La Revolución

This morning, I learned that Democrats have yet again contemplated their respective net worth election losses and have yet again concluded, much as they did after their 2014 bloodbath, that they need to go further right. (Both these conclusions are, of course, very similar to the philosophy of the corporate-funded and Koch-guided Democratic Leadership Council espoused by the Clintons and others since the early 1980s.) In case you missed it when Democrats elected Perez to chair the Democratic National Committee (which, I assume, still employs unrepentant Disgraceful Donna Brazile), this most recent conclusion about the "need" to go right proves yet again how "willing" the Democratic Party is to yield an iota to the left, no matter how much Schumer gushes and creates meaningless titles to try to con appease the left. Which led me to look into the nascence, circa 1952, of the Cuban revolution.

"Hello. My name is Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz. As we know all too well, the corrupt administration of Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar is not working for Cuba or Cubans. We need a revolution. Here's the plan:

To the corrupt, self-serving Batista administration, we'll add our voices, dollars and volunteer efforts, along with the names and $$ of whatever celebrities and fat cats backed me in my recent run for national office. That way, we may be able to get some of our own people into the Batista administration, even though everyone in the Batista administration will sabotage them and resist with all the formidable resources at their command. We will try reform it from within, even if means campaigning for Her Batista himself and the many corrupt members of his administration after they defeat our candidates in primaries."

"That's the revolution plan?"


"Fidel, WTF?"

(For a far less silly version of Fidel's m.o., please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Career_in_law_and_politics:_1... and the next section.)

Even if fifteen or twenty *genuine* liberal populists were to make it to D.C. as Democrats next time, Democrats and "the system" will either co-opt them or crush them. Any bills they write will die even faster than the ones that Hillary wrote. If their bills ever do get brought up for a vote, cloture will never get sixty votes. In the highly unlikely event that a liberal bill does ever get voted on, it won't pass, though the may be deceptively close. With very rare exceptions, any genuine liberal populists who make it to Congress will get to vote yea or nay on typical bills and bloviate for the cameras of MSNBC or C-Span, neither of which will improve the life of any American--except the lives of those who do make it to Congress, of course. (In over 25 years in the House or Senate, AFAIK, Bernie himself co-wrote (with McCain) only one bill that became law (pro-military veterans) and one substantive amendment that became law (adding money to the ACA, when Obama was desperate to pass it).

Meanwhile, the DNC will require them to contribute $$ to their conservative Democratic colleagues in Congress while stonewalling them on money, mailing lists, making their campaign materials available at state or local Dem offices, etc., not to mention siccing the Vichy media on them. Much as with Bernie, when he ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

By the time that any genuine populist newbies run for re-election and seek Democratic Party donors, endorsements, and other support, it will be game over, one way or the other. And the Democratic establishment will probably try to replace them or just make them lose, as they did with Arkansas's William Halter and others. (To the DP, a Republican is light years better than a liberal populist. Just ask DWS, who campaigned for Florida Republicans, yet became Democratic National Committee Chair!) Or they will scout for, and secretly back, fake populists or fake Justice Democrats, as has already happened.

The same thing will happen to the next batch, and the next. Meanwhile, the left will remain even more divided than it has always been, with the "revolution from within" leftists spinning their wheels on one side and leftists who don't believe in working within the DP spinning their wheels on the other. And our donations and other resources, such as they are, will also remain divided. The difference will be that those who don't join the, um, revolution from within is that no politician or celebrity will lead or join us, publicize our causes, etc. But, both factions will be screwed (as has been the case since formation of the DLC).

We're out here playing junior high student government politics (if that) while Democrats have been as cutthroat as President Jackson since, well, President Jackson. The idea that the fat cat elites in power in the Democratic Party will ever let liberal populists take them over? I. just. can't.

-30-

Summer reading list on this topic:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/22/how-democratic-party-estab...

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/19/should-progressives-unify-...

Candidly, I have not read either of these articles, but I will. I imagine tons more like this can be found, but I didn't google.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Have to crush it.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

@dkmich
I wish I knew how to do that, or at least to make the Demlicans and Republicrats only two of several viable US political parties.

When we actually had a two-party system, Democrats pushed back against the callousness and greed now and then. Now, we have, at most, a 1.3-party system, apparently well on its way to becoming a 1.1 party system.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@HenryAWallace

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed

I suspect many would add equal rights, but, really, Republicans (the equal rights amendment), the Johnson Administration (Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act) and the Supreme Court took care of that, both as to various minorities and gays. Modern Democrats haven't done much. However ,Obama and Biden both made favorable comments about equal marriage before the SCOTUS decision and I do think that does matter.

When the Supreme Court struck down an important part of the Voting Rights Act because the research that had supported it hadn't been updated in half a century, neither of our "wonderful" political parties made a move to update the research. I consider that despicable. And, while some states get more and more aggressive about making abortions more difficult, no federal legislation or other action is taken. Hillary even said she'd be willing to talk a Constitutional amendment to overrule Roe v. Wade!

Democrats pass more increases to the minimum wage.

But, hey, Democrats talk a much better game than do Republicans, make fewer gaffes and express outrage whenever a Republican politician puts his foot in his mouth on certain issues! While that is not enough for me, it apparently means everything to some loyalists.

So, yes, I do think there are some differences, though they blur more as time passes, which was the DLC's goal.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

The irrational being the "reform from within" which you, I and many others here believe is so delusional as to qualify for a one way ticket to crazy town--you know, like TOP.

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed

It took somewhat more courage than most of my essays. However, I just may be congenitally impolitic. Like Popeye, I yam what I yam.

up
0 users have voted.

as promised.

The first one has a lot in common with my essay. The second one does as well--but only for about the first half. After positing convincingly that we must resist the Democratic elites at all costs, it flips to "meanwhile, be sure to vote for Hillary." smh

up
0 users have voted.