- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

The Coming Balkanization of the Democratic Party

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House has more women, persons of color and LGBT members than any House in history—and fewer white males.

And Thursday, the day Rashida Tlaib was sworn in, her hand on a Quran, our first Palestinian-American congresswoman showed us what we may expect. As a rally of leftists lustily cheered her on, Tlaib roared, “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive deleted)!”

Not only was no apology forthcoming, the host of the New American Leaders event where Tlaib spoke warmly endorsed her gutter language.

Her remarks, said Sayu Bhojwani, “were raw and honest, and came straight from the heart. … a refreshing break from the canned comments our elected leaders usually make. Tlaib spoke…with the fire that so many at our event wanted to hear.”

Sunday, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, 29, the youngest member of the new House, told CNN there is “no question” President Donald Trump is a “racist,” for he regularly uses “historic dog whistles of white supremacy.”

While the Democratic Party is celebrating a diversity that insists that the more women, persons of color and gays in leadership ranks, and the fewer white males, the stronger and better the party, has all of America embraced this as an ideal?

Is there no limit to the ideological, political, religious, racial and ethnic diversity a party and nation can tolerate before it comes apart?

Are Democrats inviting an eventual Balkanization of their party and country?

change_me

Consider: this week, Julian Castro, former mayor of San Antonio and HUD secretary, appeared about to enter the race for the Democratic nomination. Castro has seen fellow Texan Robert F. O’Rourke, who goes by the nickname “Beto,” walk off with his Hispanic constituency in a 2018 Senate race. So Castro intends to win it back it in the Democratic primaries.

Former Congressman O’Rourke has been accused of trying to pass himself off as Hispanic, though he is of Irish descent. Elizabeth Warren suffered a near-fatal wound trying to pass herself off as part Cherokee Indian.

In December, Maze Jackson, morning host of a radio station that reaches into Chicago’s black community, said of the mayoral election to succeed Rahm Emanuel, where 21 candidates have filed and a black woman and a Hispanic woman are the front-runners, “This thing is going to get so tribal.”

The Democratic front-runners for the presidential nomination—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto—are all white males. Ranked just below them are black Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris.

South Carolina is a state where a large slice of the Democratic vote is African-American —Jesse Jackson won the caucuses in 1988—and Harris and Booker should expect to do well if they do not split that vote.

While racial and ethnic voting is not new, it appears much more intense.

In the last Congress, the 33 U.S. congressional districts with the largest concentrations of black voters almost all elected African-Americans who became members of the racially exclusive Black Caucus.

The first two battles of 2020, Iowa and New Hampshire, are in states predominantly white. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made several stops in Iowa with impressive turnouts, putting pressure on Biden and Sanders to decide soon.

But while Biden is the front-runner, consider how far away the ex-vice president is from the new realities in his party.

Though millennials are one voting bloc Democrats are courting most, Biden would be the oldest president ever elected. He was in the Senate for a decade before Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib were even born.

Biden is an old white male in a party that wants the torch passed to women and minorities. He backed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in voting for the war in Iraq. He backed an anti-crime bill in the early 1990s that incarcerated individuals now gaining release by the latest crime bill. As Judiciary Committee chair, he presided over the hearings that resulted in a vote to elevate Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

The Republican Party, even with the never-Trumpers gone, still seems more united than a Democratic Party where the differences are not only ideological but also racial, religious and tribal.

Ocasio-Cortez is backing a hike in the top federal income tax rate to 70 percent. Castro has suggested taking a look at a top rate of 90 percent. How will this sit with the big Democratic donors?

Joe Biden, like Pelosi, was raised Catholic in a Church that taught that homosexuality was immoral and abortion was the killing of the innocent unborn for which the sanction was automatic excommunication.

Today, the Democratic Party celebrates same-sex marriage as social progress and regards abortion as a cherished constitutional right. A floor battle erupted at its 2012 Charlotte, North Carolina, convention over whether God should even be mentioned in the party platform.

Yet Nancy Pelosi did last week denounce as “immoral” the idea of building a security wall along America’s border with Mexico.

No, this is not JFK’s party anymore. That party is long dead.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

35 Comments (Open | Close)

35 Comments To "The Coming Balkanization of the Democratic Party"

#1 Comment By popseal On January 7, 2019 @ 10:17 pm

Who cares that reprobates and perverts populate the Democrat chambers? Just don’t expect me to teach my children the lot are something other than just that, reprobates and perverts.

#2 Comment By Oleg Gark On January 8, 2019 @ 7:39 am

The Democrats can’t push the following two narratives simultaneously:

A) White Americans are irredeemably racist, so America needs the strong hand of the federal government to level the playing field.

B) The Civil Rights reforms of the 1960s were successful and minorities are far better integrated into American life than they were 50 years ago.

The Democrats have firmly resolved to go with narrative A, so the Republicans should consider using narrative B as a riposte. However, a subset of Republicans prefer to keep fighting the old battles, which lends strength to the Democrat’s preferred narrative. These Republicans should really have a look around and figure out which decade they live in. Winning current and future elections depends on it.

#3 Comment By JeffK On January 8, 2019 @ 7:59 am

If I was a minority or a female, and all I saw was old white men representing both parties, I doubt I would be very enthusiastic about voting for politicians in either party.

Now, if I was a minority or female, and saw people that looked and talked like me in politics, I think I would be significantly more inclined to become involved. I would select the person (and party) that I though would serve my interests and support them, and through them, the party.

If my preferred candidate lost, but received a fair shake by the party, I would probably vote for the party even though my preferred candidate did not win the primary.

That’s why, in my opinion, the Republican party is on a slow death march. Minorities are growing as a percentage of the population, and will, within a decade or so, become an aggregate majority.

The Republican party understands this, I think. But it’s too traumatic to current party members to make the changes required to expand the party. And they cannot halt demographics. Therefore, without significant emotional and philosophical adjustment, The Republicans will become a regional/rural party that has significantly reduced influence in national elections and policy. Mostly through the Senate and judiciary. However, that influence will also diminish over time.

#4 Comment By Dan Green On January 8, 2019 @ 8:54 am

Obvious, the Democratic party has an excellent opponent in Trump to run against. The long awaited now even granted more time Mueller investigation , followed by increasing Impeachment rhetoric , has garnered considerable media attention. Hollywood is on side, as never before. Point being, these agendas come with considerable responsibility, to chose another Obama to carry the 2020 torch. A Obama style orator who speaks from the mount is needed. Message is, Deplorable’s repent.

#5 Comment By Gerald Muldoon On January 8, 2019 @ 11:05 am

Woefully out of touch and not at all surprising from Pat Buchanan. But hey throw a picture of Ocasio-Cortez at the top and a few incendiary statements about women of color in politics and the people who subscribe to your shite will eat it up. Thanks for nothing Pat.

#6 Comment By mrscracker On January 8, 2019 @ 11:23 am

JeffK says:
“If I was a minority or a female, and all I saw was old white men representing both parties, I doubt I would be very enthusiastic about voting for politicians in either party.”
*************
As a female, I don’t care what a candidate looks like but how he or she votes. That’s all that counts in the end.
But it’s a good point that the GOP needs to reassess their audience & move forward accordingly.

#7 Comment By John Doe On January 8, 2019 @ 11:45 am

Is it possible that in the future the US Federal Government will begin to function more like the European Parliamentary System? With more than just two dominant political parties? It is hard to believe that the two-party system was able to persist for so long in a country of over 300 million people. There are just too many competing interests for that system to remain viable forever. Maybe if this came to pass the Federal Government will actually start returning competencies to the State Governments, as the Founding Fathers always envisioned. One can only hope.

#8 Comment By Tom Cullem On January 8, 2019 @ 11:57 am

Pardon – did you say Bernie Sanders is a “front runner” for the Democratic nomination for President?! An over-seventy Jewish Socialist from Vermont? That isn’t what the Democrats mean by “minority”.

Reports of the death of tribalism, as always, have been greatly exaggerated.

As is the growth of minorities in America, which is still around 70% white. Even in the future, if the minority majority country predictions are borne out, whites will be the single biggest voting bloc, with varied groups splitting up the rest. The black population of America is less than 15% and according to the Pew Research Centre, is not projected to grow beyond that, not least because of all that intermarriage being pushed by the advertising community these days. It is the smaller DNA group that will be diluted most, not the larger one. Arab Muslims are not black, Somalia isn’t Bosnia, Hispanics are not a uniform group (many are still strongly religious and conservative), and Pacific Asians are suddenly growing in numbers, and they tend to be conservative, as well.

It’s not as cut and dried as all that. Ms Tlaib’s language was unforgivable and what the Democrats are basically doing is colluding in the erosion of political dialogue in the country.

Give it a few years, and when these “fiery” Democrats can’t get anything more done for the 90% than anyone else has, because the infiltration of money in politics usually ends by corrupting everyone, and Trump is gone and the Democrats don’t have this Satanic figure to fire up their base with . . .

Things will probably not change much. And white males will still be voting.

#9 Comment By Dr. William Fusfield On January 8, 2019 @ 12:23 pm

This article makes good sense as far as it goes. Certainly the ridiculous attachment of the Democrats to identity politics has led to a centripedal fractiousness that has become truly suicidal. Right now, however, the bigger problem, at least in my opinion, is the simpler bifurcation between the old DNC, Clintonite, “establishment” of the party, still holding to such identity politics, and the much younger, more energetic, and much more progressive opposition to the status quo represented, if only partially, by Bernie Sanders’ supporters. It seems highly likely that the latter constituency will soon manage to take over the party, albeit whether in time for the 2020 election remains an open question. And that group, while still plenty quarrelsome and fractious, is far less committed to identity politics, and indeed seems to be coming together around a more tradtional class-based, “populist” conception of the political struggle. It seems fairly obvious to me that, if the Dems are to survive at all, it will only a thorough purging of the establishment elements of the party by these younger, more progressive and less identity obsessed members that will allow it, not that they won’t encounter several considerable problems themselves!!

#10 Comment By Ken T On January 8, 2019 @ 12:31 pm

So Ms Tlaib’s language was “unforgivable”, but you all thought it was hysterically funny when Trump called the Democratic congressman “Little Adam Sh–t”.
Do any of you honestly think you are fooling anyone? Really?

#11 Comment By Elena vasquez On January 8, 2019 @ 12:53 pm

JeffK

minorities are growing as a percentage of the population, and will, within a decade or so, become an aggregate majority.

White men still control most of the wealth and occupy most of the power positions. This will not change for many decades. White men (and their mostly white wives) won’t support a party who hold them in disdain. They will close ranks and move elsewhere politically, taking their money and influence with them.

#12 Comment By madge On January 8, 2019 @ 12:54 pm

“While the Democratic Party is celebrating a diversity that insists that the more women, persons of color and gays in leadership ranks, and the fewer white males, the stronger and better the party, has all of America embraced this as an ideal?

Is there no limit to the ideological, political, religious, racial and ethnic diversity a party and nation can tolerate before it comes apart?”

So.. as we speak, white females are somewhere around 33% of Americans, white males are a tad below that, and the rest are minorities or multiracial people. Is that too much diversity? If yes, when do purges of undesireables begin? If not, why shouldn’t BOTH political parties aspire to look more or less like the nation?

#13 Comment By The Other Sands On January 8, 2019 @ 1:06 pm

One thing I am not looking forward to over the next two years: the tedious concern trolling from conservatives over what the Democratic Party should do, who they should nominate, etc.

If you had any clue what women, young people, and minorities are looking for, you wouldn’t be here. And if the Democrats don’t choose a nominee that people like Pat Buchanan hates, they’re doing it wrong.

#14 Comment By One Guy On January 8, 2019 @ 1:31 pm

Buchanan: “Swearing is for old, white men, not female minorities”.

#15 Comment By Gerald Arcuri On January 8, 2019 @ 1:43 pm

The revolution eats its own. This is the ineluctable telos of identity politics, with intersectionality a mere whistle stop on the path to utter destruction. Divide and conquer. E unum, pluribus.

#16 Comment By CLW On January 8, 2019 @ 1:51 pm

This pathetic, even for you, Pat: could you be any more blatantly paranoid about the teeming hordes of Colored People/Females/Gays/Non-Christians poised to end White/Male/Straight/Christian domination of America?

You are void of any empathy, and unable to conceive people who are different from you are being treated as your equals.

You are the problem, Pat.

#17 Comment By Minnesota Mary On January 8, 2019 @ 3:23 pm

One thing Pat left out about the Democrats is that no matter their internal squabbles, come election time, they always unite.

#18 Comment By Ray Woodcock On January 8, 2019 @ 3:29 pm

Pat, it’s fine to have the idea that the Democrats’ diversity will surely pull them apart. I read your piece because I was interested in whether that might happen. What’s missing here is evidence. Where are the stories about Dems fighting each other, threatening to form a new party, declaring they’d sooner vote for Trump or the Green Party than for candidate X, and so forth?

What you suggest may well happen … someday. You’ve implicitly made the case that it doesn’t show signs of happening soon.

#19 Comment By Edward Dougherty On January 8, 2019 @ 3:39 pm

I second the first and third paragraphs of CLW’s comment.

#20 Comment By BobS On January 8, 2019 @ 3:39 pm

“It’s become a club where white males need not apply”
White males like you, maybe. But this old white guy has never felt unwelcome among Democrats.

“While racial and ethnic voting is not new, it appears much more intense.”
Not a lot of self-awareness among Republicans (have you noticed the homogeneity of race and ethnicity among Republican voters dating back about, oh, 50 years?), is there?

However, to give credit where credit is due, I applaud Pat Buchanan for referring to the “Democratic Party” (which is what they call themselves), as opposed to the ‘Democrat Party’, as many Republicans choose to. It’s fundamentally disrespectful and inaccurate to refer to anyone- or any entity- by anything other than what they prefer to be called. That so many present day Republicans do is suggestive of they type of people many of them are, sheds some light on the path that led to an uncouth name-calling loudmouth like Trump being elected president as a Republican, and makes their whining about vulgar utterances (like that of Rep. Tlaib) taste of crocodile tears.

#21 Comment By TheScientist880 On January 8, 2019 @ 4:21 pm

>The Republican Party, even with the never-Trumpers gone, still seems more united than a Democratic Party where the differences are not only ideological but also racial, religious and tribal.

So Pat is admitting that the party that is actually playing Identity politics is the Republican Party. You can’t play identity politics when your party is as diverse as the democrats. There is no single unifying identity to be seen, unlike the almost uniformly white and mostly rural or suburban and Christian Republican Party.

>Is there no limit to the ideological, political, religious, racial and ethnic diversity a party and nation can tolerate before it comes apart?

Our system of government makes making changes extremely difficult. In order to make big changes, you really need to have a majority of the population behind you or you’ll be thwarted almost certainly in most cases since you need 60 votes in the senate for most things. Republicans had 2 years of unified government and blew all of their political capital on cutting taxes for rich people. They didn’t even try to govern for the second year of that 2 year term.

I don’t see why you guys keep banging on about immigration at this point. Had your shot and you blew it. Unified government isn’t a common thing and you sure as hell won’t get this chance again. We won’t be cutting immigration numbers. Democrats have zero reason to capitulate to republicans on this score.

#22 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On January 8, 2019 @ 4:33 pm

“Are Democrats inviting an eventual Balkanization of their party and country?”

Yes, and that’s where maybe, just maybe, Trump’s stand on the Wall has more layers to it than is appreciated.

Suppose Trump figures he can always get the Wall built by taxing remittances. That would be the most important Executive Order he will ever issue, but there are political advantages to leaving it on the back burner for now. (The new Mexican president has been notably uncritical of Trump, and you have to wonder if that’s because he wants to be able to talk Trump out of taxing remittances if Trump proposes to to so. Mexico would lose hundreds of millions of dollars annually if it received less remittances due to their being taxed by the U.S.)

Suppose also that Trump figures the unpaid and furloughed federal workers, **who are 90% white**, will be abandoned by the Democrats precisely because they are white, in the Democrats’ mania to get many, many more brown people into the country as future donkey-party voters.

If the shutdown continues past a certain threshold period–say, two or three months–the whole country will start to realize Democrats don’t care about whites, not even those white government workers who are practically all Democratic voters. All the angry unpaid federal workers in Northern Virginia could cause Democrats to lose Virginia in the Electoral College, but they will hope to make up for that by winning enough Hispanic votes in Florida, Colorado, and Texas to swing those states. They’ll be forgetting about white voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as well as in all the Southern states. LOL.

Whether by accident or by cunning, Trump’s maneuvering is brilliant. Given the reasonableness of Trump’s demand for a mere $5.6 billion for a Wall, and given the compromise-scorning dishonesty of the new Democrat proposal to segregate the Wall funding from the rest of the spending bill, Trump can’t lose so long as he sticks to his guns.

#23 Comment By Anthony M. On January 8, 2019 @ 4:35 pm

What in the heck are you talking about? Bernie Sanders is still the most popular politician among the left wing of the Democratic Party. By far. He’s also very old and very white.

Maybe it’s all about his platform after all?

#24 Comment By A DC Wonk On January 8, 2019 @ 4:35 pm

Yeah, the Dems hate white men. Beto O’Rourke can tell you all about that. So can Bernie Sanders who, while losing, did get an awful lot of support, votes, and delegates.

It’s not as cut and dried as all that. Ms Tlaib’s language was unforgivable and what the Democrats are basically doing is colluding in the erosion of political dialogue in the country.

[after picking myself up off the floor laughting] — where have you been the last two years? Surely you remember the GOP debates where Trump and Rubio boasted about their manly parts? Or when Trump asserted that Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her whatever?”

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a b—- off the field right now.”

“sh-thole countries”

(Back before his presidency, he said, of China: ““Listen you motherf—ers, we’re going to tax you 25 percent!”)

What about calling Adam Schiff Adam Sh-tt (and not correcting himself).

“Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain….”

“Frank Luntz is a low class slob who…”

“Huma Abedin, the top aide to Hillary Clinton and the wife of perv sleazebag Anthony Wiener…”

“We’re gonna have businesses that used to be in New Hampshire, that are now in Mexico come back to New Hampshire, and you can tell them to go f*** themselves!”

On the former White House aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman: a “crazed, crying lowlife” and a “dog”

So, if what Tlaib did was unforgivable, what’s the view on Trump’s statements?

#25 Comment By EarlyBird On January 8, 2019 @ 4:52 pm

The problem is not the “diversity,” Pat, it’s the racism and sexism and tribalism dressed up as anti-racism and anti-sexism and unity. The reality is that far left “progressives” essentialize race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., and apply moral weight to these things as much as any member of the tiki torch crowd. They are merely flip sides of the same coin.

Because they are fundamentally at odds with the society around them, and they are incompetent, it’s a merely a matter of how much pain takes place before it rebounds on these left-wing haters, and how.

Will it be when enough Americans (of all colors, etc.) finally get tired of the endless rhetorical haranguing of “straight, white America” and it’s evils, or will it take structural changes that are too outrageous, things like mandating mentorship programs for young women in certain STEM industries (something which has been proposed)?

#26 Comment By wake On January 8, 2019 @ 5:33 pm

I’m white man and I am fairly happy with the democratic party. I wish the Republicans hadn’t gone completely looney, so we would have balance, but they did. Now I only wish for them to go away, forever, and take their treasonous allies and deficits with them, so a new party can arise.

I have two gay family members, and I am happy people like pat are less and less empowered to hurt them through irrational hate. I’m happy to see all Americans included in government, and I wish it would skew even younger. I’m not particularity threatened by someone pointing out their lives have been touched by racism. this is obvious. I don’t like Beto much, even if he is Irish like me. I think he is an idiot for throwing away a senate seat being anti-freedom/gun in Texas.

#27 Comment By EarlyBird On January 8, 2019 @ 5:54 pm

Other Sands wrote:

“If you had any clue what women, young people, and minorities are looking for, you wouldn’t be here. And if the Democrats don’t choose a nominee that people like Pat Buchanan hates, they’re doing it wrong.”

Women, young people and minorities are not alien life forms. They want what the vast number of Americans want.
Freedom, economic security a fair government, and the opportunity to pursue their happiness.

Bernie Sanders was the only one even talking about these needs. But the “social justice” left rejected him in favor of a war mongering oligarch simply because she was a woman who made the right sops to their multi-culti, group and sub-sub-group identity egos. Hurray.

#28 Comment By JeffK On January 8, 2019 @ 5:54 pm

@Elena vasquez says:
January 8, 2019 at 12:53 pm

“White men still control most of the wealth and occupy most of the power positions. This will not change for many decades. White men (and their mostly white wives) won’t support a party who hold them in disdain. They will close ranks and move elsewhere politically, taking their money and influence with them.”

Well… Whatever…. Let them take their money. And crash the markets on the way out, which will make much of their wealth disappear. Except for the early ex-patriots.

Where will they take it to? Canada – Maybe. Or possibly Australia or Singapore? Most other countries will apply much higher tax rates than what the US applies. They could move to Mexico. Or Somalia. Or Venezuela.

But they would have to leave their McMansions and all of their worldly goods behind. For others to buy at rock bottom prices.

Would their children go with them? Will they visit them and their grandchildren at Christmas or skype with them from New Zealand.

The US treats wealthy white people quite well.

Sounds like a juvenile “I’m gonna take my ball and just go home” response. Not constructive, and not going to happen in any meaningful way.

#29 Comment By midtown On January 8, 2019 @ 7:12 pm

Jeff K, why would looks determine how I should vote? Are you saying that you, being male, would not vote for a woman simply because of that fact? That’s an insane way of approaching politics.

#30 Comment By KevinS On January 9, 2019 @ 3:54 am

“No, this is not JFK’s party anymore. That party is long dead.”

And I would add that the Republican Party is not Reagan’s party anymore. That party is long dead.

#31 Comment By JeffK On January 9, 2019 @ 1:02 pm

@midtown says:
January 8, 2019 at 7:12 pm

“Jeff K, why would looks determine how I should vote? Are you saying that you, being male, would not vote for a woman simply because of that fact? That’s an insane way of approaching politics.”

I may have been misleading. When I said “If I was a minority or a female, and all I saw was old white men representing both parties, I doubt I would be very enthusiastic about voting for politicians in either party.”

I meant that my enthusiasm would be significantly diminished because didn’t see anybody that looked like me. Not that I wouldn’t vote, it’s just the enthusiasm wouldn’t be there. And if somebody appeared that looked like me, and had views I would support, I suspect I would become quite enthusiastic/motivated.

I think motivation is something pollsters measure in that it’s what drives people to vote. Especially if conditions aren’t good. Rain, snow, long waits in line.

#32 Comment By Ellimist000 On January 10, 2019 @ 4:16 am

Oleg Gark,

The Democrats can’t push the following two narratives simultaneously:

“A) White Americans are irredeemably racist, so America needs the strong hand of the federal government to level the playing field.

B) The Civil Rights reforms of the 1960s were successful and minorities are far better integrated into American life than they were 50 years ago.”

Errr…Democrats don’t push A, are you nuts? Heck most of them are still white. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention. See, the new group of Democratic politicians were not all brown women from the coasts. Those may be the best of the bunch, but that’s just how it is, don’t hate them cause they are beautiful. In truth, they come from all over the country and were 50-something % men, 40 something % women, and 60% white. The rest is a near even split of blacks and Hispanics and a few others, like Middle Easterners and Asians. That is basically what the nation looks like (except there are slightly MORE women). Are all those white people irredeemably racist? Are Pelosi and Schumer? Meanwhile, the GOP freshmen (and they are basically all men) also from across the nation, including one blond white women, a lot of white men, and a white man with an eyepatch. Party of 99% white men vs. Party of These United States (including white men). Which one do you think has a race problem?

I would also note that you have committed a logical fallacy as these two statements aren’t actually mutually exclusive and thus Democrats certainly could push the two narratives if they wanted to. But they don’t.

#33 Comment By Rob G On January 10, 2019 @ 11:00 am

“The problem is not the ‘diversity,’ Pat, it’s the racism and sexism and tribalism dressed up as anti-racism and anti-sexism and unity.”

Put another way, the problem isn’t the “diversity” it’s Diversity™.

~~the “social justice” left rejected him in favor of a war mongering oligarch simply because she was a woman who made the right sops to their multi-culti, group and sub-sub-group identity egos. Hurray.~~

I had a conversation a few months back with a Trump-hating SJW millenial, a quite intelligent woman in her late 20s, who was basically struck speechless during our talk when she came to the conclusion that it was entirely possible for poor whites to get screwed over by the same system that screws minorities over.

The truth of the matter is that the Dems, when they do think of class, do so in ways that will always prioritize identity group issues over it, while the GOP doesn’t think of it at all. So which is worse: the idea that poor people don’t matter, or the idea that poor people matter, so long as they’re non-white?

The Dems will cease caring about the WWC vote or rural white vote (if they haven’t already) as soon as they have enough votes coming from elsewhere to get and stay in power. This is what the rhetoric about eliminating the EC, “reforming” the Senate, etc., is really all about. It’s urban liberal elitism.

The GOP, on the other hand, will never give up its enthrallment to corporate capitalism, as its response to Tucker Carlson’s recent monologue showed.

In other words, both parties are elitist to the core, it’s just an elitism that manifests itself differently. At root, however, it’s the same thing: the synthesis of fiscal “conservatism” with social liberalism.

This is borne out by the fact that those of us who lean left economically but are socially conservative are not welcome in either party.

#34 Comment By J. Smith On January 10, 2019 @ 8:21 pm

OMG. I’m just a boring ol’ moderate, but I almost fell off the sofa laughing when I read, “Not only was no apology forthcoming, the host of the New American Leaders event where Tlaib spoke warmly endorsed her gutter language.”

How sanctimonious and hypocritical can you be? We have President Grab-Her-By-The-Pu**y, cursing like white-trash-come-to-town, and you want to talk about how offended you are about “gutter language” from the little muslim woman?

In the words of my dear departed Southern mama, “We are truly living in the end of times.”

#35 Comment By James J Coddington On January 13, 2019 @ 4:43 pm

But there are lots of white men on the democratic ticket. I don’t get it. In fact, I would bet the next president is a white, democratic man.