Yesterday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries invited the newly winning NY Democratic Socialists into the Democratic Party, just as Democrats have included Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders in their Congressional caucus, even though most in the Democrats' House caucus do not share the anti-capitalist and one-class-of-workers rhetoric and ideology of the Democratic Socialists. https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/jeffries-welcomes-democratic-socialists-fold-194230441.html How did that happen ? Does it mean the Democratic Party embraces socialism, hook, line, and sinker? No. It has to do with reality: strength in numbers is a necessity, and a big ten strategy that dominates both parties. What Democrats and Social Democrats do share are the issues of "affordability" and anti-oligarchy.
As Democrats now wrestle with the growing strength of the Democratic Socialist wing's rise in New York and the GOP barely disguises its White Christian Nationalist fascist-like wing, voters are more and more divided into warring two political parties, with each claiming the other has been taken over by wings to be feared. The reality is that there has already been a two-party system in the US that forces compromise, exclusion, and inclusion within US politics. It is reflected in both elections and the makeup of caucus structures in Congress and state legislatures. Independents, or those who identify with Democratic Socialism on the left and libertarians on the right, pick the caucus of one of the two major parties in Congress that most closely represents their ideology or issue positions, even though only a fraction of their preferences are accepted. The result is what we see now: the term "socialist," which used to scare more establishment Democrats and most voters, is no longer freaking out most New York voters, though that might not be true in the rest of the country. What happened in NY could stay in NY, but probably not, because of a growing revolt against the GOP being the party of oligarchs and big business who care little about the kitchen table needs of working people and even the middle class.
The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about their lower-class voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables. Trump is still in power and governs by whipping self-identified members into loyal occupants of his Trumpist tent. He does it by threats of being primaried if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction leader demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am a Democrat."...but since numbers of votes count as a measure of strength and the road to power, they too invite all they can into their big tent, even if they have to hold their noses at the word socialist. What has happened is that the traditional Democratic Party leaders now realize these socialists were onto a winning message: affordability. The result is yesterday, as the Democratic House minority leader invited Democratic Socialists into their caucus, even though most already there do not embrace the anti-capitalist rhetoric or ideology of the Democratic Socialists.
Our founders did not plan it that way and, in fact, viewed political parties as a threat to the system they envisioned in the Constitution they were constructing. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, but arose as liberals and conservatives consolidated their power with organizations and names, under the banner and protection of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and the freedom to gather to air their grievances.
Two parties have dominated throughout our history, but they have frequently changed names and even reversed political ideology, even changing places, particularly in the wake of the Civil War. Their institutionalization can be found in the politics of individual states, protected by their own statutes and issues of gerrymandering, and the details of when and where and who qualifies to be on a ballot. Most voters like it simple and, if not very engaged in political news, check the box for the party's choice in general elections. Splinter parties, third parties, have a difficulty of even gathering enough votes to be a part of the power structure and how to influence the direction of the country, or enven getting parts of their platform enacted into law, with the only route to be heard and to convince one or other party, Democrat or Republican, so they battle it out within the parties, and during the primary season, and political conventions..
There are no party membership cards; it is a matter of self-identification and of whether the party's leaders reach out to include them. There is a matter of reality, that in close partisan elections, every vote counts, and even the leadership has to welcome them as they hold their noses. The result is the big tent: the bottom line in Congress and in primaries and general elections is which party gets the most votes. In short, there is strength in numbers in a democracy. It is a necessity. Fractions can only find their voice by joining a major party and making their case within it. From the perspective of the major party, the pressure is to be as big a tent as possible to win and gain the power to govern, even though not all in it are on the same page on every issue.
The result is what we see now: the term socialist that used to scare the more establishment Democrats and voters themselves is now right out there in the open and winning localized elections. The GOP is grappling with a wannabe autocrat who seems not to care a whit about the voters and who relishes branding the other party and their constituents as undesirables, while whipping their members into loyal occupants of their tent by threats of being primaried and finding themselves excommunicated if they are not loyal 100% on every issue their leading MAGA faction demands. On the other side of the aisle, the old joke is still applicable: "I do not belong to an organized party. I am a Democrat." However, the reality and necessity persist: strength in numbers.
My facebook friend responded with...so what do you want to do about it? Where am I personally? I rarely am so open or ever did my own manifesto, but here it is at this moment. There is is no silver bullet. Yes, the 2008 financial crisis was because regulators were asleep at the wheel, mixing bad, risky loans with good ones in tranches, and then passing them off as purely A-rated...among some. Other banks did not have enough capital in reserve In relation to bad loans, etc. I am not sure if I can resurrect my old columns on that, but the regulators were MIA in the RE tranches, likewise in the Bernie Madoff scheme. Lots of reform legislation was passed, but if no one enforces them, they are as I said, not worth the paper they were printed on. Where am I going with democratic socialists? As I wrote... it is a necessity I am not totally comfortable with, I guess. I am more middle-of-the-road. Capitalism, well-regulated and fair to the middle class and workers, but opposed to lopsided tax laws that only benefit the already very rich, which do not trickle down. The rich should pay their fair share. Trick down work? Never has; never will.
I did not mention foreign policy and Trump's blunder on the Iran war, but I am still a bit of a cold warrior, and I vehemently support Ukraine's brave attempt to join the West in the face of Russian invasion. To update, with half of my family in Europe, stability and freedom from Putin's control are as important now as they were in the last century. Trump's isolationism is a danger to US security, and now, instead of America First, we are America Alone as Trump steers us to alliances with those who would do us harm, in his admiration of countries run by dictatorships of a person or a party who are pariahs of the rest of the world.
Capitalism cannot be healthy with TACO chaos, and we need population growth; only immigration can supply as our birth rates dip. I do support strong border control and migrant rights, however. The rule of law must rule: it is what foreign investors cherished at one time, and I fear Trump has upended it. I am a supporter of civil rights and in that regard, am closer to libertarians on that issue,, but I believe strongly that government has a role in making our lives fairer and better.
One thing I did not mention that democratic socialists and I agree on: using the tools of democracy to achieve goals. This is in sharp contrast to Trump and loyalists who condone, forgive, and reward violent overthrow and paramilitary thugs to do the dirty work, whether Jan 6 or ICE. I firmly support an executive branch subject to the separation and balance of powers. Right now, I am a big supporter of the No Kings movement and peaceful mass demonstrations as the best political tool to deal with Trump, a wannabe autocrat. Trump may be a lame duck, but he is a duck with fangs and can do a lot of damage to our democracy in the two and a half years he has left.
Y
