The Wild Reed: Democrat Talk on the Eve of Trump’s Return

Sunday, January 19, 2025

Democrat Talk on the Eve of Trump’s Return

I can’t tell you how much crap I get from some of my liberal Democrat friends for pointing out exactly what David Moscrop points out in his recent piece in Jacobin entitled, “The Democrats Helped Bring About Trump’s Return.”

Of course, the writing has been on the wall about this for years. In a nutshell, this “writing” says: the neoliberal policies of both the two corporate-backed major parties create the economic conditions that give rise to the widespread appeal of authoritarian populism and demagogues like Trump.

As I’ve said many times before, Trump isn’t the problem but a terrible symptom, the worst resulting symptom, of a much deeper problem: an economic system that puts short term maximization of corporate profits over and above the well-being of individuals, communities, democratic norms and ideals, and the environment.

Recently on Facebook, Aaron Vandetook offered the following historical perspective on the rise of the acceptance and advocation of this system within the Democratic Party.

It all started with Bill Clinton, and Democrats in general, thinking he was being very clever in co-opting Republican economics and abandoning the working class in favor of trade deals and Wall Street influence. The far-right has nothing of substance to offer to improve the lives of working families – quite the opposite. But the Democrats turn towards their own version of trickle-down lite left a political vacuum just waiting for a rightwing demagogue to fill by exploiting the mounting grievances of a struggling working class. As inequality continued to climb to untenable, resentment-stoking heights, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the bill did indeed finally come due.

For the last 20+ years, voters have consistently opted for whichever candidate they thought most likely to present a change from the broken status quo relative to their opponent. They would vote for a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, and turn around and vote for a race-baiting plutocrat the very next cycle. In both cases they were voting for change from a status quo that they know is not working. They might not follow politics that closely or have well-formed ideological positions – but they know the economy is unfairly rigged against them, and they want someone, anyone, who might break down that system that has resulted in unimaginable wealth for a few and declining living standards for the rest. Hell, even their life expectancies are moving backwards, for the first time in our history.

In an economy that features staggering levels of inequality not seen since the Gilded Age, the old macro-economic indicators do not measure shared prosperity anymore. Democrats have ignored all of this since the Clinton era, and now a lying malignant narcissist has taken advantage of this deep pool of resentment.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I get a lot of push-back from liberal friends for voicing this kind of analysis. One friend, for instance, recently shared the following with me via a Facebook comment.

Michael, clearly we disagree. The man about to be inaugurated is being feted and bolstered by the three richest men in America and the Democrats are the problem? Sorry, but I don’t intend to waste time and energy talking about this further.

Besides the obvious point that I don’t say that the Democrats are the problem, what’s disappointing and disturbing about my friend’s response is a conveyed inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that corporatist/centrist Democrats and their neoliberal agenda are a big part of the problem. And yet my friend insists that he’s “the first to criticize the glaring faults of neoliberal Democrats.” He goes on to say the following.

I think the both-sidesism of [your] analysis is woefully inadequate and opens the door to validating the very real threat of fascism we see in the current iteration of the Republican party. And I hope as the horrors unfold that those who were too good to vote for the radically flawed option in a two-party system that should be more inclusive will own their responsibility for setting the horrors in motion. Many of us on the margins of society who will be immediate targets of what’s now coming do not have the luxury of self-righteous purism and have to work with less-than-optimal choices.

To which I responded:

It’s the centrist/neoliberal Democrats – all those who were involved with the Harris campaign, along with Biden, the Clintons, Obama, the current DNC, et al – who should be the ones “owning their responsibility for setting the horrors in motion,” not those who in good conscience could not vote for genocide and/or the perpetuation of a status quo that simply does not have their backs, a status quo that is not about transformation of an unjust system but merely tweaking this system here and there so as to somewhat lessen people’s suffering. Seriously, how long do we expect people to endure this?

I vowed a long time ago never to condemn anyone voting their conscience; to do so goes against the very core of what democracy is about. And I do not assume people voting their conscience are engaging in “self-righteous purism.” I just don’t go there.

If the Democrats want votes, they need to earn them. That’s just Politics 101. And if they’re that concerned about independent parties then they would be pushing for ranked choice voting. That would instantly resolve the so-called “spoiler” effect of independent parties and candidates. And yet when was the last time a centrist Democrat advocated for such a basic democratic measure? They don’t because they know the current corporatist iteration of the Democratic Party would be toast if they had to compete in the court of public opinion with genuine leftist and progressive alternatives – alternatives that are out there but which are routinely suppressed by the Democratic establishment in all kinds of underhanded and unfair ways. Again, they bring disaster upon themselves and, because of this, they need to, in your words, “own their responsibility.” There'll be no healing and moving on into any kind of successful political future without it.

Another friend then chimed in:

I [am also troubled by] the false equivalency practiced by too many Democrats, but the one exception is when the leader of the party is aiding and supporting a genocide. I have no problems, on the other hand, criticizing those who failed to vote for Clinton because she didn’t meet their unrealistic litmus test. But while I may disagree with those who chose to stay home this past November, I can understand the dilemma they faced because I faced the same moral quandary. I can’t fault those who had to make the same decision and couldn’t support Harris because in most cases it was not an arbitrary or capricious decision.

Wow! It must be quite something to be able to get into people’s hearts and mind so as to determine whether or not their voting choices are “arbitrary or capricious” or something “moral”-based and therefore understandable, if not acceptable. But seriously, what is named and shamed as an “unrealistic litmus test” by one person is another’s moral red line. For some, this line might be genocide in Gaza, for others it might also be an unapologetic neoliberal agenda that devastates the social and political fabric of society and paves the way for the rise of authoritarianism. They just can’t morally go there.

Also, why is it always the supposedly “unrealistic litmus test” of voters that’s judged and found wanting but never the litmus test of neoliberal Democratic candidates and a party establishment that insists that to be a “good,” “loyal” and “responsible” Democrat one must vote for whom the party elites choose? This is especially odious given the way this same elite clearly manipulates the intra-party “democratic” process so as to favor its preferred corporatist/centrit candidate. Isn’t expecting rank-and-file Democrats to just unquestioningly fall in line with such undemocratic practices an even more egregious (and accurate) example of an “unrealistic litmus test”?

I'll close with my response to another friend who earlier today was lamenting online about the return of Trump and wondering how such a thing came about.

I get it that many of us are heartsick at the prospect of a second Trump presidency. I know I am. But it’s not a mystery when it comes to understanding how we got to where we’re at. Decades of neoliberal (corporate profits over people) economic policies by both the two corporate-backed major parties created the economic conditions that gave rise to the appeal of authoritarian populism and a demagogue like Trump. It’s a pattern we’ve seen in other countries throughout modern history. And now we’re seeing it play out here and now.

A big part of this tragedy for me is that the leadership of the Democratic Party still don’t get it; they are still far too beholden to their corporate donors to espouse and enact genuine transformative policies, i.e., a progressive populism to match and better the appeal of the authoritarian populism of Trump and his billionaire donors. Instead, the so-called “centrist” Democrats who lead the party advocate for candidates and policies that seek incremental change, that commit only to a tweaking of the system so as to ameliorate people’s suffering rather than to a transformation of the system so as to end people’s suffering. Meanwhile, those within the party who push for just such a transformative agenda — folks like Bernie Sanders and Marianne Williamson, even Dean Phillips to a degree — are marginalized and treated in abysmally unfair ways. And so here we are. My hope is that we see a transformed Democratic Party, and soon; one that is capable of offering people real hope and genuine change in the face of the authoritarian threat before us.

The Wild Reed

Sunday, January 19, 2025

Democrat Talk on the Eve of Trump’s Return

No comments:

About Me

Translate

Blog Archive

Most Popular Posts

From the Archives . . .

Search This Blog

Labels

Essential Reading from Around the Web

.

Film

The Sufi Path

Readers write . . .

Followers