The US Democratic Party Establishment Further Exposed

The Democratic Party in the US has changed significantly during its more than two centuries of existence. For instance, during the 19th century the party supported or tolerated slavery, and it opposed civil rights reforms after the American Civil War in order to retain the support of Southern voters. By the mid-20th century, the party had also undergone a dramatic ideological realignment and reinvented itself as a party supporting organised labour, the civil rights of minorities, and progressive reform. Then, since president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, the party has also tended to favour greater government intervention in the economy and to oppose government intervention in the private noneconomic affairs of citizens. However, the ideological inclinations of Democrats have not remained stagnant, and have even practically manifested in concerning ways. And so, in the aftermath of the poor behaviour of Democrats during and after US president Donald’s address to a joint session of Congress, we ought to address the reality of the Democratic establishment.
DEMOCRATS EXPOSE (AGAIN) THAT THEY ARE AN ESTABLISHMENT AND CULT
Exposure of the US democratic party establishment, and following president Donald Trump’s address to Congress, Democrats, who were unruly and unhappy during the address proceeded to offer their refutation of president Trump’s remarks. There is nothing out of the ordinary about this, in fact it is expected. But something expected that was concerning is the fact that it appears that the democrats were once again ready from the same talking points, sounding creepily homogenous. In essence, in a similar fashion to how the covid debacle was propagated by the media, Democrats democratic a cult-like engagement with politics, where the people who are presented as officials of government, are nothing more that overpaid, corrupt and controlled mouthpieces who are given a script to read from – which is quintessential establishment cult behavior.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Well in light of this, we will spend a significant portion of our discussion addressing the historical context of the ideological shift in the Democratic Party, with the aim to demystify what we see in the present. In essence, the ideological shifts in the Democrat Party are often traced through what have become known as the 3 critical elections in American history. First, from 1828 to 1856 the Democrats won all but two presidential elections (specifically in 1840 and 1848). During the 1840s and ’50s, however, the Democratic Party, as it officially named itself in 1844, suffered serious internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats, led by Jefferson Davis, wanted to allow slavery in all the territories, while Northern Democrats, led by Stephen A. Douglas, proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through referendum. The issue split the Democrats at their 1860 presidential convention, where Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge and Northern Democrats nominated Douglas. The 1860 election also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the newly established (1854) antislavery Republican Party (which was unrelated to Jefferson’s Republican Party of decades earlier). With the Democrats hopelessly split, Lincoln was elected president with only about 40 percent of the national vote.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SLAVERY
The election of 1860 is regarded by most political observers as the first of the country’s three “critical” elections—contests that produced sharp yet enduring changes in party loyalties across the country. This election established the Democratic and Republican parties as the major parties in what was ostensibly a two-party system. In federal elections from the 1870s to the 1890s, the parties were in rough balance—except in the South, where the Democrats dominated because most whites blamed the Republican Party for both the American Civil War (1861–65) and the Reconstruction (1865–77) that followed; the two parties controlled Congress for almost equal periods through the rest of the 19th century, though the Democratic Party held the presidency only during the two terms of Grover Cleveland (1885–89 and 1893–97).
Repressive legislation and physical intimidation designed to prevent newly enfranchised African Americans from voting—despite passage of the Fifteenth Amendment—ensured that the South would remain staunchly Democratic for nearly a century. During Cleveland’s second term, however, the United States sank into an economic depression. The party at this time was basically conservative and agrarian-oriented, opposing the interests of big business (especially protective tariffs) and favouring cheap-money policies, which were aimed at maintaining low interest rates.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S TRANSITION TO “PROGRESSIVISM”
Then there was the democratic party’s transition to progressivism, which is largely tied to the second election. In the country’s second critical election, in 1896, the Democrats split disastrously over the free-silver and Populist program of their presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan lost by a wide margin to Republican William McKinley, a conservative who supported high tariffs and money based only on gold. From 1896 to 1932 the Democrats held the presidency only during the two terms of Woodrow Wilson (1913–21), and even Wilson’s presidency was considered somewhat of a fluke.
Wilson won in 1912 because the Republican vote was divided between President William Howard Taft (the official party nominee) and former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, the candidate of the new Bull Moose Party. Wilson also championed various progressive economic reforms, including the breaking up of business monopolies and broader federal regulation of banking and industry. Although he led the United States into World War I to make the world “safe for democracy,” Wilson’s brand of idealism and internationalism proved less attractive to voters during the spectacular prosperity of the 1920s than the Republicans’ frank embrace of big business. The Democrats lost decisively the presidential elections of 1920, 1924, and 1928.
WHERE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S SOCIALIST AND BIG GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE COMMENCED
Then there was the new deal coalition, which is largely tied to the third election. The country’s third critical election, in 1932, took place in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and in the midst of the Great Depression. Led by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrats not only regained the presidency but also replaced the Republicans as the majority party throughout the country—in the North as well as the South. Through his political skills and his New Deal social programs, such as social security and the statutory minimum wage, Roosevelt forged a broad coalition—including small farmers, Northern city dwellers, organised labour, European immigrants, liberals, intellectuals, and reformers—that enabled the Democratic Party to retain the presidency until 1952 and to control both houses of Congress for most of the period from the 1930s to the mid-1990s. However, the New Deal era and legacy, is not without its concerns.
All of this tells us how the Democrat party was historically a party that embraced division and essentialisms like racism through its support for slavery. Then, through the contest in America’s three most consequential elections (with the 2024 election being the fourth most consequential election), the democratic party eventually established itself as a progressive party; this started with the embrace of implicit socialist policies, to an outright ultra-liberal inclination. That is why despite its history with slavery, it is predominantly a party of liberals and socialists. Which then brings us to the status quo – because, remember this discussion is aimed at providing context for why the democratic party is what it is today.
TODAY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS RE-EMBRACED ITS DIVISIVE PART
Well, today, the Democratic party also has displayed an ideological shift, except instead of policy, it is about moving away from the status of a party that contends to serve Americans, to one that works against their best interests. For one, Democrats – especially during the Biden-Harris administration, were largely associated with the weaponisation of the institutions of the US against political rivals. This was especially notable with the political persecution of Donald Trump.
Well, of course, president Trump did not let go of the opportunity to remind the Democrats of their diabolical and yet utterly vain efforts during his address to congress.
DEMOCRATS HAVE INSTITUTED MODERN DAY SLAVERY THROUGH POLICY AND IDEOLOGY
But, now in addition to the persecution of political rivals, the Democratic Party now also presents a threat to the fundamental freedoms of American citizens! Rather ironically, the party has regressed to its initial stance of devaluing people. Like we saw with its history of slavery, except today – the democratic party does this by conditionalising what are inalienable rights like the freedom of speech, or even creating ridiculously relaxed immigration policies that enable the exploitation of immigrants and migrants.
And instead of putting an actual shackle on people’s feet, the Democratic party has created a following of people enslaved by their own mindset, endorsed by the democratic party. In particular, many democrats are enslaved by a victim mentality. In their world, it is a sensational political currency to be oppressed or affiliated, especially on multiple accounts. And yet, like people who are enslaved, this mentality gives agency to others instead of them. Trying to elicit pity has become their means of navigating the world, which ironically, perpetuates the narrative that they are inferior.
And we see this a lot with people of colour. I conceded that at the heels of the end of an oppressive regime, we ought to create redress mechanisms that correct the systematic issues and discrimination that exist. BUT, it is an awful plan to base the development and flourishment of a people on redress mechanisms or affirmative action – these measures SHOULD be temporary and not blanketly applied. In fact, it is when people are resolute to prosper irrespective of the circumstances around them that we see significant change, because these people regard themselves as active participants in how their lives play out.
Thirdly, Democrats have largely become a corrupt party, with a propensity to manipulate elections. This has firstly been evidenced with they manipulation of voting processes and voting counting, which has led to the questioning of the election results in the 2016 election – a question that remains even in the present. For instance, the state of Georgia has made headlines for the exposure of vote counting fraud in the previous election.
Thirdly, but also tied to corruption, Democrats play politics with elections even within THEIR primaries! In fact, Bernie Sanders echoed this critique of his party at the 2024 DNC, especially with him having an empirical experience of its diabolical operations. You’d recall that Bernie was one of the 2 remaining Democrat candidates for the 2016 election that they lost to Donald Trump. BUT, in 2016, Jullian Assange’s WikiLeaks published internal Democratic Party documents that revealed the extent to which the party organisation had interfered in the primaries against Bernie Sanders to tilt the scales in Hillary Clinton’s favour. Meanwhile at this year’s DNC figures like Obama have the audacity to speak about Trump’s billionaire status as a liability when Obama and his consortium of election manipulators are the billionaires corrupting elections, while parading as self-proclaimed defenders of democracy.
And not only is Bernie Sanders a victim of their willingness to corrupt the primaries, but Democrats have proceeded to manipulate primaries again this year with Joe Biden by instituting a coup against him. Remember, Joe Biden and his campaign team were adamant in promulgating the message that he is staying in the presidential race, until he seemingly got ill, and then a letter was posted on social media about his exit from the race (that shocked even his campaign staff), while he allegedly endorsed Kamala as the Democrat candidate. It was only days after that letter on social media that he made a live appearance to corroborate the letter. But even then or even after the interview that he did shortly after resurfacing again, the general consensus is that Biden would not have contradicted the letter because of pressure from the Democrat party. In fact, the contents of the interview he did, validated this consensus.
Finally, and also tied to corruption in the Democrat Party, it is important to note why this corruption takes place. Simply, it is about securing the succession of presidential figures that the big government and cabal linked parties like the Soros family (which was funding Kamala Harris’ campaign) can control. This is especially because the Democratic Party has largely become an oppressive regime part of a border problem of big government in the United States. Their utter disregard for fairness in the primaries and their censorship of free speech are manifestations of a broader issue. And there is mounting evidence of this. For instance, former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne revealed how he worked with the FBI to arrange an $18 million bribe to Hillary Clinton from a foreign government to allow the deep state to control her in 2016 (although, of course, she thankfully lost that election).
There is a notable irony with parties like the Democratic party, which is that entities that were part of some of the crucial changes in a nation, especially in opposing oppressive regimes and policies, often go on to become like the oppressors they rejected. And while this has been a critique largely given to post colonial governments in a number of African and Asian countries, it is a critique that so obviously fits the Democratic party, except that it has become like its older hysterical version that it tried to distance itself from – especially today.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso