The Great Democratic Herding of 2017 (or #DemEnter) is fully underway now. Of course, Bernie Sanders has been out in front of this movement for a while, trying (and succeeding in some fashion) to lure the not-quite-yet-woke, the I-prefer-to-be-ignorant, and the fully-awake-but-non-critical-thinkers back into the fold. However, the announcement that we will now have a Tom Perez-Bernie Sanders Unity Tour shows just how damned serious the Democrats are to spread their particular brand of propaganda. We’ve got a real live roadshow, folks. I’ll be eager to see if it comes through Boston because I’m sure they’ll drag Elizabeth Warren along as that paragon of progressive virtue. That Bernie Sanders is going to reform the Democrats from within is propaganda, and the notion that Elizabeth Warren can still claim the progressive mantle is also propaganda. This is progressive window dressing for 2020.
It has been reported that the Democrats lost 14 million members after the November election, but that number has never been confirmed, and has been the subject of great controversy. I believe, however, that critical thinkers can infer that the Democrats are worried about the number of members who did leave. (Otherwise, why bother with a herding?) They also have to be extremely concerned at the number of people who simply declined to vote at all. (Read: “We stayed home because we felt like we didn’t have a choice.”) It is estimated that the Democrats suffered more than the GOP since more of the non-voting Independents would have leaned toward the Democratic candidate. There are several things that have rightfully contributed to this mistrust of the Democratic Party and the resulting exodus (also known as #DemExit).
WikiLeaks proved conclusively that the DNC, the media, and Clinton’s campaign not only derided the Sanders’ campaign but also actively worked to ensure Clinton’s victory over Sanders in clear violation of DNC rules of impartiality. If that isn’t enough for you, one top DNC official wanted to use Sanders’ religious beliefs (or lack thereof) against him. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if Russia did hack and leak. They didn’t write the emails, or plan the destruction of one of their own. The Democrats did. All the hacker did was find out about it and put the information into someone’s hands. All WikiLeaks did was expose it, which is their reason for being. In case some of you might not be used to seeing this thing called journalism. That’s how it works. That is how the public is informed, and a government is not allowed to operate in the shadows. Period. End of story.
There are other reasons for this mistrust as well. Donna Brazile’s disgraceful behavior of passing along debate questions to the Clinton campaign while working as a member of the media is one such reason. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning in disgrace for her part in the mess is another. Did the Democratic Party condemn this behavior? Hardly. They allowed Brazile to hang around as interim chair of the DNC until they could install Perez, and Hillary Clinton gave her buddy Wasserman Schultz a nice cushy job in her campaign after her resignation. When push came to shove and Wasserman Schultz was hit with a lawsuit over her egregious behavior, the argument against the law suit was that all she did was violate the party’s own rules. No big deal. Except that it is a big deal, folks. Wasserman Schultz violated party rules that were put in place to make sure that whatever was done during an election worked impartially, so that the decision-makers in the process are the American people, not the Democratic Party elite. The defense shows callous disregard for the American people and, in particular, the Democratic voter. WikiLeaks also revealed a number of other nefarious dealings relative to the Clinton-Sanders campaign and beyond. You really ought to read the material. In fact, I am including a link here to the Podesta files. Does this sound like a party that commands respect, loyalty, or trust in its future?
For many of us former Sanders loyalists, his behavior starting in July of 2016 didn’t do much to inspire. While pundits and poets argue that there really wasn’t election fraud, simply manipulation, it is time for the American people to begin to think for themselves. Like what, manipulation is okay? There is certainly enough information about election “irregularities” to warrant a full investigation. From Nevada, to Brooklyn, to California, there are allegations and evidence that cannot and should not be ignored. That it isn’t happening doesn’t mean that the Democrats are not guilty. At the very least, based on what we do know, Senator Sanders had a duty not only to his followers, but to the nation, to contest the convention. Indeed, he announced a floor fight and many of us drove to Philadelphia in support and anticipation of a contested convention. We were treated to something very different. Suddenly, the man who was leading a “political revolution” was back in the arms of the very people he was seeking to eliminate from the party. That, my friends, does not look like any revolution I’ve ever seen. In fact, there are people out there who believe that the entire process was carefully staged from day one with Sanders a willing participant. The only thing that the Democrats did not anticipate was that Sanders’ message would resonate with so many people that he would actually present a challenge to Clinton.
Whether or not I believe that scenario doesn’t much matter. If it is true, then it only shows how out of touch the Democrats are. Beyond that, there is more than enough to feed my skepticism of Bernie Sanders 2.0, if you will. Like Obama, he has proven to be not as advertised. I’ve said that the Sanders loyalists are holding back change every bit as much as the Clinton loyalists, and I meant that. None of us knows the reason for Sanders’ sudden capitulation to the Democratic throne, but I do know one thing. Those of us who bought into Bernie Sanders 1.0 have a right to look at him suspiciously now. How does a man who is allegedly diametrically opposed to everything that politicians like Clinton and Schumer stand for suddenly embrace them? Wait. I’m wrong. Sanders doesn’t just embrace them; he literally sings their praises.
Since the election, the Democrats have just about blamed everyone and everything for Clinton’s loss. We’ve gone from Bernie Sanders and his supporters, to Jill Stein, to Gary Johnson, to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and James Comey. Failing those, they found one that would take hold. They settled on Russia having stolen the election because many Americans still love a demon, especially if it’s one that is a perceived enemy of Empire. The Democrats would rather continue this dangerous narrative than make the changes required to be a true party of the people. Why? Because they are not interested in becoming a party of the 99%. They have, in fact, worked over the last several decades to move away from representing the poor and middle class in favor of representing their elite puppeteers. The Gravy Train is a very good place to be if you are a politician. Ask the Clintons and the Obamas. They have contributed to the downfall of the Democratic Party as much as anybody. I might be inclined to understand those who hold out one atomic particle of hope if it even looked like the Democrats learned anything since November of 2016.
The Democrats lost badly on all levels, from local to state to national. That isn’t Russia. That’s the Democrats being tone deaf and out of touch. Deliberately, I might add. By choice. Let’s not even bring Trump into this part of the discussion. (You know, the part where I say we know he’s a liar and a scam artist but he showed up in the most needy areas of the nation and said what people wanted to hear.) Let’s pretend that didn’t happen. Instead, let’s play the “when did you see Hillary Clinton visit the most critical areas of the nation – the battleground states – during her campaign tours?” game. You didn’t. While her most ardent supporters are happy to ignore this, Clinton’s donors are not. What you did see was Hillary Clinton taking selfies with Kim, Kanye and Katy (a lame effort to connect with millennials). You saw the Clooneys throwing a benefit where obscene amounts of money were being donated just for breathing near Hillary Clinton. You saw her cavorting at a benefit with the Rothschilds. You didn’t see Clinton connect with our most compromised citizens.
Hillary Clinton has, for the most part, been in hiding ‘in the woods’ since last November, but is now ready to come out to find common ground? I am still struggling with that one. Did she show herself when Trump lifted the roadblocks to DAPL and Keystone XL? Nope. Not one word. However, there has been one watershed moment that showed the world just exactly where the Democrats stand on interventionist aggression and regime change. Hillary Clinton sure came out of the woods on that one. In fact, oddly enough, she came out and suggested that Trump bomb Syrian air fields hours before the incident occurred. The verdict? Bravo for Donald Trump. Hell, even the lamestream media and other prominent Democrats are with him on this. Sanders and Warren? Virtually mute. War is indeed good for business.
The Democratic Party is not interested in public servants who act in the best interest of the people if it interferes with what Empire wants. Case in point? Tulsi Gabbard, Congresswoman for Hawaii’s Second District, two-time veteran of Iraq who still serves as a Major in the Army reserves. She is a woman who has served, seen the result of our destructive Middle East policy, and has long been a critic. She dared to not only question Trump’s aggression, but also the official story of the Syrian chemical weapons attack. Now the Democratic establishment is calling for the banishment of one of the most popular representatives in current times, a woman who has earned the peoples’ respect by doing her job.
One would think that they’d be attacking Donald Trump that way, but this is about ensuring that the never-ending, profitable war on terror continues. Who is leading the charge against Gabbard? None other than the Clintonista, Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress, the centrist organization that the DNC has charged with the Democratic image “reboot.” Attack dog “Howard the Coward” Dean is also joining the chorus. Frankly, the Democrats need a whole lot more than a new image. Don’t give them an excuse. The Democrats “get it.” They know what the people want, and they knew what the people wanted back in 2016. Yet, the Democratic establishment insisted on ensuring the nomination of one of the most mistrusted and unpopular Democratic candidates in history.
So you’ve got a long way to go before you’ll ever convince me that the Democratic Party is sincere about being reformed from within. I think it’s all window dressing for 2020. Lure the downtrodden masses in with promises that they will fix everything. It’s tempting to most Americans who not only have no clue about the power they possess, but are also seemingly not interested in exercising that power. In reality, the Democratic Party is not interested in changing one iota. Nancy Pelosi said it herself. Either she’s suffering from dementia or she’s frankly giving you the party line. Personally, I think the latter is the case. None of the other Democratic “leaders” have indicated that change is in the wind. (Forget that Tom Perez cleaned house at the DNC. It’s common practice. So did Barack Obama.) Giving the illusion of choice works just fine for them; the status quo will be protected.