Someone (or something) will count a ballot tomorrow in the California Presidential primary and see my vote for Bernie Sanders. Hopefully, a majority of Californians eligible to vote for Bernie share my sentiment but I’m not counting on that happening. If you’re “wondering why the pessimism, Dave?” I present my take on the Democratic Party thesis for 2020:
“Shit’s too hard, so why fight for it?”
In the latest iteration of “I guess this is good enough,” the Democratic Party’s centrist candidates solidified their bases around a candidate worse in every way than she-who-lost-to-the-pretend-billionaire-four-years-ago. I hope this candidate at least plans on visiting a couple of “battleground states” this time around because, as evidenced by the studio-gangster living in the white house right now, ‘battlegrounders’ don’t take kindly to politicians taking them for granted.
Of course, taking folks for granted is DNC 101.
It doesn’t know how to operate otherwise because the Democratic Party exists only as a countermeasure to the Republican Party: Dems only move within the context of how R’s move. In other words, Dems are nothing without R’s, and as such, only need to go so far as build a “vote for us because at least we’re not them” narrative. Because the Dems only need to fit a narrative that counters R’s, they can alienate folks who don’t tick “D” or “R” on their ballot. They demand loyalty from those ticking “D” and pretend they can fight for the vote of those ticking “R.” This scope allows for the filling of the Democratic rank-and-file with simps and marks who only care enough about the folks enabling their winning a contest every couple of years. I mean, Ideas don’t win elections – party loyalists do.
Right now, there are two candidates whose ideas center on eliminating some of the abject cruelty society endorses. Yet, the Democratic Party rallies around the party loyalist who, among all of his ridiculous gaffes and lies (arrested trying to visit Mandela, really?), will mind-boggingly exclaim to anyone listening that he actually “wrote the bills” increasing and solidifying said cruelty. This swelling of support is on those party loyalists, though. Those folks supporting him don’t care that Joe’s caused cruelty because, you know, “he has the best chance to beat Trump.”
Dude won’t beat Trump because Republicans aren’t concerned with being cruel to others in the way non-R’s care (or at least pretend to care). Cruelty is inherent in the “values” underpinning “Republicanism.” Cruelty is fundamental to “bootstraps” and “rugged individualism.” Cruelty drives the effortless white supremacy that exudes the Racism, Classism, and Sexism celebrated by today’s Republican Party. Cruelty tells the Republican he is better than the Democrat. And the Democratic candidate for President promises to work with that cruelty. I mean, he’s done it in the past, why can’t he do it in the future?
Republicans will come out in droves to ensure their cruelty.
Meanwhile the Dems just need to pretend they have a moral high-ground. This means Dems only need to show they’re less cruel. You know, don’t separate the family at the border as a first move. Don’t drone too many civilian targets in the middle East. Don’t let too many people go with inadequate health insurance. Don’t let oligarchs take too bad a hit. And on and on. Again, this portrayal of the Democrat cum laude hinges on a narrowed scope of the old familiar “lesser of two evils”; a morality play involving an evil, and a lesser evil still leaves people subject to evil.
In their own eyes, Dems don’t need to be “anti-cruel,” they only have to be less cruel. Democrats don’t need to worry about the climate crisis for real, they just have to say they’re worried about the climate crisis because Republicans aren’t. Dems don’t need to worry about health care as a human right, they just need to ensure the ACA gets slightly tweaked because Republicans, as per their diametric position, want to destroy it. Education? Psssh. Why make public education free when the Republicans aren’t even thinking this is a problem. We don’t have to be a party that does right by everyone, we just have to narrow the scope so we counter whatever it is Republicans want. We don’t need a broad scope that takes care of everyone, we just need the scope narrowed enough so that we appear as “anti-Republican Party.” An example of how this “narrowed scope” plays out among society seems best exemplified in the argument for the African-American elder vote in the South Carolina primary.
There is an argument explaining the SC primary result building on this notion: elderly Af-Am voters understand white voters better than the DNC (or those white voters themselves). In this understanding, these Af-Am voters and those voters they inform, understand Biden as the ideal Presidential candidate for Dems.
Pay attention…this isn’t a good thing.
The takeaway here is that these Af-Am leaders are aware white voters, in this particular case white voters who will vote for the Democratic candidate for President, are not likely to support the guy whose ideas center on the well-being of an electorate inclusive of African-Americans. (of course the flip-side to this re: Bernie and Af-Am voters is the perception his socialism does not adequately affect Racial justice…I digress). It seems these SC elders have seen one too many white political leaders whose particular blend of Democratic Party policies promises to benefit them. Yet these elders consistently find themselves and their national community alienated by the Democratic party once the promisers find their way into halls of power. So, instead of building up a candidate whose proposals align with their own hopes, they say “white folks aren’t going to vote for our interests, so we’re just going to vote for the guy we think they’ll get behind.” In other words, the SC elder knows what the young progressive is learning: the Democratic Party won’t help anyone but themselves. If Dems won’t help anyone but themselves why get any real hopes up they will finally do right; they won’t so just vote for the dude white folks claim will be the “most likely to succeed.”
I have more to say but I’m tired.
Homeless Talent Show Thinks 