mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
2016 And Beyond
The DNC Doubles Down
Features Icon
show comments
  • Beauceron

    I think the Democrats have every reason to be confident, even triumphalist.

    Look, the massive immigration the country has seen over the past 30 years was planned, fought for and encouraged by the Left. They were not going to win the argument, so they changed the facts on the ground. If you can’t convince the people, get new people. And so we have. Personally, as a registered independent, I think the 2016 election will be the last presidential race the Republicans will even have a slim chance of winning. After that, it’s local office only, and by 2040, I think there may be a few conservatives from places like Montana or the Dakotas, but that’s it. Plus, they get the added benefit of all social justice warfare all the time, a never ending divisiveness and emphasis on race, gender and ethnicity. A perfect storm for the Left.

    It was a ruthless, shameful, unethical policy that altered (transformed, I suppose, according to our President), but it was also brilliant in a nasty sort of way. It’s effectiveness cannot be denied. Democracy is a numbers game, and demographics is destiny. We will, in essence, be a one party state.

    • CosmotKat

      Likely not. The over reach by Democrats may resonate with smug and self-righteous urban dwellers, but the effect of their policies will eventually drive people away because Americans vote their pocketbook in most elections. The overt and covert Progressive operations are turning people off as is the media complex where agitprop is seen for what it is……..deceit. You cannot rely on importing your constituency for the long term since it will continue to be a drag on our economy as more and more of the wealth of the average American is funneled upward to pay democratic patronage and what’s left is redistributed to their constituents in the form of transfer payments. shrinking disposable income can be tracked directly to really bad domestic policy and Americans are angry over the loss of their wealth and standard of living. One party rule would be short and likely usher in civil war.

      • Jim__L

        Nah, one-party rule just caused the 2010 backlash with a followup in 2014. Democracy still works.

        Also — people are assuming that all immigrants will vote Democrat, all the time, down through the generations. “Omg we’re” Republicans will erode and finally collapse ethnic monoliths, even faster if Rubio or Carson ends up the GOP nominee.

  • WigWag

    “Based on the report, the Democrats’ working theory seems to be that if they double down on their increasingly assertive liberalism and spend more money, the base will be fired up, the voters will show up, and the party will prevail. There is no need to think about constructing a broader coalition or appealing to more working class whites and independents, as Bill Clinton did in the 1990s…” (Via Meadia)

    It’s actually far worse than that. Democratic elites actually hate working class whites. They despise their values, they despise the ways in which they earn their living, they despise the activities they engage in to recreate, they despise their religiosity and they despise their patriotism. To be frank about it, Democratic elites find working class whites culturally repugnant.

    The gentry liberals who own the Democratic Party lock, stock and barrel love poor people, especially if they receive public assistance; they love the ultra-rich as well, even as they pretend not to. But their animosity to working class whites is hard to overstate; Democratic elites are convinced that working class white people are intolerant bigots who hate blacks, gays, women (even it the working class whites in question are women themselves), the dialed, the transgendered and whatever other victim of the month club member that the elites choose to admit to the society of the semi (and not so semi) oppressed.

    • Blackbeard

      Well said. Bravo.

    • solstice

      Leftists clearly do not have a problem with all forms of religious expression given how much they pander to and appease Islam. There are certain religions they tend to not be hostile to (such as Islam, Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, New Age paganism, liberal Protestantism etc.) because they do not associate these religions with the values they despise the most: patriotism, capitalism, and Western military and economic power. Indeed, among the groups of people leftists tend to romanticize the most (sub-Saharan Africans, hispanics, Third World Muslims) tend to be the most religious in the world. In the warped and deluded leftist mind, groups such as these are always the victims, can do no wrong, and can never be criticized. Given that organized religion has historically been the most powerful force for censorship, social control, and repression, leftism can be viewed as a religious dogma. It has its own scriptures, clergy, blasphemy laws, excommunications, witch hunts, unsupported claims about reality, and demands for obedience and conformity. It is profoundly regressive and illiberal.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Speak for yourself. You just lied about me, a leftist—-straight up lied. I know it. You know it.

        • solstice

          This is how the dominant strain of Western leftists thinks. Sure, there are some on the left–such as Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins–who rebel against the “progressive consensus,” but it is clear that this kind of thinking prevails in academia and the mainstream media and has become increasingly ascendant in the Democratic party. You are free to believe that Western leftists are generally tolerant, rational, civil, and enlightened people, and you might be such a person, but that is not how I generally perceive them. If most on the left were like Sam Harris, I would agree with you, but you know and I know that this is not the case.

          • FriendlyGoat

            There is just something TOO twisted about claiming that left-side thinking is an “organized religion” with dogma, scriptures, clergy, blasphemy laws, excommunications, witch hunts, and demands for obedience and conformity. You are listing off the worst things you can recall about some actual organized religions and applying them to people who, in fact, do not have or do any of the things you enumerated.

            There is something TOO twisted about claiming that we liberals wish to appease Islam when almost all of us would be delighted for the entirety of the darned thing to just go away forever.

            There is something TOO twisted about implying that Christianity exists to promote American patriotism, capitalism and Western military and economic power—-and that you can identify it as “historically” the most powerful voice in THIS country for censorship, social control and repression.

            The whole post was upside down and backwards—–typical of modern political conservatism. (I, too, can “generalize” about where you get this junk.)

          • Jim__L

            – Political correctness, speech codes, and penalties for crimethink remind me of nothing so much as heresy laws. You can be excommunicated from a university now, for speaking up against the dogma of certain parts of the Left.

            – Pulling back on criticism of Islam for fear of Charlie Hebdo-style attacks, while not pulling back on criticism for Christianity, looks a lot like craven appeasement in the face of threats of violence.

            – The politically correct Left has taken on the mantle of Puritanism, giving Christianity a run for its money in terms of censorship, social control, and repression.

            I’m pretty convinced at this point that you are not part of the Politically Correct Left, just like I’m not a member of the Spanish Inquisition. However, we both need to come to terms a little better about what others are doing in the name of points of view with which we identify. Emphasizing different aspects of people or events, or recognizing different priorities, can lead to blind spots.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, I’m an odd Leftie, I guess, because I feel a lot of criticism for Islam and virtually none for Christianity. My problems with Islam are that 1) it was about 700 year late and seeks mostly to supplant Jesus with something “supposedly” greater and wiser, 2) its prophet is and was a highly questionable fellow, 3) it is “not liberal”, that is setting itself above the idea of any human rights not specified by the sayings of Mohammad—–including many of the human rights we are agreeing upon in Western places via secular democracy.

            It is possible, I suppose, that some university overseers might give me a very hard time for my views if I mentioned them in such a setting. If they did, I would ascribe their intolerance of me to their misunderstanding of what Islam is at the root.

            As for Jesus, I’m of the opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with Him for our times. And yet we know that there are sects in the past (or present) which have justified ridiculous things in His name—-or perhaps more accurately, in the Bible’s name.

            As a liberal, I have been uncomfortable and off-put with any Lefties who have made fun of the Gospel during my whole life.
            I still am. Grace is not ever a joke. Jesus’s personal sacrifice is not a joke. Good altar calls in a church are not a joke. “Getting saved” is not a joke. Holding hands and praying with someone while not in a church is not a joke.

            But, for society, I do believe in high taxes on very high incomes, collective bargaining, universal health care, public education, minimum wages, regulation of business practices, government involvement with environmental issues, our efforts at the United Nations, that birth control is necessary and that abortion is not a subject for men’s politics, and that same-sex people being married (preferably not promiscuous) is okay.
            All of that knocks me out of ever fitting with conservatives, including those gathering in many or most churches. I’m not in the mood to “fake it” for them, and they’re not in a mood to tolerate my views. So, I find I belong with Democrats—-even though some leftists are wrong about some things. Marxism, for instance, is and was a colossal error in both theory and practice. So is fun-making of Jesus. I don’t support that stuff and I have to realize that SOME people on my side are over-the top nuts.

          • Jim__L

            You seem to be an old-fashioned Blue Model, New Deal Leftie. Or as WRM might put it, a “conservative” — looking to conserve the sort of America FDR put together. 😉

            Thank you for the chat — it’s always good to get reinforcement that there’s a reason for reasonable conversation, even on the web.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You’re welcome. We’ll likely meet again on other subjects (or variations of the same ones in other articles.)

          • solstice

            A couple of corrections. I did not imply that “Christianity exists to promote American patriotism, capitalism and Western military and economic power.” I specifically mentioned “liberal Protestantism” as one of the religions leftists tend to not be hostile to. However, leftists tend to be hostile to conservative forms of religion in the West such as Evangelical Protestantism, Mormonism, conservative Catholicism, and Orthodox Judaism because they do associate these religions with patriotism, capitalism, and what they regard as Western military imperialism. My own view is that individual liberty, secular government, and free market capitalism form the backbone of American greatness and power and that America would be greater if all of those religions ceased to exist. I share the general leftist disdain for those religions, but I despise the hypocrisy and cowardice they display with respect to Islam. Secondly, I said that organized religion–and not just Christianity–has historically been the most powerful force for censorship, social control and repression in general and not just in this country. At the present time, Islam surpasses Christianity in this regard by far.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Okay. Perhaps leftists are hostile to “conservative forms of religion in the West” because, in general, we are hostile to “conservative” anything. I’m glad we agree that Islam in the modern era seems to have surpassed Christianity in the modern era for censorship, social control and repression in general.

          • Jim__L

            How soon the Cold War has been forgotten…

    • f1b0nacc1

      Absolutely correct.
      I work for an energy company in Kansas City, and the overwhelming majority of the folks that I work with are middle and working-class white people, while the people I report to are upper-class whites. Several nights a week I work with a group of teenagers in a robotics club, where 90% are upper-class whites and 10% are middle and working class. With this group I spend a lot of time dealing with their parents.
      In both cases, the divide between the classes is stark. The Upper classes are almost all solidly Democrat, and they evince nothing but contempt for the their middle and working class (who are most Republican) associates. They (the upper class cohorts) are often barely able to remain civil, much less polite in the presence of their less fortunate comrades, and they treat them with an almost breathtaking lack of regard that I find amazing in both work and civil environments. All the time that this is going on, these pillars of the community risk serious injury patting themselves upon the back telling each other how much more enlightened they are than those Neandrethals they look down upon.
      I would be most surprised if the Democrats ever find a way to reach out to the middle and working classes, they despise them so deeply. Their strategy seems more along the lines of lining up identity communities (various ‘marginalized communities’ in the current lingo), along with public employees and whatever other tribal groups they can find to patch together 51% in various elections. The emphasis on massive immigration is a clear indicator of this strategy at work. In the words of a much wiser man than I, they hope to ‘dismiss the electorate and impanel a new one’.

    • FriendlyGoat

      It’s important to include enough of the famous Obama “cling” quote for readers to get the context which conservatives like to omit, that his remarks were about people in towns where the decent jobs had been gone for decades. Here it is:

      “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

      Obama was not wrong to say any of this. It was precisely true in 2008 and it’s precisely true now.

      Democrats do not hate working-class white people. It’s quite the reverse. With the increasing willful ignorance on the part of working-class white people (with no small help from the liars of talk radio) to believe that religion or guns——OR REPUBLICANS—–will fix their diminishing economic prospects, they might as well be using their guns to literally shoot their own feet.

      • WigWag

        I just don’t see how the few extra sentences uttered by Obama that you quoted changes anything. Actually, its reasonable to conclude that they make Obama’s remark even more offensive.

        He labels people who have lost their jobs and seen their towns collapse as “bitter.” Has he called acolytes of the “black lives matter movement, “bitter?” Has he called the college students who’ve become apoplectic about politically incorrect Halloween costumes “bitter.” Does he consider environmentalists who never stop complaining about the search for shale oil and gas, “bitter?” If he has, I haven’t noticed.

        Does Obama really think that small town America is religious because it is impoverished? Can you imagine a more bigoted sentiment coming from an American President. Isn’t it just possible that those Pennsylvanians and midwesterners that the President was slandering don’t “cling” to their religion; maybe they are just religious? Do you really need to be bitter and unemployed to be religious; that’s what the President suggested. As for guns; isn’t it just possible that those midwesterners owned firearms before the economy in their communities collapsed and that now that the midwestern economy has collapsed they still feel entitled to exercise their second amendment rights? Maybe Pennsylvanians who own firearms do so not because they’re bitter and not because they’re impoverished but because they are taking advantage of their constitutional rights. If the communities Obama was talking about magically experienced an economic renaissance, does Obama really believe that the people who live in those communities would throw away their guns? Why should they?

        The reality, Friendly Goat, is that Obama’s remarks were hateful which is not surprising because he is a hateful person. The hate that characterizes Obama perfectly epitomizes the hate that is pervasive in the gentry liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I want to emphasize that its not all Democrats who’ve fallen victim to this, its Democratic gentry liberals. But this branch of the Party is ascendant and has overpowered the part of the Democratic Party focused on economic issues.

        Gentry liberals hate America. They believe that the United States is so mired in racial bigotry, sexism, imperialism, homophobia, oppression of the transgendered and who knows how many other heinous sins that our country is irredeemable. Working class whites represent everything that gentry liberals find offensive.

        Would working class whites be smarter to vote for the Democratic Party even though the elites who run the Democratic Party find them repugnant? Maybe yes, maybe no. It all depends on whether you believe that the economic programs espoused by the Democrats are likely to improve the lot of working class whites. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

        But its hard to expect Democrats to win the vote of people who they plainly believe to be repulsive.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Working-class white people could be RUNNING the Democratic Party if they hadn’t—-after being economically disappointed—-decided to be seduced by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, (some of) the pastors focusing mostly on politics and on an addiction to ever-increasing firepower.

          OF COURSE working-class people owned guns and went to church back in the more-halcyon days of the middle class when unions were strong and the combination of high-end tax cuts and employment-at-will had not strangled their livelihoods and their dignities. But church was about Jesus and about helping the down-trodden. Guns were for hunting and sport, and shooting was kept in perspective—-not the marathon sessions of shooting Glocks and Bushmasters at the ranges as practice for killing people as is common today.

          And, yes, being raised on the idea of America being the land of opportunity and then watching as larger forces kill the economic hearts of what we once thought were our “salt of the earth” people and towns—-it absolutely does make people bitter over time and PLENTY of people have succumbed to that perpetual outlook.

          Conservatism tells them that what is wrong with their lives is that abortion, gay people, “big government”, black Obama and gun laws are the reasons why they and their wives are all working their butts off and sliding further behind economically with each passing year. Many of them have believed that utter nonsense and are BITTER AS HELL and buying more guns every day—IMAGINING they will someday join some literal revolution, shoot a bunch of people and somehow not end up in prison for doing so.

          Meanwhile, the “gentry liberals” (your words) are those who still have livelihoods of one kind or another and are still focused on other issues besides being mad at losing their jobs and income.
          The gentry liberals are trying to tell the working class to stop voting for the damnable high-end tax cuts that have been killing them for 37 years. Those working-class folks who, in their delusion about political church, gay hating and Bushmaster fever, are still insisting on further ruining the country with Republicanism ARE disdained by other liberals. It’s like—-“Good grief, guys, turn off that ridiculous AM radio and come back to the only Party which ever did anything for you and the only Party which ever will.”

          But, alas, Rush and many of the religious leaders have the folks so hypnotized that they will only be robots to keep voting for their own destruction. That’s a sort of definition of “clinging”.

          • Jim__L

            FG, high-end taxes are not some kind of panacea. I’ve outlined before many of the other factors in working-class decline, factors more significant than taxes. You’re beginning to sound like rabid Greens who insist that global warming is the cause of all the trouble in the world.

            From our exchanges, I’m convinced you’re speaking from the heart when you deny Democrats’ ugly snobbery. I also think that you’re speaking pretty much for yourself, distinct from the rest of your party. In Silicon Valley I’m surrounded by 10%ers that have nothing but contempt for the regular people of this country. You should witness the torrents of bile spewed at Kim Davis for standing up for what she believes in. It’s unhinged. Read SFGate if you want a taste. It’s written by people who remember every slight they ever received in junior high, and are sharpening their knives for revenge.

            Then listen to these 10%ers yammering at guys who are economically suffering about how “privileged” they are, and how they should pay reparations for that. Especially when the yammering is coming from a chorus of people with high-paying jobs and college degrees, (enjoying far more “privilege” than most of the guys they’re yammering at) it’s a little tough to take.

            To top it all off, consider all the special rules that this “privileged” guy has to follow about his speech, that don’t apply to the “powerless”, because they’re “punching up”? Or how about the 10%ers using legal sanctions to force a guy to celebrate immorality as morality, while lecturing him about how government mustn’t legislate morality? Talk about “privilege”!

            Also… while I believe you don’t share the common Leftist disdain for your fellow Americans, I do think that there’s more than a hint of condescension in your “false consciousness” stance. People have the right to prioritize something more than money in this life. A guy wants to be something more than a government-handout charity case, “supervised” by a Nanny State until any business he works to put together gets swamped with paperwork, red tape, and expenses / rules designed to “supervise” Big Business which somehow Big Business is the only one with the economies of scale to survive.

            No, it’s not a good deal, square deal, or new deal the Democrats are offering. No thanks.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, you are quite correct that I am ALWAYS speaking for myself and trying to be distinct from the rest of my party. Seriously, I don’t read that much left-side stuff. I just write my own the way I think it “ought to be”. That’s the hobby of comment writing. And I am aware that there are people on the left who are truly an embarrassment for the pettiness of the topics they choose and the tone in which they present them. Those behaviors on the part of some, though, are not reasons to elect Reagan, Bushes and then Trump/Carson/Cruz for all national policy matters.

            As for high-end taxes, I believe they are useful for not only throttling the Koch Brothers. They are equally useful for throttling George Soros and/or every overpaid liberal in Silicon Valley who may be acting arrogantly on any subject.

            As for Kim Davis, since you and I don’t live in Rowan County, KY, she is not appropriately “our subject”. She is likewise not an appropriate subject for any leftists writing in San Francisco. When her local county citizens get tired of her attracting lawsuits for them to defend, they’ll elect someone else—-or not in Rowan County. That’s really all there is to the Kim Davis matter.

  • Pete

    The strategy of the Democrat Party is clear. Bring in as many 3rd Worlders as possible and get ’em on the government dole as quickly as possible. So what if this destroys the country; at least the Democrats can win an election or two before the ship sinks..

  • lukelea

    According to the DNC, “. . .Americans overwhelmingly support the issues and values that the Democratic Party [pays lip service to around election time] . . .”

    Like caring about the middle-class? Restricting mass immigration and taxing imports from low-wage countries like China will increase the wages and employment opportunities of America’s working families way, way more than anything the Democrats propose. And the American people understand that instinctively. Go Trump!

  • Anthony

    “Interest is a shaky basis for peace (read electoral cooperation), because the interest of any people as a ‘whole’ seldom if ever trumps that of powerful individuals and parties within each. Strife may serve the particular interests better than peace (cooperation).”

  • petefrombaltimore

    As a resident of the state of Maryland, the DNC’s strategy looks familiar to me. They are basicly counting entirely on racial demographics
    In Maryland, [ a state which is 50% non-white] all the Democrats need to do to win a state wide election, is to win heavily in Baltimore City, and Montgomery and PG Counties.Att hat point, all they need is a few other votes to put them over the top

    This strategy has worked quite well for Maryland Democrats. Except when it hasn’t.
    Most recently, it failed last year when Republican Larry Hogan got elected Governor. Partly because the previous Democratic Governor[OMalley] got so cocky that he thought that he could keep on raising taxes. And also because the Democratic candidate[Brown] was so cocky, that he didn’t think that he even needed to bother making an effort to win

    The DNC’s “Bring out the base” strategy and its strategy of depending almost entirely on racial demographic advantages, has worked before.And can work again.But it can also fail in a huge way

    Hilary Clinton’s main strategy right now, seems to be to pray for the Republicans to nominate Trump. She doesn’t seem to have much of a General election stategy, outside of that

    • f1b0nacc1

      How nice to see you here! I normally enjoy your comments on Megan’s site….
      I agree with you that the DNC strategy is very similar to what they have done in Maryland, but they have done the same thing in most of the states that they still retain any relevance in. New York (where the Dems concentrate on NYC and Long Island, and basically ignore everything else), and Mass (Boston uber alles), are the most obvious examples, but you could point to Illinois and others as well. The problem is that this ONLY works where you have large undigested urban masses, and as you correctly point out, it can fail quite spectacularly at times. I wonder if this is why the Dems work so hard to marginalize the suburbs, as they threaten the structural integrity of their base?

      • Jim__L

        Yes, this is exactly the reason that the Obama administration is trying to colonize “insuffciently integrated” suburbs.

        If the suburbs are integrated organically, as minorities rise into the Middle Class and start to want space to raise families in the classic American Dream, that would lead to the rise of the “OMG we’re” Republicans. If instead Democrats try to integrate by force, there will be fewer cultural commonalities to bridge the racial divide, meaning the racial divide will remain, which is exactly what Democrats need to keep minorities as clients.

        • petefrombaltimore

          Jim L
          Democratic voters are concentrated in dense urban areas.And are much more concentrated into Congressional districts than Republicans. This means that many Democratic votes are “Wasted”. With Democratic Congressmen/women winning 80% of their district. When they only need 50.01 % . this leads to Republican have more Congressmen/women than their overall numbers would suggest.
          So its in the Democratic Party’s interest for more traditional Democratic voters to move out of cities and into the suburbs

          • Jim__L

            I think we’re in agreement, except perhaps I see more hope for the future, as people mature out of the D-column and into the R-column, as they see more of life. “If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart”, and the rest.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Hasn’t anyone told you that you’re supposed to have been taught to have a brain at 20 and a heart at 40, not the other way around?

    • Jim__L

      If the GOP Establishment were actually competent, they would be figuring out a way to get Carson at the top of the ticket, and Establishment-with-experience types in every post below that. Breaking the minority monoliths should be the #1 priority for them.

      Minority identity politics will only get you so far — “OMG we’re” Republicans are the future of the party, as more and more minorities realize that the continuous chant of “GOP is racist GOP is racist GOP is racist” is a lie. However, sometimes a symbolic act can be extremely helpful — Carson’s nomination would certainly be that. As I said, if the Establishment doesn’t have at least a contingency plan for a Carson candidacy which uses Establishment infrastructure to support Carson’s lack of experience (insofar as that’s actually a problem), the Establishment is incompetent.

      • Fred

        Makes sense, but of course it depends on Carson taking the advice of the more experienced. He seems to be more modest and willing to learn than Obama, but that’s like being the fastest runner in a hospital for paraplegics.

        • Jim__L

          A more immediate question — which anti-establishment, poll-leading candidate do you think would be more modest and willing to learn… Carson or Trump?

          Also consider, the Establishment would do well to listen to the electorate, and recognize that Carson and his ideas are far more popular than they are. That would take modesty and willingness to learn (from the electorate and its choice) on the part of the Establishment, as well.

          If the Establishment can’t manage that, the GOP won’t win in 2016.

          • Boritz

            The establishment is composed of nihilist dead-enders. if they can’t have their way then it can all burn down.

          • Jim__L

            Wow. They’re not even cynical enough just to want the power that comes from actually getting elected?

    • FriendlyGoat

      With Trump so clearly articulating the Republican message, WHAT would be wrong with Hillary hoping they run him?
      Mr. Trump against Mrs. Clinton is an honest debate between competing political world views.

      But Trump is an over-the-top nut, you say? Nah, he’s just “telling it like it is”—-as his supporters like to say. What’s over-the-top nutty is the Republican message—-clearly explained as Trump is doing. (Carson too for that matter.)

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service