needs of existing crops. This involved plowing, watering, fertilizing, and applying large amounts of herbicides and pesticides. Now, we can modify the crops to match the existing environment. This allows for higher yields; less water, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides; and the ability to grow crops in lower quality fields, such as those with high salinity.
Every one of these factors benefits the environment.
Further, crops can be modified to be more nutritious. Vitamin A deficiency has killed millions of children in less-developed countries. A genetically modified rice variety, known as golden rice, offers a cost-effective way to combat this deficiency.
Genetically modified food can substantially help both the environment and people.
Global Warming is an Existential Threat
How many times have we heard that climate change will destroy Earth? Anyone who believes that the existential threat is real should listen to Steven Coonin, one of the most unbiased climate scientists I know. He explains what climate scientists and the IPCC are actually saying, not the incorrect headlines that come out of the scientific reports. And, no, climate change will not destroy Earth.
The net result has been a generation given anxiety and fear, not facts and agency.
Illegal Voting is a Myth
My friends tell me that fraudulent voting doesn’t happen. And yet we see news stories such as this:
“Gov. Mikie Sherrill said Tuesday that a ‘software error’ at New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission added roughly 6,600 noncitizens to the voter list against their will. About 400 then cast ballots.” [WSJ, 23 July 2026]
Men Can Have Babies
If I identify as a frog, can I argue that frogs can use computers, earn college degrees, and drive cars? I’m a frog, right? And here I am typing on a computer.
If I identify as a frog and my mate identifies as a butterfly, can we say that a frog and a butterfly mated and produced two healthy human babies?
No. That’s just silly. I’m not a frog, no matter how much I say I am.
Except for extremely rare cases, all humans have either two X chromosomes or an X and a Y. With two X chromosomes, a person is female and produces eggs. With an X and a Y, a person is male and produces sperm. The only people who can have babies are those who have two X chromosomes and produce eggs. The only people who can have babies are, as we already knew, women.
Next up: Part 2.