Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Establishment Democrats Covertly Love Suppression of their Voter Base

Establishment Democrats Covertly Love Suppression of their Voter Base

Over the past twenty years, and at an increasing frequency, the democratic party loves to blame its electoral losses on voter suppression by the republican party. At first glance, this accusation is completely justified and supported by all available evidence. There is indeed a systemic effort by the republican party to suppress voters who are more likely to vote for democratic candidates. But have you ever wondered why we hear the same accusations during every national and almost every state election in the past twenty years? Why has the democratic party done almost nothing about republican attempts at voter suppression, other than blame their electoral losses on them?

Let us start by addressing the first peculiarity of the democratic process in USA. Why are voter turnouts in american elections so low when compared to other countries with a functional voting system? And let us be honest about something else.. they have always been rather low when compared to other countries for a number of reasons such as the legacy of slavery and the fact that racial apartheid was law in USA until 1965. Yes.. USA as a society, until 1965, was similar to the odious racism-based regime which existed in South Africa until 1994. But why did the voting percentages in USA not improve in a consistent manner after 1965? Why are they still low?

The more establishment-worshiping types among you might mutter something about most voters being stupid or lazy. But then why do countries with an almost non-existent history of democracy such as Brazil have high voter turnouts as well as speedy transparent vote counting? The Indian system, in spite of many other shortcomings, is very good at conducting elections and the entire process is widely seen as fair and transparent by its citizens. And, as usual, the electoral process in USA looks shady, compromised and antiquated when compared to its counterparts in western Europe. So why is it this bad in USA and, more importantly, who benefits from this status quo?

While it is tempting to heap all blame for this miscarriage of democracy on the republican party, there are some problems with doing so. For example, the democratic party (at least at national and state levels) was not especially concerned about the issue of voter suppression until that infamous presidential election in 2000. But why not and what changed after 2000? Superficially, it has something to do with changing patterns of party affiliations among the shrinking white population. But more importantly, reduction of turnout among voters who will vote for candidates espousing a populist platform is an important feature of whatever passes for “democracy” in USA.

Have you ever wondered why establishment democrats never give anything more than lipservice to the idea of increasing voter turnout among people who have given up on the system? Have you ever reflected on why they hate rising candidates among their own party who are to the “left” of their center-right electoral platform? Are you now starting to understand why Bernie Sander’s challenge to the ‘anointed candidate’ aka HRC during the 2016 democratic presidential primary so upsetting to corporate media presstitutes and “public intellectuals”? Are you starting to grasp their obsession with appealing to “centrist” white suburban voters while simultaneously ignoring outreach to groups who would actually vote for them if they ran on a populist platform.

In case you have not, let me spell it out. Establishment wing of both political parties are willing and enthusiastic participants in the Kayfabe of american “democracy”. To be fair, it has always been like that.. to some extent. However it was not especially blatant or problematic from 1934 to the mid-1980s, for reasons that have much to do with far larger global events (Depression, WW2 and Cold War). However starting sometime in late-1970s, both parties were slowly subsumed by the very rich and large corporations. Since then, for an increasing number of people, it did not matter much if they voted for the democrat or republican candidate or not.

For the next two decades, establishment democrats were happy with this status quo because it freed them from having to appeal to working class voters (irrespective of race). They could now focus their attention on bipartisan dealmaking such as signing an endless number of “free trade” agreements, gutting many thousands of factories which provided decent jobs in flyover country, shredding the social safety net, incarcerating millions of black men, spending trillions on the military and fighting endless an unsuccessful wars in other countries. More importantly, it allowed them and republicans to maintain the facade of a two-party democracy and regular elections.

The infamous presidential election of 2000 provided the first unmistakable sign that this two-decade old bipartisan consensus (to screw over the 90 %) was breaking down. But nobody in the establishment wing of democratic party wanted to believe that this beautiful dream was over, so they kept playing the old game. To that end, they approved and supported every stupid war and atrocious law pushed by the Bush43 administration. Some of you might remember that they did not dare to question Bush43 until after the debacle of Katrina and well after it was obvious to everybody with half a brain that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were unwinnable.

But it gets worse. During the 1990-2016 period, the democratic party kept on losing at the state level to republicans in parts of the country where they had historically done very well (even after 1968). And why was did this happen? Well.. because the democratic party had become as pro-corporate as their republican counterparts while pushing for unpopular measures such as gun control. Also, establishment democrats were openly hostile to candidates in those states who could have won by running on populist platforms. After the 8-year long fuckup of Bush43, the election of somebody who pretended to be populist (Obama44) was seen by some as a sign that establishment democrats had finally learned their lesson. As we know, that was not the case.

Instead they just picked up from where they had left and started singing those same rotten paeans to “bipartisanship”, beginning with the passage of an even sadder version of RomneyCare and culminating in Obama desperately trying to strike a deal with Republicans to gut Social Security and Medicare. You do know that the deportation system being used by the orange-haired buffoon was created and deployed under Obama.. right? Let us also not forget how he (and establishment democrats) bailed out banks while screwing over homeowners, did not give a fuck about mass incarceration and police brutality, kept on signing more “free trade” agreements and actively assisted further concentration of wealth by the rich while impoverishing everyone else.

And yet, democratic party cheerleaders.. I mean supporters.. are upset at the low voter turnout and their losses during the 2010, 2014 and 2016 elections. They could start by asking themselves why Obama got a few million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008. What about asking HRC why she did not campaign in the three or four “safe” mid-western states which she lost to that buffoon in 2016. Maybe they should demand answers as to why states controlled by democrats have been loathe to make voter registration easy- even when it clearly benefits them. Perhaps they should ask why establishment democrats figureheads like Pelosi and Schumer are so willing to tow the corporate line, even if it is not working for the party.

And don’t even get me started on how they treated Bernie Sanders during the 2016 democratic primary. It was disgraceful.. and yes, he would have won against Trump. Then again, it is far easier to blame the devil and other magical creatures when your crops fail or people get ill.. I mean blame Putin, Russia, Assange and Wikileaks for HRC losing to that dumbfuck. Seriously, how rotten does a political system have to be for an obnoxious troll such as Trump to win the party primary and presidency. Think about it.. the very fact that people without brain damage willingly voted for Trump says volumes about how rotten the status quo is for most people.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. November 26, 2018 at 8:18 am

    Nothing is more corrupt than the leaders of modern “center-left” or “lib-left” political parties. They claim they are “for the ordinary people” while they drink champagne and travel in limos.
    Labour Party in Britain, Democrats in the States and their equivalents in every European country. Total filth.

    The “new” labor party types and “liberal democratic” party in UK = establishment democrats in USA.

  2. Neo
    November 26, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    Why worry? WWIII or Mother Nature is about to perform a serious herd culling before too much longer.

  3. November 26, 2018 at 10:51 pm

    you forgot to mention how shitheads like Bill Maher debase those who do vote third party instead of voting for crooked Hillary. The reason for that is likely that third parties are a bigger threat to democraps than republicants…

  4. November 26, 2018 at 11:02 pm


    Do you really think the Pelosi’s and Warren’s are going to open their gated communities to these people? Donald Trump may be an asshole but the hypocrisy of the democratic party has the stench of someone who just shit their pants…

  5. MikeCA
    November 27, 2018 at 11:39 am

    Oh come on, this is getting old. I remember in 2000 everyone was saying it didn’t matter if Bush or Gore won. There was no difference between them. Well I got news for you, if Gore had won in 2000, there is a significant chance the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented. Gore would have listened to CIA warnings which Bush ignored. If 9/11 had happened under Gore, he sure would never have invaded Iraq in response.

    You are just repeating propaganda from Russian Trolls.

    Well.. funny thing, I too remember the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was probably the last period in modern american history when things were going well for almost everyone and the general mood was one of optimism and hopes for a better future. It was also a time when the biggest domestic political scandal was whether the president was getting blowjobs from an chubby intern. Simpler times..

    Now let us turn to why Al Gore lost that fateful and infamous election, when he should have easily won it against that village idiot from Texas. Do you remember who he selected for his running mate? A DINO named Joe Lieberman. The thing is.. high voter turnout requires candidates to have a populist platform and Gore did not have one. To make matters worse he did not have a personal presence like Bill Clinton.

    Do you remember the turnout during that election and many others in the late 80s and 90s? In case you do not, here is a link. But it gets worse.. Gore lost many states in 2000 which his predecessor had won by OK margins in 1996 (and yes.. I know that one was a three way-ish race). But why? Could it be lack of enthusiasm from the voter-base? Could it the fact the democratic administrations in states such as Florida had (in the past) been loathe to change laws which would allow ex-convicts to vote?

    Long story short, Al Gore allowed his centrist bias and coterie of establishment democrats and their sinecured “consultants” to run one of most lackluster presidential campaigns in recent political history. It was almost as if they were expecting to win by default, like HRC in 2016. We all know how that turned out in 2000 and 2016.

    In my opinion, 9/11 would still have occurred under a Gore administration. The biggest difference between our current timeline and that one is the horrible and expensive mistake of invading Iraq was rather unlikely to occur. But never forget that establishment democrats linked up behind Bush43 when he wanted to invade Iraq in 2002-2003.

    • November 27, 2018 at 3:45 pm

      Democrats act one during an election (they say they’ll give everyone free healthcare until the end of time) and act the other way when in office (democrats are essentially republicans that happen to be slightly more relaxed about sex, abortion and birth control but still republican on most issues…)

    • MikeCA
      November 27, 2018 at 8:30 pm

      In the 1950s and 1960s the Republican and Democratic parties were very different than they are today. The Democratic had liberals from the North and conservative, segregationist members from the South. The Republican party had liberal members from New England and conservative member like Barry Goldwater.

      The 1960 civil rights legislation had bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Segregationist Democrats and the Goldwater wing of the Republicans opposed it. Democrats outside the South and more liberal Republicans supported it.

      In the 1970s and 1980s there was a political realignment. The Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party or were replaced by Republicans. The Republican party became more conservative and the Democratic party more liberal.

      When Reagan and Bush won the presidency in the 1980s. The so-called Blue-Dog Democrats argued that the Democratic party had become too liberal for the country. This gave rise to the Clinton presidency, the so-called “centrist” Democrats.

      The parties now are more polarized. The Democratic party is still arguing within itself if it can win nationwide with a populist, liberal agenda or whether is needs a more centrist agenda.
      Trump has taken over the Republican party and shifted it to a xenophobic agenda.

      When Democrats had control of government in 2009-10, the item they tried to address was universal health care. Because of total Republican opposition, they needed to get every single Democrat on board to support the measure, and that forced a more centralist solution that was not single payer or with the single payer option. Republicans swore to repeal it and they came within one or two votes of doing just that.

      Anyone who seriously thinks there is no difference between the parties, just is not paying attention to what is going on.

      I am well aware of that particular political realignment. However all this occurred a few decades ago and the political scene (at least in DC) has remained largely constant for the last two decades.

      The question which the Democratic Party of 2018 (and future) must face is as follows: Do they want to keep following the almost failed path of being republican-lite or do they want to become the party of the people? Maintaining the present course will keep those in control of the party apparatus rich and powerful, but will make the party irrelevant within a few years. Alternatively, they could take a different path and become the party of the people, even if it means getting rid of people like Pelosi and shunning those like HRC.

    • MikeCA
      November 28, 2018 at 8:48 pm

      “The question which the Democratic Party of 2018 (and future) must face is as follows: Do they want to keep following the almost failed path of being republican-lite or do they want to become the party of the people?”

      In the midterms, Democrats had a big advantage with young voters who favor liberal, populist policies. On the other hand, Democrats made big improvements in their results with college educated whites. This allowed Democrats to flip a lot of suburban districts. These college educated whites are socially liberal but most that switched from Republican are fiscally consecrative. To hold this coalition together Democrats will have to be careful about pushing liberal, populist policies like Medicare for all.

      The working class whites are mostly a lost cause for Democrats, although there is some evidence that working class white women who are not evangelicals are shifting to the Democrats. It is possible Democrats can improve their vote with working class whites, but most are never going to switch.

      I think the real questions is what is going to become of the Republican party. Trump is xenophobic policies are scaring away people of color, women and the college educated whites. This leaves Trump with a shrinking base. Trump’s economic policies are not helping his base voters and are probably hurting them. By 2020 this may be more obvious unless Trump reverses direction.

  6. Dru McD
    November 30, 2018 at 2:39 pm

    I would like to add that during the 1990-2016 period, the Republicans successfuly exploited the moral outrage and racism of the Southern Evangelicals. Liberalism was vilified and marketed as entertainment with the growth of Right Wing media on the internet, TV and radio. Very soon, in the South and West, a Democrat couldn’t run for Dog Catcher and have a chance of winning without being hung on the Abortion pole first. At this time the Republicans lost control of their messaging, loosing control to Limbaugh, et. al. The Repub’s loved it cuz they were winning and they either fanned the flames or turned a blind eye to the monster that was growing slowly. Very soon, the tail was wagging the dog. Democrats were fools for not seeing what was going on and just expecting the Republicans to play the same-old-game. Democrats currently are fools for still being in denial and not thinking they ever needed to do anything about it. My two cents, either way. 🙂

  1. August 31, 2019 at 10:10 pm
  2. September 4, 2019 at 6:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: