Republicans have tons of internal problems, but the Democrats aren’t much different.
Both Parties want you to think they care about you, but they don’t.
They care about rich people.
We often think that Democrats care a little less about rich people than Republicans do, but that’s just not the case.
One of the big problems is that the Democratic Party has never been particularly leftist or progressive to begin with.
The little people don’t matter that much. The wealthier folks do.
Going back a long time it was the rich farmers and the shop owners. After that it was small business owner. Now it’s the corporate owner.
Democrats do a good job pretending they’re something they’re not.
Whether it’s:
Either way, Dems talk a good talk but rarely walk the walk.
So Democrats are good at convincing us they care, but they’re terrible at actually carrying through.
Democrats like it this way. They made sure to enshrine that type of behavior into the Party when they set things up in 1972.
Let’s take a moment to explore that era.
Both Parties want you to think they care about you, but they don’t.
They care about rich people.
We often think that Democrats care a little less about rich people than Republicans do, but that’s just not the case.
One of the big problems is that the Democratic Party has never been particularly leftist or progressive to begin with.
The little people don’t matter that much. The wealthier folks do.
Going back a long time it was the rich farmers and the shop owners. After that it was small business owner. Now it’s the corporate owner.
Democrats do a good job pretending they’re something they’re not.
Whether it’s:
- Jefferson idealizing the common farmer while looking out for the rich ones;
- Jackson championing the plight of the little man while stomping down the little man of color (black and red);
- FDR turning against his class to lift up the country…though the only alternative was letting the country fail.
- JFK giving people hope that America was great while buying his way into the White House;
- Clinton playing the common man (read shlub) while shipping our jobs overseas with his NAFTA.
Either way, Dems talk a good talk but rarely walk the walk.
So Democrats are good at convincing us they care, but they’re terrible at actually carrying through.
Democrats like it this way. They made sure to enshrine that type of behavior into the Party when they set things up in 1972.
Let’s take a moment to explore that era.
Using Convention Rules to Shutout
Following the crisis-like atmosphere that existed in the Democratic Party in 1968, a form of New Politics emerged.
This New Politics “diagnosed the limits and failures of Democratic policies as the product of an insufficiently democratic party,” author Adam Hilton tells us in a 2016 article called “Searching for New Politics.”
These new political ideas pulled together “activists from antiwar, civil rights, and feminist struggles, as well as the labor-left,” that had “tried to work within the system” but “found themselves shut out.”
There was a lot of anger over the hard work so many had done for McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, and it felt like a real slap in the face to see the establishment candidate, Hubert Humphrey, chosen at the ’68 convention.
“For left activists, the selection bespoke a party system more responsive to the will of party leaders than to mobilized party activists.”
An internal report was done by the Democrats and that’s how our current convention delegate process for the primaries came about.
Instead of the “winner-take-all mechanisms” of the past, candidates would get delegates based on a “proportional degree of support in state caucuses, conventions, and primaries.”
By 1972 many of the “top Democratic officeholders” that’d always been delegates to the presidential convention were replaced by “antiwar entrants” as well as “women, minorities, people under thirty, and rank-and-file workers.”
The “loose confederation of state parties” were cobbled together into a coherent national organization for the first time in the party’s 130-year history. Not everyone was happy, however.
The AFL-CIO trade union leadership “reacted in horror as they watched movement activists” and other undesirables “pour in through the doors of the Democratic Party.”
The old bargaining agreements between party leaders and union brass were becoming a thing of the past as new voices sought to be heard.
“The pathway to party influence no longer ran through the smoke-filled backrooms,” and oh how the unions resented this. The idea of adding women and minorities to top union positions also rankled many.
The Democrats specifically redid their rules after the ’72 losses to prevent any kind of grassroots, progressive campaign from occurring again.
You can see a complete list of Democratic Party rule changes by year here.
To the brass of the Democratic Party, ’72 was lost because of that element.
That element would never lead to a win. Indeed, pandering to it would only result in further losses.
That was the thinking 45 years ago and it’s the thinking of the Democratic Party today.
This New Politics “diagnosed the limits and failures of Democratic policies as the product of an insufficiently democratic party,” author Adam Hilton tells us in a 2016 article called “Searching for New Politics.”
These new political ideas pulled together “activists from antiwar, civil rights, and feminist struggles, as well as the labor-left,” that had “tried to work within the system” but “found themselves shut out.”
There was a lot of anger over the hard work so many had done for McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, and it felt like a real slap in the face to see the establishment candidate, Hubert Humphrey, chosen at the ’68 convention.
“For left activists, the selection bespoke a party system more responsive to the will of party leaders than to mobilized party activists.”
An internal report was done by the Democrats and that’s how our current convention delegate process for the primaries came about.
Instead of the “winner-take-all mechanisms” of the past, candidates would get delegates based on a “proportional degree of support in state caucuses, conventions, and primaries.”
By 1972 many of the “top Democratic officeholders” that’d always been delegates to the presidential convention were replaced by “antiwar entrants” as well as “women, minorities, people under thirty, and rank-and-file workers.”
The “loose confederation of state parties” were cobbled together into a coherent national organization for the first time in the party’s 130-year history. Not everyone was happy, however.
The AFL-CIO trade union leadership “reacted in horror as they watched movement activists” and other undesirables “pour in through the doors of the Democratic Party.”
The old bargaining agreements between party leaders and union brass were becoming a thing of the past as new voices sought to be heard.
“The pathway to party influence no longer ran through the smoke-filled backrooms,” and oh how the unions resented this. The idea of adding women and minorities to top union positions also rankled many.
The Democrats specifically redid their rules after the ’72 losses to prevent any kind of grassroots, progressive campaign from occurring again.
You can see a complete list of Democratic Party rule changes by year here.
To the brass of the Democratic Party, ’72 was lost because of that element.
That element would never lead to a win. Indeed, pandering to it would only result in further losses.
That was the thinking 45 years ago and it’s the thinking of the Democratic Party today.
How Bernie’s Moving In
Bernie Sanders doesn’t like what happened 45 years ago and he’s hell-bent on doing something about it.
A big part of that ‘doing something’ was his run for president.
My, that electrified the country!
Electrified the hell outta a lot of sit-on-their-hands voters, too, not to mention all those that’d given up or never taken part.
He created voters!
My God…isn’t that what we want to do?
Well, not if you’re the gentrified, well-off landed and merchant class of old that the Democratic Party has always represented.
They don’t really feel threatened by Bernie or the new DNC head, Tom Perez, however.
I’m sure they figure, ‘let those two go off on their 9-state tour, which might even include Montana.
It won’t make a difference, they think.
That’s why we don’t see any support or spending from the national Democrats in the Quist race.
You can of course tell National to support Quist.
More than 1,800 people already have via this online survey form.
I remember when I saw Bernie in Missoula last May.
Around 9,000 people came to the park that day.
Wow, it was something.
A big part of that ‘doing something’ was his run for president.
My, that electrified the country!
Electrified the hell outta a lot of sit-on-their-hands voters, too, not to mention all those that’d given up or never taken part.
He created voters!
My God…isn’t that what we want to do?
Well, not if you’re the gentrified, well-off landed and merchant class of old that the Democratic Party has always represented.
They don’t really feel threatened by Bernie or the new DNC head, Tom Perez, however.
I’m sure they figure, ‘let those two go off on their 9-state tour, which might even include Montana.
It won’t make a difference, they think.
That’s why we don’t see any support or spending from the national Democrats in the Quist race.
You can of course tell National to support Quist.
More than 1,800 people already have via this online survey form.
I remember when I saw Bernie in Missoula last May.
Around 9,000 people came to the park that day.
Wow, it was something.
If he comes again to campaign for Quist, it’ll be an event.
I hope it happens.
Until then, stay vigilant.
- Trump is going to war despite the fact that many who voted for him didn’t want that.
- It doesn’t look like we’ll have any kind of meaningful infrastructure funding in America for some time.
- Jobs aren’t coming back to America.
So keep your head up and continue to speak frankly about your problems and the country’s.
That’s the only way things will change.
