"What has become of the Democratic Party I once knew?" 1992

"Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning. We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lost the courts and wait for a White House scandal.
And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics. The accepted wisdom that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists these days goes like this: The Republican Party has been able to consistently win elections not by expanding its base but by vilifying Democrats, driving wedges into the electorate, energizing its right wing, and disciplining those who stray from the party line. If the Democrats ever want to get back into power, then they will have to take up the same approach.
...Ultimately, though, I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in "either/or" thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace "socialized medicine". It is such doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship that have turned Americans off of politics. "

In 1933 a group of sincere and ardent collectivists seized control of the Democratic Party, used it as a means of grasping Federal power, and enthusiastically, from motives which many of them regard as the highest idealism, began to make America over. The Democratic Party is now a political mechanism having a genuine political principle: national socialism.

Good policy is good politics. Standing up to corporate greed and improving the lives of the majority of the American people is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do politically. Democrats used to know this. That's why the party dominated congressional elections for the last half of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, too many leaders of the current Democratic Party have rejected the vision that made their party strong in the past- just as they have lost sight of what could make it strong in the future. The sad truth is that, if you boil it down, the essence of the Democratic message in recent years has been: "We're pretty bad, but Republicans are worse. So vote for us. We're the lesser of two evils!"
Given the reality of the Republican Party today- their growing attacks on democracy and women's rights, their abysmal record on climate change and the environment, their support for tax breaks for the rich and cuts in programs for working families and the poor- there's more than a grain of truth in that message. And it might be enough to win elections in the short term- as was the case in 2020, and to a lesser extent in 2022. But what it doesn't do is get to the root causes of the Democratic Party's problems, let alone the country's problems. It doesn't generate grassroots excitement or coalition building. It doesn't strengthen our democracy. It doesn't create hope. It doesn't lay out a plan for the future that's based on the shared values that will bring Americans together to achieve great things. It doesn't recognize that, when the olgarchs and the corporate world are waging class war against working Americans, the working class needs a party that will fight back. And win.

The Democratic Party began to tone down their supremacy-of-race ideology since the Civil Rights movement gained ground in the mid-1950s. As the belief in white people’s superiority continued to grow unpopular, the Democratic Party leadership realized that they were going to lose a huge influx of newly registered black voters. Embracing the superiority of white people became a dead end in the battle for power, which they saw as political suicide. The Democratic leaders had to devise another scheme to obtain votes from both white and black citizens while still subjecting them to the plantation bullwhip of paternalism and socialism. To accomplish this, the Democrats had to replace white supremacy with ‘state supremacy,’ which recast the state as the new slave master and societal overlord, regardless of race. This should not be surprising since Democrat Party ideological foundations were originally based on the ‘man-stealing’ premise of domination and submission.

The roots of defeat which were put down by some of the elements of our party in the two or three years after 1980 made victory difficult to achieve.

The Democratic Party is beyond redemption at this point when it comes to seriously speaking to the needs of poor and working people… The neofascism that's escalating is predicated on the rottenness of a system in which the Democratic Party facilitates that frustration and desperation because it can't present an alternative… If America is unable to present an alternative to the Democratic Party, then we're going fascist.

I think that if you ask me right now, why it went down this way? Ballpark answer: Misogyny, weakened rhetoric on immigration -- that is to say, Democrats stopped pushing back against anti-immigrant sentiment and started kind of adopting it themselves -- and a lack of economic populism. They are fighting for procedural institutionalist rhetoric in a world that is populist.

The Democratic Party, whatever that is, lacks a vision or an ideology. But many people have said this. Why? That is because it is a conglomeration of mutually exclusive parts. It contains a large part of the American working class, which has suffered greatly since the Great Recession began. But it also contains a lot of Wall Street people and well-to-do people, and new technologists. What policies is going to unite these people? It's hard to find a unifying theme among them, other than they don’t want the Republicans in power. Now, that often gets you fairly far, but it doesn't allow you to govern very effectively.

Amid so much economic suffering and despair, when many Americans have lost faith in their government – and when millions are prepared to accept lies about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election – it is imperative that Democrats pass a bold and aggressive economic agenda within the first 100 days of Joe Biden’s presidency. Now is not the time to think small. It is the time to think big and to restore faith among working families – Black, White, Latino, Asian American and Native American – that in a democratic society, government can respond to their needs. Failure to adequately respond to the economic desperation in America today will undermine the Biden administration and likely lead Democrats to lose their thin majorities in the US House of Representatives and US Senate in 2022. Democrats suffered significant loses in 1994, two years after President Bill Clinton’s victory – and, in 2010, two years after President Barack Obama’s victory. We must not repeat those mistakes. The danger we face would not be in going too big or spending too much but in going too small and leaving the needs of the American people behind. If Republicans would like to work with us, we should welcome them. But their support is not necessary. In 2010, Sen. Mitch McConnell was willing to sabotage the economy to advantage Republicans, doing everything he could to make Obama a "one-term president." We cannot let him play the same games again.

What the Democratic Party has most liked to say about itself—that it is the party of the working man, the voice of the oppressed, the tribune of the people—loses some of its strut in the light of a rather long list of inconvenient facts, chiefly having to do with slavery and race. Such facts as these: that the Democrats were the party that championed chattel bondage, backed an expansionist war to expand slavery's realm, and corrupted the Supreme Court in order to open the western territories to the cancer. The party's Southern wing then led the nation into civil war in defense of slavery while its Northern wing did its best to stymie the administration of Abraham Lincoln, widely regarded by the Democrats as an accidental, even illegitimate, president. Thereafter, the party embraced Jim Crow as slavery's next-best substitute, elected a president who imposed segregation on the federal workforce, and remained the chief opponent of racial equality...

This is a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party, which in too many cases has become so corporate and identified with corporate interests that you can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

In the years between our defeat in 1979 and our defeat in 1983 Labour was increasingly seen to be a party slipping towards impossiblism, succumbing to fads, riven by vicious divisions, speaking the language of sloganised dogma – and usually voicing it in the accents of menace. It was almost as if sections of the party measured the purity of their socialism by the distance which they could put between it and the minds of the British people.

The agenda that is being put forward by those on my side of this movement — Medicare for All, living wages, making sure people can unionize, protecting voting rights — the overwhelming majority of people believe in it. What is missing is intestinal fortitude on the side of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party as a whole have to make a decision: Is this the party of the corporatists, or is it going to be the party of the people? So far, it is failing and proven that it is the party of the corporatists.