The real function of the Democratic Party

The following comment is from “Allen” and posted at Moon of Alabama. I noticed it because it was reprinted in whole at Reptile Dysfunction. I have not paid much attention to impeachment because I don’t know the script, I don’t know what surprises they have in store. Whatever it is, it does not affect our constitutional republic, since we don’t have one anyway.

The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society’s political machinery. This doesn’t mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it’s a “democracy.” If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it really is — a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests. …

… The party’s true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn’t exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party — the essential service it renders to the US power structure — lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it’s not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a “democracy.”

As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a “democracy” and a “choice” in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they have this hope for “change within the system.” From the system’s point of view, this mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve — it insures against a despairing populace, thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system will be mounted, because the Dems weren’t designed to play that role in the first place.

The Democrats are not the “lesser evil;” they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an integrated whole. The system can’t be properly understood if one’s study of it begins with an uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)

Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are “less evil?” If one focuses on the efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it’s easy to feel that the Democrats are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what their bosses promulgate and the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats for effective staging of the political show.

The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. If the Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling groups.

For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.

A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.

Posted by: Allen | Nov 26 2019 20:08 utc |

I like that he put “democracy” in quotes. I don’t know the meaning of the word other than it is, like “freedom,” another vague meaningless term, something we should feel good about.

Back when Obama was elected in 2008, he had control of both the Senate and the House, giving the Democrats control of everything. They promptly instituted a Senate filibuster rule that gave Republicans an effective veto of everything. This was no accident, and had two effects:

  1. It did indeed crush all legislation that had any progressive tint to it.
  2. It allowed the House to pass scads of progressive legislation, knowing full well it would die in the Senate. This reinforced the illusion that the Democrats are a real alternative to the Republicans.

We live in a one-party state where public opinion is managed and never heeded, and where elections are either staged between fake alternatives or stolen outright. I do not know who will be president after the 2020 election, but those in power do. Ergo, I do not vote except in local matters where there is at least a chance that votes are actually counted. There I exercise my right by voting against school funding. Brainwashed children taught by brainwashed teachers grow up to be brainwashed adults.

12 thoughts on “The real function of the Democratic Party

  1. The ruling class certainly knows the meaning of democracy. We, goyim, on the other hand have not figured out — yet — that our understanding is false, due to our enslavement and cradle-to-grave conditioning.

    “The word demo, from the Latin demotic, refers to a district. Democracy is best defined as rule by district, where a district is further defined as a “common people.” This does not mean that the common people rule, but that the common people are ruled (districted) as a lower class, but given the political franchise (vote/pole) to choose their rulers from the upper-class. And so, commercially speaking, of course that royal class seeks to spread its rule (cracy) by making all common people of
    all nations into public beasts of burden (demotic goy). For this will lead to legalized world peace, which is another word for free-flowing, utterly controlled and taxed commerce, where all common men are marked as beasts. Some call this a New World Order, while currently the United Nations is calling it Agenda 2030. More on this apocalyptic plan of total information awareness and domination as we proceed…” Clint, Strawman, p. 753 https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Steve, I know you like the work of Clint Richardson. But every time he brings up word derivations, I start counting my spoons. He never gets it quite right, and often very, very wrong. The root demo- is from Greek, not Latin. It is—pace Motorhead below—distinct from the root for “demon,” which is daimon. The ancient Greek demos had several meanings, and it would require some real etymological headstands to wrest the sense out of “democracy” that Richardson assigns.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for your insights, Maarten. Personally, I have no idea what root, or which previous culture is correct. I will be more careful in the future, but will probably continue to “throw stuff” out there for others to contemplate, however thoughtlessly. My apologies. And yes, I do like Clint’s work, and do find all the definitions distracting.

        Like

  2. I happen to think Democritus and so many others were created and backdated into history or rather his story. wiki tells us Democritus means “chosen by the people”.

    Like

  3. The word ‘demon’ and chosen people keep’s creeping into the read. Are they hiding in plain sight? Knowing them by their past works, yes.

    Like

  4. Back when Obama was elected in 2008, he had control of both the Senate and the House, giving the Democrats control of everything. They promptly instituted a Senate filibuster rule that gave Republicans an effective veto of everything.

    This is not true.

    Filibuster can be stopped by Cloture.

    Like

    1. Of course that is true, even obvious. The critical aspect was to set cloture low enough that the Republican minority had effective veto power. This was no accident. It freed the Democrats from having to carry out their phony progressive agenda, and exposed the “two” party system for what it is, one party with two right wings.

      Also, and this was the most annoying feature, it allowed the House to pass a whole host of progressive bills, done with full knowledge that nothing would get past the Senate. Can you smell a scam?

      Like

  5. Obama was simply a tactical repeat of 1992-1994, the Clinton-era scams.
    Cut welfare (“Recissions Act”), which also insulated public land livestock grazing from any reduction in herd numbers, even if courts find preventable, unacceptable and illegal levels of environmental destruction on public lands. The distraction/”throw” was a well-publicized, highly-contentious fake attack on public-lands grazing fees by Sec. of Interior Bruce Babbitt. It was Clinton/Babbitt who did the fake Yellowstone wolf “reintroduction” in a deliberate attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act — which established the desired precedent; one routinely repeated to this day.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s