Democrats Are Beyond Punishment

Alongside a respectable economic record, the Biden Administration has cemented itself into an horrific policy regarding Israel and Palestine. Not surprisingly, many of its own potential voters are outraged. I sure am. What to do?

Many would wash their hands of both parties, and as far as the national elections are concerned, abstain altogether or seek a third party option. Another common device in primaries has been to vote “uncommitted” as a way to influence the president.

All of these gambits cause erosion of support for the party and increase the awful prospect of a Trump victory. My choice was to support Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 primaries. It was a free shot, though it might have reduced Hillary’s chances by a hair. I never thought Bernie would win or be permitted to get the nomination, but it was a way to mobilize people behind progressive ideas. This past year I voted for the same reason in the Virginia primary for Marianne Williamson, though it was after she shut down her campaign. I hear that she is on again, though not arousing much interest, including from me.

The strongest move is to simply deny Biden a vote in November, either by staying home or voting for the revolting Robert F. Kennedy Junior or some nutty far-left operation. I want to address the school of thought that causing Democrats to lose is the best way to force them to change their positions. I think it’s mistaken.

Who in the party is at issue? It’s networks of elite donors, consultants, former grifty top officials on the make, pollsters, and associates in commercial media. They are affiliated with powerful politicians in relatively safe seats. If a combination of efforts cause Democrats to lose the White House and the Senate, these networks will continue to prosper, if a little less so. You can’t punish them with defeat. You can only replace them by building organizations that can elect different people. My guess is the party bigs would rather see the party lose than see their own power — which brings income — diminished.

I’m as guilty as anyone of this mistake, after voting for Ralph Nader twice. Someone ought to write in depth about what caused Nader, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders to walk away from their own supporters after their robust electoral efforts.

I have a theory. In the cases of Nader and Jackson, their campaigns were centered around their individual personalities and interests. They were not disposed to the sort of collaboration necessary to build permanent organizations. They were one-man bands. Jackson chose a future as a Democratic Party mouthpiece. Nader was too ornery for such foolishness. (These days and for some time, by the way, Nader urges voting for Biden to stop Trump.)

Obama of course won and didn’t see a need for mobilized followers any longer, perhaps to his subsequent regret. Sanders chose to focus on exploiting his elevated position in the Senate to get real shit done. Even so, his movement mostly has been allowed to disintegrate. The “Our Revolution” organization is a dead letter. Like Nader and Jackson, for Bernie collective leadership is not his thing. I’m sure there is still plenty of money flowing in, but it is not devoted to independent grassroots organization. Frankly, and perhaps this proves my bias, they couldn’t find a place for me, which IMO is at the very least stupid.

I would go further and suggest that in the case of Obama and the effective leadership of the party, they don’t want mobilized followers, except for the narrow instrumental task of temporarily supporting electoral candidates. A feisty, ongoing progressive movement only disrupts business as usual. The party just wants you to donate, canvas, phone bank, vote, and then shut up and keep your ass at home. It sends you bullshit polls asking what you care about, the better to micro-target its fund-raising junk mail.

This became especially evident in New York state, when the thuggy Andrew Cuomo went out of his way to sabotage progressive political agitation and literally cause his own party to cede control of the state legislature. Another stark example is the sad tale of India Walton of Buffalo, a progressive who fought her way to the Democratic nomination for mayor, only to be sabotaged by other Democrats.

There was also the outrageous tale of the Nevada party, which progressives won control of, fair and square, only to see the party’s records pilfered and bank accounts drained. At the bottom of that reaction was the Harry Reid machine in Nevada. Progressives are excoriated for failing to adopt lesser-of-two-evils behavior, but when we play ball successfully, the football gets snatched away.

These are not honest people. Causing them to lose elections does not make them more honest. Taking over state parties and growing “The Squad” are still the only practical alternatives, though the Nevada experience ought to provide lessons in the first regard. The most obvious is to accept that you are competing with crooks. The only thing missing is the cement shoes.