No party that “served the rich” would’ve even let people like Bernie into the party, let alone give them committee assignments and let them run for president on their ticket.
There’s no point in arguing that the Democratic Party is entirely controlled by the rich other than to encourage political nihilism. It has always been possible and always will be possible to beat wins out of (or even change/become) the party establishment through concerted effort and activism, as happened in the 30s, the Civil Rights Era, and the purging of the Blue Dogs after the Civil Rights era.
Bernie’s losses were disheartening, but abandoning any effort to sway the democrats and writing them off as “servants of the rich” when the decade before 2016 had been one of growing progressivism within the party and when Bernie unfortunately never even beat Hillary in a Dem Primary Poll, is the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.
Bash on the DNC and NDC all you want, but until we replace them with progressives like was done to the segregationist dems or lose doing so, there’s no point in writing off the Democratic Party.
That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes. Just because they allow progressives to do a few minimal things, doesn’t mean the party does not serve the rich first and foremost. This is like how freedom of speech is allowed until it becomes a threat to the establishment (see pro-Palestinian protests that were shut down with bullshit excuses). When the possibility arose that Bernie could make actual significant change, the party threw a shitfit.
The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.
That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes.
I don’t remember almost every single Democrat bashing Bernie publicly every single time they had the chance like most democrats did with Trump for the last 8 years. Are you not remembering the firestorm of statements from elected officials anytime Trump did something horrific?
The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.
I bet Malcom X and the Segregationist Democrats would’ve felt the exact same, and yet that last set of reactionary Dems has been completely purged from the party since the 60s.
Meanwhile they actively attacked Bernie calling him old (which is funny to think about now) and mocking his supporters as “Bernie bros” as they pulled all the stops to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination. Democrats may call trump “dangerous” and his supporters “deplorable” but they do nothing to actually try to stop trump. They just offer up the most milquetoast of candidates as opposition, then shrug their shoulders with “at least he’s not trump”. It’s like a bad wrestling skit.
Meanwhile they actively attacked Bernie calling him old (which is funny to think about now) and mocking his supporters as “Bernie bros” as they pulled all the stops to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination.
This is what a couple media pundits said yes, I don’t think this is evidence that liberals secretly would rather have fascism however, for the same reason as I stated before, they spent almost every day of his presidency condemning him.
Again, a few instances of some Democrats making stupid decisions and making a stupid tactical electoral decision, is not evidence that they prefer Trump to Bernie, or that they fought Bernie harder.
For every article you can provide of an out of touch media pundit saying something about Bernie, or a party strategist making a dumb decision around Trump, I can find 10 times that amount of Democrats condemning something Trump did.
The vast majority of liberal democrats criticizing Bernie cake during the two primaries, during which they were still criticizing Trump, and the majority of the non-primary time this past 8 years has been spent attacking Trump. Again, that doesn’t sound like more effort against Bernie than Trump to me.
No party that “served the rich” would’ve even let people like Bernie into the party, let alone give them committee assignments and let them run for president on their ticket.
There’s no point in arguing that the Democratic Party is entirely controlled by the rich other than to encourage political nihilism. It has always been possible and always will be possible to beat wins out of (or even change/become) the party establishment through concerted effort and activism, as happened in the 30s, the Civil Rights Era, and the purging of the Blue Dogs after the Civil Rights era.
Bernie’s losses were disheartening, but abandoning any effort to sway the democrats and writing them off as “servants of the rich” when the decade before 2016 had been one of growing progressivism within the party and when Bernie unfortunately never even beat Hillary in a Dem Primary Poll, is the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.
Bash on the DNC and NDC all you want, but until we replace them with progressives like was done to the segregationist dems or lose doing so, there’s no point in writing off the Democratic Party.
That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes. Just because they allow progressives to do a few minimal things, doesn’t mean the party does not serve the rich first and foremost. This is like how freedom of speech is allowed until it becomes a threat to the establishment (see pro-Palestinian protests that were shut down with bullshit excuses). When the possibility arose that Bernie could make actual significant change, the party threw a shitfit.
The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won’t allow it.
I don’t remember almost every single Democrat bashing Bernie publicly every single time they had the chance like most democrats did with Trump for the last 8 years. Are you not remembering the firestorm of statements from elected officials anytime Trump did something horrific?
I bet Malcom X and the Segregationist Democrats would’ve felt the exact same, and yet that last set of reactionary Dems has been completely purged from the party since the 60s.
Democrats bashed trump while helping him behind the scenes: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Speaking of which, they love funding fascists in general: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey
Meanwhile they actively attacked Bernie calling him old (which is funny to think about now) and mocking his supporters as “Bernie bros” as they pulled all the stops to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination. Democrats may call trump “dangerous” and his supporters “deplorable” but they do nothing to actually try to stop trump. They just offer up the most milquetoast of candidates as opposition, then shrug their shoulders with “at least he’s not trump”. It’s like a bad wrestling skit.
This is what a couple media pundits said yes, I don’t think this is evidence that liberals secretly would rather have fascism however, for the same reason as I stated before, they spent almost every day of his presidency condemning him.
Again, a few instances of some Democrats making stupid decisions and making a stupid tactical electoral decision, is not evidence that they prefer Trump to Bernie, or that they fought Bernie harder.
For every article you can provide of an out of touch media pundit saying something about Bernie, or a party strategist making a dumb decision around Trump, I can find 10 times that amount of Democrats condemning something Trump did.
The vast majority of liberal democrats criticizing Bernie cake during the two primaries, during which they were still criticizing Trump, and the majority of the non-primary time this past 8 years has been spent attacking Trump. Again, that doesn’t sound like more effort against Bernie than Trump to me.