Amherst College is the Democratic Party’s Problem

Last November, I sat in the Keefe Campus Center with friends on election night and watched students be baffled by now-President Donald Trump’s crushing defeat of Kamala Harris. The same students who I’ve heard describe Southerners as “racist, inbred morons” and “naturally dumb” couldn’t process how North Carolina and Georgia moderates didn’t vote for the party that has historically stereotyped them with such insults. The same students who judge, or even cut off, their friends after learning they hold right-wing views were perplexed as to how so many closeted Trump supporters emerged on Election Day. The same students who describe themselves as socialist or communist — yet accept luxurious vacations, college tuition payments, and trust funds from their parents working in finance, big pharma, big tech, and defense contracting — complain about how Democrats have been labeled as hypocritical elites. Even professors who openly question the morals of Republicans were astounded by the silent right-wing surge among Gen Z. The Democrats’ problem is precisely the political elitism, hypocrisy, and rhetoric on display at Amherst College.

Currently, the Democratic Party’s approval rating sits at an all-time low: 25%. For reference, Trump’s approval rating is 45%. Nevertheless, Democrats, especially at Amherst, struggle to accept Trump’s victory as anything besides a clear indicator of America’s racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc., when, ironically, Trump’s victory was fueled by minorities breaking away from the Democratic Party. Trump increased his support among Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters across ideological lines — liberal, moderate, and conservative alike from 2016 to 2024. Since 2020, Trump roughly doubled his support among African Americans under 45, increased his overall Hispanic support by 14%, and increased his support among women ages 18-29 by 7%. Funnily enough, the only racial demographic that didn’t swing for Trump since 2016 is whites — liberal, moderate, and conservative alike.

In addition to grappling with minority flight to the GOP, the Democratic Party struggles to realize they have become the party of the wealthy elites — abandoning the working class to appease their affluent donor base. Though left-leaning outlets such as The Washington Post criticize the wealth of Trump’s cabinet and The Guardian warn that Trump’s “courting of big donors poses major corruption dangers,” such assumptions are extremely misleading — especially given that billionaires, major donors, and concentrated wealth more align with and support the Democratic Party. In 2024, Harris’ campaign committee raised $2 Billion to Trump’s $1.45 Billion, Harris had 83 billionaires backing her to Trump’s 52, and 66.6% of hedge fund political donations went to Harris. Furthermore, nine of the 10 wealthiest counties in America are Democratic and the IRS revealed that Democrats represent 65% of taxpayers with a household income of $500,000 or more.

Of course, Trump has his own support among ultra-wealthy individuals — but here’s the difference: Trump and Republicans have never built their identity around demonizing wealth. In fact, they encourage and celebrate wealth creation, as 79% of U.S. millionaires and nearly 70% of billionaires worldwide are self-made. The hypocrisy lies in the Democrats’ constant crusade against the rich while being bankrolled by them. America is sick and tired of performative stunts like Bernie Sanders and AOC’s “Fighting Oligarchy” Tour when their own party bears as much, if not more, responsibility for the influence of wealth in politics. Bernie lecturing us before retreating to one of his three homes reeks of “Do as I say, not as I do” — and America is tired of being shamed and lectured by elites whose own wealth far surpasses the comparably insignificant amounts of wealth hardworking citizens have earned.

I’ve noticed this firsthand as a student receiving financial aid here. My mom works for the Duval County, Florida, public school board; my father serves our nation’s military, and the only way I could attend Amherst is by using two years of my father’s transferable GI bill and gambling on myself to pay off my student loans, assisted by Amherst’s beyond-generous financial aid. But being called a “rich, entitled white male” by students with multi-million-dollar winter homes in Vail, Colorado, paying full tuition at a school that costs $93,090 a year, perfectly encapsulates the Democratic Party’s obliviousness to its own wealth conundrum. The curtains have been drawn back, the hypocrisy has been revealed, and the Democratic Party is panicking about how to combat the diminishment of their two main talking points — championing the working class and defending minority interests.

The struggle to conceptualize Trump’s victory isn’t just unique to Amherst — it reflects a broader crisis within the Democratic Party. It has surrendered a once respectable party focused on equality and bread-and-butter issues to an activist wing focused on performative wokeness and virtue signaling. Democrats have succumbed to the pressure of the far-left, abandoning their historical base of rural and working-class Americans. Rather than acknowledge legitimate critiques, they brand those who don’t vote for them as ignorant, bigoted, and morally inferior — hoping this is enough to win elections. When you blame an election loss on over half the country being deplorable rather than admitting Harris ran a poor campaign, you shouldn’t be surprised when people lose faith in your party. The Democratic Party’s self-righteousness weakens democracy by implying dialogue with the right is pointless since its members are supposedly unintelligent and immoral.

I kept my mouth shut after the election because I recognized that the post-election period was a time of grieving for many. When enough time passed, I decided to write a respectful and thoughtful article on why I viewed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as problematic. Unsurprisingly, the Amherst student body’s coveted values of love, tolerance, and inclusivity flew out the window when presented with a dissenting political viewpoint. For readers unaware, Turning Point USA and The College Fix have covered our campus’ reaction. For those interested in my perspective, I have also written op-eds for National Review and Young America’s Foundation. Ironically, the Amherst student body’s vitriolic response vindicated my point that academia and the left are largely incapable of engaging with those they disagree with in a civil manner. The burning down of cities in 2020, current arson toward Tesla vehicles and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s house, and college mob riots over Palestine indicate the national trend of chaos, violence, and hate as acceptable behavior by those on the left. The left and academia’s unwillingness to sharply condemn such behavior is a large reason for our nation’s devolving culture of civil discourse.

However, I do not think improving the way our campus communicates regarding politics is impossible. In fact, I am optimistic. Unlike other institutions’ administrations, ours recognizes its shortcomings surrounding political discussion and is interested in bettering itself. I have great respect for President Michael Elliott, Dean of Students Angie Tissi-Gassoway, and the administrative leadership at Amherst College, with whom I’m actively working with on ways to make our campus less hostile to differing political views and trust to confront the issues plaguing both our campus and our nation. I also have a deep appreciation for my liberal professors, classmates, and friends here. The political environment here is much different than what I came from in Jacksonville, Florida, but it forces me to consider other worldviews and expand my own. I enjoy my time here so much that I have started a podcast, hosting prominent faculty, professors, and students to convince prospective students to come.

But like the rest of academia, Amherst currently suffers from a lack of genuine curiosity to understand those we politically disagree with. I’d argue fostering such environments is academia’s most important role — yet it has knowingly allowed itself to fail. The current Democratic Party tolerates no politics except those praising unwavering support for its figureheads and platform. Amherst shares this definition of tolerance, and after speaking with a few alumni involved in politics, it apparently has for a long time. I’m ready to do something about it and would view graduating here without pushing Amherst to distinguish itself from the rest of academia as a disservice to my affection for this special place.

If Amherst students seek to understand why Harris lost last fall and the Democratic Party’s popularity is plummeting, they should look no further than a mirror. The way Amherst shuns right-of-center ideas is exactly why polls constantly underestimate Trump and Republicans’ support. Left-wing echo chambers suffocating any critique of leftist values and ideas silently push moderate and apolitical students rightward. As the co-president of the Amherst College Conservatives, I promise you that the number of closeted Republicans here is astounding and refreshing. Many Amherst students voted for Trump simply out of spite for what they see and experience here. Amherst is not unique, as 10% of voters ages 18-29 swung for Trump from 2020 to 2024.

As a proud, unapologetic Republican, I’m encouraged by the right-wing shift. As an American, I’m troubled by our rapidly devolving social cohesion. Academia’s intended purpose is to foster intellectual diversity, encourage civil discourse, and prepare the world’s next generation of leaders. We are nowhere near this goal. It may be uncomfortable for liberals here, but a significant reason Trump is currently sitting in the Oval Office is precisely the behavior, rhetoric, and elitism typified by Amherst College. Amherst needs to recognize its flaws and emerge as a role model for healthy disagreement and discourse. I am excited to help it reach this point over my next two years here.

Correction, April 23, 2025: An earlier version of this article mistakenly omitted edits that had been made by the author prior to publication. This article has been updated to reflect those edits.