The Democratic Party: My Third and Current Paradigm (Part 1)
I used to see the Democratic Party as the only political benefactor of most Americans--regulation of businesses to protect individuals; economic and social safety nets, unions, Medicare, equal rights--basically, the New Deal and the Great Society, with a soupçon of Woodrow Wilson. Over time, however, I began to see the Democratic Party as the Party that Al From and the Clintons had Trojan Horsed into, essentially, a more "politically correct" Republican Party (which ipso facto means that I am either an evil or an unwitting tool of Putin). Perhaps some of you shared some of those views (about Democrats, not about Putin).
Now, I see the Democratic Party as a Party whose politicians have always done, first, what is their own respective, individual best interests, and, second, what is in the best interests of their Party. This is, of course, an overgeneralized statement and this essay will include more of them or it would be at least a one-volume tome, so please bear with overly-broad strokes. One more caveat: Resist the binary temptation to view this essay as pro-Republican: I have never voted anything but Democratic, Green and leftist write-in. And now, to the explanation of my current-- and possibly final--paradigm of the Democratic Party.
I trust that I need not convince anyone that slavery in the US was of great economic benefit to people of the US who were not slaves, especially the people of the US who imported and traded in slaves and used them as nearly free labor. The history of the Democratic Party seems inextricably intertwined with that of African Americans in this nation, from slavery to Jim Crow to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, all interwoven by the Great Migration (c. 1916-1970). "But, crikey, HAW," you may say, "All that is water under the dammed bridge." Maybe; maybe not, but it lasted from what some members of First Nations refer to as "the European infestation" of the land now known as the U.S.A. until at least 1964. With abject apologies to William Shakespeare, that's one heck of a significant chunk of our past/prologue.
The earliest colonial settlement here included slaves, pro-slavery forces and pro-abolition forces. By the time of the Revolution, pro-slavery forces were mostly Southern and prevailed in enshrining racism in the Constitution of the United States, as originally ratified, while excluding a prohibition against slavery--in other words, the Original Sin of the U.S. Until recently, Democrats pointed with pride to two slave owners, Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, both Democratic-Republicans, as founders of the Democratic Party. That brilliant, hypocritical. slave-child rapist, Jefferson, founded the Democratic Party is mythology. Its progenitor was the ignominious Jackson, President of the U.S. from 1829 to 1837.
After the War of 1812, the Federalists virtually disappeared and the only national political party left was the Democratic-Republicans. The era of one-party rule in the United States, known as the Era of Good Feelings, lasted from 1816 until the early 1830s, when the Whig Party became a national political group to rival the Democratic-Republicans. However, the Democratic-Republican Party still had its own internal factions. They split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the modern Democratic Party.[32] As Norton explains the transformation in 1828:
"Jacksonians believed the people's will had finally prevailed. Through a lavishly financed coalition of state parties, political leaders, and newspaper editors, a popular movement had elected the president. The Democrats became the nation's first well-organized national party [...] and tight party organization became the hallmark of nineteenth-century American politics."[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States) Bolding is mine, motivated by the "The more things change, the more they stay the same" quality of the text I bolded: To Democrats, lavish financing (read "big donors") and a coalition of state parties, political leaders and newspapers editors = the will of "the people." Well, all righty, then (and now)!
I end this Part 1 here only because I suspect that most people will not read a thread starter that is longer than seven paragraphs. And now, for almost no particular reason, "It's party time!"
Comments
Very good Democratic Party history lesson - thanks
looking forward to part 2. If I may make a snarky comment ...?
Shouldn't we all forgive the sinners of the past? /s
I really don't know. I guess it's impossible. It is the only prayer I know, and each time I come to the line, 'forgive us our tresspasses' (I pray in German and there this line is translated more literally that we should 'forgive those of our things we are guilty for').
Well forgive me for this weirdo comment.
https://www.euronews.com/
We need to look forward, not backward, Mimi
/s
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
President Obama, is that you?
see the problem is, if I look backwards, I get totally
@bisbonian
depressed and feel terribly guilty and if I look forward I get totally depressed and feel terribly scared. So, I decided to close my eyes and look inwards. Some wise quote in my childhood's Poesiealbum advised me to do so. /s
Nothing for Ungood.
https://www.euronews.com/
My reaction? Being guilty about the past is worse than
looking forward because feeling guilty about the past is completely useless. We all tend to do that at one time or other, but it is a waste and debilitating. So, we need to check ourselves when we do it. Feeling scared of the future is somewhat useless, too, as the future is coming, no matter what. However, maybe we can learn to use that fear to prompt us to decide what we can do in the present to make our future feel less scary.
Of course, all we can impact is the present. We must never forget to be grateful for the present and use it as best we can. If you can check your guilty and fear in any way, that's a plus for which you should also be grateful and congratulate yourself.
None of that is new and it's been said better by others, too. But we have to tell it to ourselves until we stop debilitating ourselves and thereby get more energy, and even more joy, for the present.
IF they leave their sins in the past, maybe. But, that is not
what Democrats have done--and that is the reason for the change in my paradigm of the Democratic Party.
Also, please see paragraph 3 of the thread starter.
I read all of it and I understood what you said, just saying/nt
https://www.euronews.com/
Jefferson had some rather... interesting ideas on parties.
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300
He was DEAD right on this one.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,
...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317
And, to those who would urge moving to 'the Center', because the extremes are too far apart; "Where the principle of difference [between parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
He also warned about the problems of Monarchy...
Metastasizing in the country if it was ever totally under federal control. But we don't need to worry about that ever happening, right Bush I, Bush II, Clinton I, Clinton II, Obama I, And in the fever dreams of Oprah Watchers, Obama II...
Hey, he wasn't perfect, but his batting average was a HELL of a lot better than the current party.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
As a Democratic-Republican, Jefferson believed in a weak
federal government, which, if adhered to, would not have allowed for the New Deal, among other things.
IMO, at some point, the money people recognized that controlling one President as much as possible was easier than attempting to control 435 members of the House, one hundred members of the House AND one President as much as possible, plus assorted denizens of Washington, D.C., such as the Pentagon. Hence, the unitary Executive, which seems to keep expanding.
BTW, George Washington was offered the job of President for Life; i.e., a non-hereditary monarchy that may well have morphed into a hereditary one. He refused it. So, the idea was not original to Jefferson.
Hey, I know I'm not going to change your opinion on the guy
and I wouldn't try.
Quoting Jefferson is a bit like quoting scripture. Equally dead, equally beautiful and hypocritical, and you either find it moving or you don't. I personally can't hear a bible verse without remembering that it was written by committee almost every time.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I will always believe he was a hypocrite, among other
unpleasant things.
Despite his beautiful words, like "All men are created equal" (also reviewed by a committee), the way he lived his life was shocking. Perhaps all the more shocking because of his beautiful words.
I keep saying--and I hope to heaven it remains true for the rest of my life--that, when it comes to pretty words, Obama cured me.
I care more about the idea than the messenger.
It's easier to determine whether ideas are good or bad.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
AFAIK, no one has to choose between an idea
and the person who had it (the first person who had it?). Ideas can be used and appreciated, without becoming a fan of the man.
For me, labeling Jefferson a hypocrite is not a tough call. A man who was, while a genius, also self-indulgent, profligate, an owner of many slaves who begab sleeping with a very young slave who happened to be his dead wife's half sister, and had several children with her, whom he owned and who then is admired for writing about all men being created equal.
Well, of course.
I personally think the man must have been mad. That level of cognitive dissonance approaches insanity.
People have said, well, it's because he didn't see Black people as human...but in that case, why in the hell was he sleeping with them? If he thought Black people were like cattle, well, did he have sex with his cattle? No.
He must have been insane.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Jefferson
adored his wife. Sally Hemmings, having had the same (rapist) father as Jefferson's deceased wife. resembled her. However, that did not entitle him to rape her ever, much less when she was only about 14. (Of course, he was not entitled to "own" her, either.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/sally-hemings-wasnt-thomas-jeffer...
Rape of a child and owning his own children is what hits me hardest. Self indulgent to the extreme. That's why he went broke, too. Apparently, he could never say no to himself, no matter what evil resulted from that.
I think they all had to have self-tortured and self-twisted minds. You have to tell yourself one boatload of crap in order to convince yourself it's ok to "own" another human. Imagine: a slave was worth a lot of money. So, everything time a slave owner raped one of his female slaves, he had also taken a shot at increasing his wealth. It was all so, so sick and America has still not recovered fully and may never. Ugly and heartrending.
It's like training a young person to go to another land and start killing its inhabitants. You have to de-humanize and demonize the other people and make killing them somehow seem like a good deed. But, in the end, they are human; they are not demons; and killing them may have had no better justification than killing your own family member would. And waking up to that, once the "kill, kill" drilling and the hysteria is over is enough to drive you mad.
Dead right--and as hypocritical as ever: "moral"
Also, there were no political parties in the US until Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.
A good and historical view
but right now all I see is the Capitalist party, with two wings. They pander to groups who have concerns that in the end will not harm the wealthy and their hangers on. We, the 90%, don't matter to them. If it's inner city or flyover country, we just don't figure into their plans. Unless we have something they can exploit or we get in their way. We get to vote for whatever ivy league, well connected millionaire they choose for us, but that's about it.
I believe that history shows that the Democratic Party was
the first of the two capitalist parties--and remains so. The Republican Party had at least a moral/ethical beginning, though it eventually became the other wing of Gore Vidal's single Property Party. I hope successive parts of this essay will demonstrate the above.
This was far from my original paradigm.
Interesting journey.
This part is actually funny. "the only national political party left was the Democratic-Republicans."
And they all lived happily ever after with their one political party. The hard part for people to understand, even after told, is that this political system was designed to be this way. It was designed to protect the landowners from the non-landowners, i.e., the rich from the rabble. In the end, the consensus was to not have democracy, but a representative government that would assuredly represent the monied class, the individual interests of the rich.
I never used to feel about the democratic party like the author. I was brought up in an apolitical, anti-establishment household. But I can understand how people have felt that way, in fact, it appears most people visiting this blog have a long time association with the democratic party. It also appears that's very hard to shake, almost cult like.
That line is funny, indeed. It also makes you want to
bang your head against a wall.
It is no accident or quirk that people have difficulty realizing that the political system was designed to do in most of them. We were brainwashed, almost from birth, by slogans (like land of the free; home of the brave), parades, pledge of allegiance, history as taught in schools, etc. No one told us that the Framers were the wealthy of their day who took secret notes during their constitutional convention, during which they referred to us as rabble. Yadda yadda yadda. That is, in part why it takes a paradigm shift to take a more realistic look.
The Framers were not all one thing.
Otherwise, we'd have no Bill of Rights.
As for the rest of their work, some of it I like. Checks and balances are an elegant mechanism; imperfect, but extremely helpful if used correctly (which is difficult to do).
Some of their work, obviously, I don't like, and some of it I despise.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
At the time they were writing the Constitution, many of the
Framers were quite wealthy; none were poor. All participated in the secrecy. And all disdained the rabble. That is evident from, if nothing else, the Constitution they wrote. When ratified, only about 6% of the population of the time was eligible to vote. Individuals could vote only for members of the House. State legislatures elected Senators (since changed), who therefore were given more power than members of the House, which they still have. Electors voted for President (still do). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp
The Framers did not include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. That's why the provisions of the Bill of Rights are amendments. The source of many provisions of the Bill of Rights was the Magna Carta of 1215 C.E. whose provisions were demanded by barons of evil King John. True to his reputation (which I get only from Robin Hood films) King John agreed to it and then ignored it. Not unlike American politicians with the Bill of Rights.
State legislatures (and their constituents, who did not have a vote on the matter) conditioned ratification of the Constitution upon rapid adoption of the Bill of Rights. The ten amendments were added and ratified within, I believe, six months after ratification of the body of Constitution.
If I were a Framer and the people who had just fought a revolution demanded a Bill of Rights, I'd give it to them ASAP.
George Mason was one of three delegates
who refused to sign the Constitution.
George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 [O.S. November 30, 1725] – October 7, 1792) was an American planter, politician and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution. He cited the lack of a bill of rights most prominently in his Objections, but also wanted an immediate end to the slave trade and a supermajority for navigation acts, which might force exporters of tobacco to use more expensive American ships.
Mason's refusal prompts some surprise, especially since his name is so closely linked with constitutionalism. He explained his reasons at length, citing the absence of a declaration of rights as his primary concern. He then discussed the provisions of the Constitution point by point, beginning with the House of Representatives. The House he criticized as not truly representative of the nation, the Senate as too powerful. He also claimed that the power of the federal judiciary would destroy the state judiciaries, render justice unattainable, and enable the rich to oppress and ruin the poor. These fears led Mason to conclude that the new government was destined to either become a monarchy or fall into the hands of a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy.
And yes, he was a slaveholder; oddly enough, a slaveholder who opposed slavery, though not for very good reasons:
Despite his involvement in western real estate schemes, Mason saw that land was being cleared and planted with tobacco faster than the market for it could expand, meaning that its price would drop even as more and more capital was tied up in land and slaves. Thus, although a major slaveholder, he opposed the slave system in Virginia. He believed that slave importation, together with the natural population increase, would result in a huge future slave population in Virginia; a system of leased lands, though not as profitable as slave labor, would have "little Trouble & Risque [risk]".[27]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Many Americans felt the same way as Mason. Hence the Bill
of Rights. These were Englishmen until the Revolution. They were well aware of the Magna Carta.
The official explanation for circulating the provisions of the Constitution sans individual or states' rights was that it was unnecessary. The federal government was going to be so weak,having only the powers specified in the Constitution. It was understood that everything else was between the states and their respective citizena.
HA!
P.S. Slave owners who opposed slavery don't impress me much.
Apologies to Shania Twain.
That part of his beliefs
doesn't impress me much either.
Although one could claim that I'm a capitalist who opposes capitalism, and perhaps make a parallel there.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
True. Then again, capitalism is the economic system of
the US. It would, I imagine, be more difficult for you to avoid capitalism than it would have been for someone in the 1700s to avoid purchasing slaves. As we agreed, though, owners of slaves had to have sold themselves a bill of goods in order to be owners of slaves. I don't know much about Mason. I think Jefferson, knew that slavery was inherently evil and just tried to have it every which way.
Bill of goods*
*My relationship with google is complex: Even though google totally gave up on "First, don't be evil," it's nonetheless hard for me to hate anything that, within seconds, fills me in on almost anything that I wonder about. On the other hand, I despise the covert evil of google. (How far OT is that!)
How many times should Dems or politicians generally be forgiven
The sins are repetitive made by repeat sinners. How should they be forgiven? A dose of their own medicine would do. Harass them for any and all tax infractions. Make them deduct the cost of their perks of office should be deducted from their salaries. Of course the best vengeance is to unelect them next time.
I always thought the
dem party represented the people (in my lifetime and the Roosevelt years), and they did tended to do things that benefitted the larger population.
That was my only reason for being a lifelong dem, that the dems' policies helped more people.
However, that notion is no longer true.
dfarrah
That was my second paradigm.
The big problem is the weaknesses of the Dem base
Specifically labor unions, and how they've both shrunk and don't represent their rank and file.
That is a bit down the chronological road from where my
essay is at the moment, but is very true as to unions, which now exist mostly in public employment and are threatened even there.
When I get to that point, I will make the same distinction as you have--unions vs. union members. Democrats represented the former, not the latter, and represented them because unions were their biggest donors and not out of love for working people. (Again, an over-generalization, but I will refer to early populism of Southern Democrats during the Jim Crow era.
I'm not sure I agree that the biggest problem of Democrats is the weakness of the base, though, but, as I said, I am not there yet.
My premise is
that class awareness and solidarity kept the unions democratic and representative.
Strong unions kept upwards pressure on the Democratic Party to keep their interests in mind, through legal bribes and voter turnout.
When unions purged the socialists, unions became just guilds, and lost their class awareness and solidarity.
Unions then politically aligned with the Dems rather than class values. The Dems could then take them for granted.
Of course this applies to more than just unions.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with much of that.
I think unions in general remained strong until at least the Fifties, with some unions remaining strong well beyond that. Blows to unions over time included Taft Hartley, right to work states, then offshoring jobs, etc. However, I don't think Democrats could ignore them until Democrats became financially independent of them, which, AFAIK, began in the late 1970s and surged with formation of the Democratic Leadership Council.
https://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it
Union membership peaked in the early 50's
By then the socialist leadership had been purged.
The rank and file still valued solidarity, but eventually they got old and retired or died.
I recently talked to some kids in their 20's in the IBEW and they had never heard of the IWW.
I think we're saying mostly the same thing about the 50s.
I am older than my 20s, but I had never heard of the IWW until I began researching Labor Day some years ago. Grover Cleveland, who I call the footnote POTUS, intentionally disassociated Labor Day from the Haymarket Affair, our Haymarket Affair ironically being the reason the rest of the world celebrates Labor Day on May 1. And, of course, our blessed schools teach none of this.
When I had a state job, I was AFL-CIO and, in a different state. I loved being union. A big tell for me? Every MSNBC talking head crossed a picket line, including Maddow and Schultz. (I think Olbermann may have been there at the time of the strike, too.) I would not cross a picket line if I were being shot at--and I mean that literally.
Purged and assassinated
In the political assassinations of 1960s, an entire generation of progressive leaders were taken out.
I was thinking of the Red Scare
Marital infidelity propably contributed as much good,
ironically, to Democrats as anything making Eleanor a force that Franklin could not ignore.
Already, instead of using the momentum of the election, howls of moving to the center push their way to center stage of National Dems.
Imho, "it's now or never" should be the party's moto. But, who would listen to me, i have no money to give.
Exactly. That's why I posted the Billionaire video.
The song is not quite on the money (no pun intended) for my purpose. The singer refers to the things he wishes to buy. But, we would need a billion to influence politics and policies. Maybe many billions because we would have to compete with the billionaires already in the game.