Democratic Party’s Refusal to Face Reality Is Absurd

Democrats eagerly re-entrenching behind failed tactics…

Photo by Gage Skidmore

If forced to choose between one of the two main American political parties, I would choose the Democrats.

Government waste is crippling the current sociopolitical system, but I don’t see either side as deserving of a merit badge in government efficiency. Meanwhile, though I subscribe to many fiscally conservative ideas, I prioritize socially liberal policies because compelling evidence and common sense indicate socially conservative policies disproportionately impact the under-privileged classes and, frequently, minority communities.

You can debate the theoretical wisdom of tax and spend vs. trickle down economics. You cannot debate the damage done by legislation that disadvantages a group, whether intentionally or unintentionally, based on its members’ race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

So, yeah, if I absolutely had to pick one, it’d be the Democratic life for me.

Mercifully, I do not have to choose. A less charitable man than I might be justified in saying the current party is being led by a bunch of morons.

Or, worse, its leadership is full of smart, competent narcissists who’ve sold the interests of the American public to its donor class.

Consider:

1. In January of 2009, the Democrats had 29 governorships. They now have 16 for a loss of 13 (or about 45 percent).
2. In January of 2009, the Democrats had 57 seats in the United States Senate. They now have 46 for a loss of 11 (or about 20 percent).
3. In January of 2009, the Democrats had 257 seats in the US House of Representatives. They now have 194 for a loss of 63 (or about 25 percent).
4. In January of 2009, the Democrats had 4082 legislative seats at the State level. They now have 3135 for a loss of 947 (or about 23 percent).

Those numbers cannot be spun or re-branded. They cannot be explained away as typical statistical noise or chalked up to dastardly Republicans. For an organization that exists to enact policy by successfully electing individuals to seats who are sympathetic to the organization’s ethos, the numbers are proof of a catastrophic failure of leadership.

And they don’t even include the most recent humiliation i.e. losing the White House to arguably the least qualified candidate to run for President in the history of the country.

In the face of this election-day carnage, you’ve seen much pearl-clutching from the Democratic establishment. Many have said the right things about the need for fresh faces and a new direction, about reassessing party fundamentals and dissecting why the party hasn’t been able to take advantage of an increasingly progressive electorate. Yet all that talk has amounted to just that.

There has been no outward sign of significant change.

Senate Democrats have already fallen in line behind Chuck Schumer while House Democrats rallied around Nancy Pelosi yet again. Those are two high-ranking party stalwarts whose fingerprints are all over the aforementioned failures since they’ve been two of the most influential Dems for the last decade. They are also Clinton loyalists with the same reputation for chasing donor dollars at the expense of the middle and working classes, and who’ve been dug into Washington DC like ticks for the last 30 years.

It’s hard to believe either Schumer or Pelosi will spearhead a charge to dramatically change the status quo when the status quo is working so well for them.

Then there is newly elected Democratic National Committee Chair, Tom Perez. He also shares some of that special-interest stink thanks to his enthusiastic endorsement of Hillary Clinton, his support for TPP and a debatable record of pursuing Wall Street. By comparison, the strongest challenge to Perez came from Keith Ellison, who was one of Bernie Sanders’ earliest supporters and has stronger progressive credentials.

More troubling, however, is the way Perez entered the race.

As others have pointed out, Ellison’s candidacy for DNC chair was off to a roaring start before Barack Obama surrogates pushed Perez to join despite claiming only mild ideological differences between the two men. In fact, the most glaring difference was one of fealty—Perez stood with the Obama-Clinton establishment wing of the party whereas Ellison made his camp with the Sanders-Warren progressives.

Whether you believe the DNC chair is a meaningful position or not, the election of Perez certainly looks like more business as usual for an organization most recently led by Clinton acolytes Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile. It also looks very much like Perez was specifically chosen for this reason by the party establishment.

Now, is it possible that this is all a matter of optics? That the DNC is about to go through a metamorphosis to cure what ails it despite being led by the same center of power—and some of the same people—that’s been in charge during the bloodletting of the last eight years?

Early signs are not encouraging, not at all.

But sure, it’s possible.

The problem there, of course, is that optics still matter. Indeed, the Democratic establishment must believe optics matter more than most anything because its members have been telling anyone with a microphone and a pulse how Hillary Clinton lost the election despite being massively more qualified than Donald Trump. If you sincerely believe that, then you must believe the optics of election were false and still fatal enough to overwhelm HRC’s clear superiority. That makes them pretty damn powerful.

In other words, private discussions and closed-door meetings about change won’t mean much if the voters don’t see any difference.

Yet the same people who swear HRC would’ve won but for optics have succeeded in systematically reinforcing the same old message and the same old messengers. Every outward appearance suggests the DNC will pursue cautious centrism and corporate deference while placing the party in the hands of tired, career politicians.

Same as it ever was.

This makes no sense under the best of circumstances, but with President Trump demonstrating a presidential capacity and right-wing gears starting to grind, the decision is indefensible.