Jordan Peterson nails one of the Democrats' biggest problems

"...Democrats are completely clueless about the alternative media and like I said live in 1970 [is that] a Democrat won't say anything that hasn't been workshopped, right, and the reason for that is they don't want to offend anyone. Well if you if you're not going to offend anyone you're going to say the most anodyne things which of course Harris always sounds like she's talking to kindergarten children, it's so demeaning. And you might say well that's the level at which she's capable of conducting discourse and that might be true but there is this additional element of the absolute inability of the Democrats to say anything that would, say, offend their most sensitive progressive junior staffer"

The main problem of the democrats is they must stage themselves as an opposition force. So they must look different from the party in poweer. Throught out history, no party in the US won an election with the platform of ending slavery, parties won elections on the paatform of strengthening the slavery institution, they won elections on the platform of expansion. In those days, thouugh, both parties could compete on the same ground. Nowadays, the democrats can no longer compete on trying to offer more than the republican party, they must offer something else. Which makes them a loser party which can not satisfy WeThePeople.

One can argue that the Republican Party was founded to end slavery.

"The Republican Party launched its first national organizing convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on February 22, 1856.[18][19] This gathering elected a governing National Executive Committee and passed resolutions calling for the repeal of laws enabling slaveholding in free territories and "resistance by Constitutional means of Slavery in any Territory", defense of anti-slavery individuals in Kansas who were coming under physical attack, and a call to "resist and overthrow the present National Administration" of Franklin Pierce, "as it is identified with the progress of the Slave power to national supremacy".[20] Its first national nominating convention was held in June 1856 in Philadelphia.[18] John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856 behind the slogan "Free soil, free silver, free men, Frémont and victory!" Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856–1860 as a divisive force that threatened civil war.[21]

Liberals argue and will argue anything about slavery as it is annoying to them. They claim liberalism is all about freedom and liberty and yet failed to abolish slavery by themselves without facing situatoins they had no other solutions but to abolish it. The worst bit of it is the civil war whose causes were centered on slavery with no sides fighting for the abolition. To thie problem of slavery, when being forced into the war driven by the slavery matter, both liberal sides involved in the war, managed to answer the issue as supporting slavery. People who wanted slavery to be abolished in the US had no representatives, but they had to vote for people to represent them. Same as today. Abraham Lincoln was in all likelihood a stouch abolitinist as a person yet as a statesman, he was not an abolitionist. A guy he won the republican platform against was. Same as tody, people who have no representatives go to grow the ranks of a party while the party will not carry over their interests. The liberal masquerade has been over for long now.

hgdj jgy uv ljnb lj