Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 3

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 3

In my previous post of this series, I pointed out that the upper echelons of democratic party are so full of effete professionals that it can no longer win national elections unless the other party screws up hard. And to reiterate, racist white anger after the passage of civil rights legislation in 1960s is not the main reason behind the decline of democratic party in most states since the early 1990s. If that was the case, why did a few coastal states such as California, Oregon and Washington go from being reliable republican strongholds in early 1980s to reliably democrat by early 2000s? My point is that something else is at work.

Here is a clue. The shift of any given state (historically non-slave owning) from the democrat to republican column almost always occurs after many years of economic stagnation, permanent job losses, systemic deindustrialization, increase in poverty and zero hope for a better future. On the other hand, those which fare better under the neoliberal regime of “free” trade (predominantly coastal states) end up becoming democrat strongholds. You might have also noticed that the propensity of a state or even a city to vote for democrats after 1992 has a peculiar correlation with its percentage who have office jobs and others that require “credentials” or “licenses” of some sort. So why does this connection exist?

To make a long story short, it comes down to which socio-economic group benefits from the real policies of each party. White university “educated” petite bourgeoisie are the core constituency of modern democratic party. Notably, this group is heavily dependent on government spending and “regulation” for keeping their often useless jobs and professions protected from the negative effects of globalization, while simultaneously being able to use outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and influx of desperate undocumented immigrants to inflate their own living standards. Think of them as the modern equivalent of white people who weren’t rich enough to afford tons of slaves but had enough money for a couple of slaves.

But aren’t there tons of the mythical small-business owners who are reliably conservative and vote republican? Well.. there used to be. Right till the end of 1980s, the business environment in USA was reasonably conducive to the establishment and growth of small to medium businesses. Since then, the neoliberal consolidation of businesses and financialization of the economy resulted in the slow-motion destruction of small to medium sized enterprises. The vast majority of “small businesses” in this country today are now single-person entities used to process earnings from side-gigs or unstable contractor-type jobs.

Corporate consolidation has now created a system that is almost totally dominated by monopolies and oligopolies. Most petite bourgeoisie in america are, therefore, now mostly professionals, people in “licensed” professions, middle to upper management types and those aspiring to join their ranks. These people also happen to be concentrated in larger cities, especially on the coast. Now you know why democrats are so desperate to gain votes from richer white suburbs who are still marginally republican. Ok.. but why do so many black people, especially from the older generation, vote for democrats.

Well.. there are a few reasons for that pattern, but it largely comes down to two major ones. In the early 1960s, the democratic party (at national level) moved from its previous pro-apartheid position to one which supported civil rights. A large number of black people, especially those born after 1930 but before 1970, see democrats as the party of civil rights. They also actively recruited a few black politicians in its ranks. The other reason is that republicans, after 1968, became the party of working class whites. Some of you might wonder as to why republicans focused on working class whites instead of focusing on the entire working class.

The superficial reason for that choice is as follows: the demographic and racial profile of USA in 1960s-1980s was such that restricting oneself to working class whites was a viable political strategy. But the real reason is far more interesting. Both parties have always been controlled and beholden to the very rich and large corporations. Also, electoral politics in USA has always been a stage-managed show. But why did it appear to work? Well.. because a combination of circumstances and situations in the first seven decades of 20th century created enough spare wealth to duct-tape over a lot of systemic problems.

Until the 1980s and even 1990s, the overall economic situation for most people was good enough for them to ignore class-based politics. The peculiar history of USA and its racial demography in those decades. also, made it much easier to push race-based political divisions. In other words, restricting your electoral support to the white working class was a very viable strategy. And that is why republicans became so obsessed with “crime”, “law and order”, “war on drugs” and all that other bullshit after 1968. But note that even in the late-1970s, rates of incarceration (except in deep south) were comparable to other western countries.

But what does any of this have to with democrats in 2019 wanting to implement strict “gun control” laws, trying to outdo each other at being “woke” and do meaningless token bullshit such as banning plastic straws and passing other stupid laws to “protect” the environment. And why are these virtue-display based strategies likely to be counterproductive? To better understand what I am getting at, let me ask you a simple question- why did Trump win the republican nomination and then the presidency in 2018. So let us start by answering the first part, namely how he was able to beat 16 other candidates, some with especially deep pockets.

While some of you might still want to believe that it had something to do with “Russia” or “Putin”, the real if somewhat unpleasant explanation is that his success in the primaries was the logical culmination of post-1968 direction of republican party. Trump was (and is) not an aberration. He was just far more open about his worldview. More interesting, but seldom explored, is why all those other generic mediocrities failed. Why did all those republican politicians duly reciting republican beliefs and pieties fail against Trump? To make a long story short, their performance of the republican version of virtue displays could no longer compete with Trump’s pretense of caring for the white working class.

A slightly longer version is that since 2008, or even a few years earlier, public trust in institutions and systems have fallen in a precipitous and irreversible manner. Performing the same virtue displays which would have guaranteed victory in republican primaries as late as 2008 are not longer sufficient. A few years ago, I wrote a post on how anodyne communication styles have destroyed societal trust. But how is any of this connected to the current clown car of democratic presidential candidates? Well.. it comes down to what that party has learned, or not learned, from their humiliation in 2016. As it turns out, democrats haven’t learned anything useful.

As I wrote in my previous post in this series, people in 2019 care far more about issues such as being able to afford “healthcare”, cost of university education, poor job and career security than the urgent need to ban guns. Face it.. this issue only matters to some credentialed professionals living in urban areas of certain coastal states. However these parasites are highly represented in the social bubble inhabited by the upper echelons of the democratic party. I cannot resist pointing out that this situation is analogous to that time in 2015-2016 when many republican candidates (except Trump) tried to portray themselves as morally upright family men educated at famous universities. Guess what.. most republican voters did not give a shit about the personal moral standards of their elected representatives.

So why did all those allegedly mainstream republican candidates in 2015-2016 keep on reciting these pieties? Here is a clue.. it had to do with their social circle and bubble. In the past thirty years, most politicians of both parties have lost the ability to relate with people outside their carefully insulated social bubble. Consequently they keep harping on stuff which is fashionable and ‘hip’ in their social circles but is seen as out of touch in the real world. Democrats talking about their “wokeness” or being “totally supportive” of LGBTQ issues is similar to republicans talking about their “christian faith” and “virtues of hard work entrepreneurship”. The average voter perceives both as comically inept hypocrites and parasites.

In the next part, I will finally get into some detail about why democratic support for causes such as “gun control”, LGBTQ+ issues and environmentalism are going to be especially disastrous during the 2020 elections.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Gern Blanderson
    September 9, 2019 at 4:29 am

    “Guess what.. most republican voters did not give a shit about the personal moral standards of their elected representatives.”

    I agree with this and also agree that the all American voters did not care enough and did not put a priority on moral standards in 2015. I first recall seeing the breakdown in moral standards during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was eye opening to me that a few years earlier (in 1991), the feminists and democrats were trying to block the Clarence Thomas nomination. Then later, they saying that Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment was “no big deal” and was private. The revelation of Trump’s Access Hollywood tapes fiasco was a similar situation where voters didn’t care. Bill Clinton already greased the skids for sexual harassment to be acceptable.

    But wow, not times have changed and the MeToo movement is in full forces.

    • doldrom
      September 9, 2019 at 11:42 am

      I think people do care, and it is negative for a campaign; it’s just that too many other things trump those kind of considerations, for most people it doesn’t rise to top-level things that they consider important to their perception of the present & the future. Between two similar candidates such matters would still make some difference. I’m actually surprised that not more people are upset at Warren’s and Biden’s moral lapses and hypocrisy, since they are mostly running on moral indignation.

    • September 9, 2019 at 6:04 pm

      “I first recall seeing the breakdown in moral standards during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal.”

      All of that is nothing new. The same things have always been going on for many generations, for centuries, throughout history. The reason you didn’t “see” it before is because you weren’t looking or weren’t mature enough. Don’t be fooled. The lie that humans are loosing their moral compass, that past times were more moral and that the world is rushing to ruin…. unless….. unless you vote for the right candidate or political party… is not a new lie. It is one of the oldest and perhaps the absolute oldest shit scams in the political arsenal.

  2. Neil
    September 9, 2019 at 6:01 pm

    “Notably, this group is heavily dependent on government spending and “regulation” for keeping their often useless jobs and professions protected from the negative effects of globalization, while simultaneously being able to use outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and influx of desperate undocumented immigrants to inflate their own living standards.”

    I’m sorry, but this paragraph makes no sense, and seems contradictory. Are the Silicon Valley types and Hollywood types really against globalization? If so, why do they love making films that sell better in China? Why does Silicon Valley love their H-1B visa workers and push the pathetic lie “there’s a shortage of STEM workers”? So how exactly are they using the government to “regulate” and protect their jobs when they advocate for MORE immigration & diversity? I fail to follow your logic here.

    • September 9, 2019 at 6:34 pm

      The reason you fail to see the logic is because you do not see the big picture AND you do not see details. Are you in a job that is supported by regulations? Are you credentialed or licensed?

      AD is correct. There are many jobs today that require certification or licensing that did not in the past. The neoliberals are absolutely against true globalization. They are for it only in as much as it benefits them. The vast majority of silly valley and hollyweirds are white neoliberal types. Only those of other races who act like them are allowed in their click.

      Do not be deceived. There is still much bigotry. The bigotry often plays out shrouded in what many mistakenly see as, or willfully pretend to be, its opposite. For example, in college I body built with a group of guys one of which was black. Let’s say his name was Warren. One of the other white guys (I’m white) said to me one day, “the only thing about Warren that is black is the color of his skin”. This guy was trying to project the idea that he was not prejudice. But the fact is he was, and probably still is, a bigot. Ask yourself, what difference would it make if there were other things about Warran that made him black? What would those other things be? Things that made him even less like a white person? And… why would it matter? And… if it doesn’t matter, then why bring it up? So, as you can see by a little examination, what that guy was really saying was that he was a bigot. He was in fact uncomfortable with the fact that Warren was black. Otherwise he would not have mentioned it. He would have had no reason to. Pay closer attention to what people DON’T say in the context of their conversation than what they do say. What they DON’T say almost always is what they are really saying, especially with these jackass politicians.

    • Yusef
      September 10, 2019 at 11:36 am

      “Are the Silicon Valley types and Hollywood types really against globalization?

      I think it is odd to jump to the conclusion AD was speaking about Silicon Valley and Hollywood when he made the comments you cite. My opinion is he was speaking about a nationwide strata of government employees, bureaucrats, and those who contract or subcontract on governmentally-funded projects or exist financially due to jobs created out of thin air by governmental regulations which do little more than create such jobs. If anything– like them or hate them– but Silicon Valley and Hollywood are outside of this loop for the most part. Both still make something and make something which sells and is not fully artificially induced. Hollywood and SV obviously are not against globalization. (Less than half of Hollywood’s revenues are from domestic sales.)

      I’m surprised, though, AD doesn’t trace the development of this strata through the devastation of manufacturing in the US, especially in the ’90s. It seems to me you might explain some of these people continuing to vote democratic the same way AD explains blacks continuing to vote democratic. The democratic party used to better represent labor in manufacturing than the republicans did and some of these people vote as if they refuse to see the role of the democratic party in shipping their well paid jobs to overseas.

      • dafix
        September 10, 2019 at 11:59 am

        Actually, most silly valley “unicorns” are based on regulatory arbitrage aka exploiting government ineptitude. So they indirectly are a result of government regulation (specifically the lack of it) For example, if we had a robust public transportation system there would be no Uber or Lyft. Other major tech companies like Google and Facebook are really just marketing agencies, like those companies that sell billboard ads but ported to the 21st century. They don’t really produce anything.

        Most of the technology used by silicon valley is the result of research done by international grad students in government funded universities paid poverty wages. It’s the same model of profiting off of immigrant labor except it’s skilled labor rather than blue collar.

      • Yusef
        September 10, 2019 at 3:04 pm

        I didn’t mean to deny any of what you say, dafix. I meant to point out silly valley and hollyweird are pro-globalization and obviously so.

  3. Rick
    September 9, 2019 at 6:18 pm

    Trump was elected because of mass immigration and globalization destroying the middle and lower class. A good chunk was also to combat political correctness. But was there really any difference between establishment Democrats and RHINOs? Both of them enjoyed mass immigration (Koch brothers / Hillary Clinton / Obama / Jeb Bush) and both parties kept doing the corporations’ bidding. Trump came in and said a big FUCK you to all of the party members. That’s why Rubio and Jeb Bush failed miserably. That’s why, experienced Hillary Clinton lost miserably.

    Look at why Establishment Democrats in the current race are polling so horribly: Kamala Harris, Amy Klobouchar, Cory Booker, Beta O’Rourke, Kristen Gillibrand etc. And the more WOKE you go, and the more LEFT you go, notice how the pollings start to go down for BOTH Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

    • dafix
      September 10, 2019 at 12:00 pm

      Most of what you say is retarded bullshit, but you are a perfect example of the delusional whites AD refers to. The ineptitude and elitism of the Democrats is why idiots like you voted for Trump.

      • Yusef
        September 10, 2019 at 4:45 pm

        You really need to support why citing mass immigration and globalization destroying middle and lower class is retarded bullshit and had nothing to do with Trump winning. Give some examples why it was all about elitism and the delusion of whites. Here and there a non-white had to vote for Trump, and here and there was a legal immigrant who understood they’d been undercut by people willing to work for nothing, coming into the country illegally. Or is that my own spin and flush of bullshit? (At least I’m a bull, not a cow or a steer.) It is all a happy merry-go-round except for the delusional whites AD refers to?

        Who decides who comes in and who has to stay out? Delusional whites? Gee, sure wish I didn’t have color in my veins, because I’d be happy to make those decisions.

  4. September 9, 2019 at 6:49 pm

    I think the biggest reason Trump won may be because he was publicly stating things a large enough portion of white working class voters, and more blacks than the democrats were willing to admit, had been personally thinking for years. That, combined with Trumps coinage of the term “fake news” which almost everyone knew was true for decades is what clinched his very narrow victory. The news has always been corrupt, that will never change totally but it is worse right now than maybe ever in this country because it has been consolidated in to the hands of a few. This is why it has devolved into hyper indignation and prolific bullshit with the likes of Sean Insanity and Rachel Madcow.

  1. September 20, 2019 at 5:31 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: