Now that the cries and lamentations of the US election losers have started to die down, and a million 'why-Harris-lost' analyses have been done, with the blame apportioned to everyone and everything, the actual post-election survey data has started to come in.

Listen to this article 9 min Listen to this article 9 min Some years back I was sitting at a dinner party with some rather erudite people, most of them from the so-called "progressive" end of the political spectrum.

The conversation turned enthusiastically to "critical race theory" and "intersectionality". I was caught a bit off-guard. I had heard these terms used previously (they both stemmed from late 20th-century political academia), but I wasn't sure exactly what they meant.

It became evident that my fellow guests were excited about these concepts entering the political mainstream, where a grand future awaited them as they moved from thought experiments and essays to government policy.

I didn't say much at this gathering, not wishing to display my ignorance. I read a little about the subject later. My reaction was simple. Does anyone really think that people, ordinary people, care about this stuff? I mean the average voter who is, above all, concerned about jobs and prices? You've got to be kidding me.

'Why Harris lost' analyses

Now that the cries and lamentations of the US election losers have started to die down, and a million "why-Harris-lost" analyses have been done, with the blame apportioned...