Home | About | Donate

Corporate Democrats Have Always Hated the Left — Now They're Shocked to Learn That We Hate Them Back


Corporate Democrats Have Always Hated the Left — Now They're Shocked to Learn That We Hate Them Back

Jake Johnson

Since the 1970's, the American left has been on the defensive.

Facing both an increasingly ambitious business offensive against the core tenets of the New Deal and a Democratic Party establishment that was slowly beginning its rightward shift, progressive activists were pushed out of the mainstream, where they had remained a solid force during the Roosevelt era and through the 1960's.


You got it Jake Johnson... You're describing my lifetime of liberal frustration, plus the fact that for years we liberals have known that we were in a majority but were suppressed by an illegal system. Now that system; embodied by the Clintons, appears to be headed back to central power and international adventurism. Woe is US...


"challenged the centrist bent"

Again I would like to point out that a right wing bent is NOT a centrist bent. Jake was writing the truth and then for some reason he slipped that in there.


One need only consider the framework of an abusive relationship to understand how the Democratic party relates to organized labor and the left generally.
Every now and then we might get a nice gift to make us forget the most recent offense. And besides, that mean old other person over there won't even get you the nice gift.
Now go and make me dinner while I praise Morocco's human rights record and overthrow the Honduran government.


"Democrats pointed to the Republicans, a party explicitly dedicated to the needs of the wealthiest, and that was sufficient to garner votes, no matter how reluctant."

What's missing from the above statement is the reason why Republicans get as many working peoples' votes as they do. The answer is the Social/Cultural Conservatism that's largely propagated by Right Wing churches and their millions of followers.

The Republicans speak to this base in terms of domestic policy even though they pass policy that favors the 1%.

The Democrats are kinder to gays, women, Blacks, Latinos... at least in terms of The Conversation. They, too, cater to the rich largely because campaigns cost a fortune and that forces candidates to raise those sums by courting a donor class.

It's a lot like the royal court of a former era with courtiers flattering the king in order to win a measure of largess.

And why would that be strange when this nation has largely fallen under its own dynastic political structure? The only thing missing are idiots wearing red uniforms to choreograph the "changing of the guard."


To confirm the validity of Jake's thesis in this article and the serial concerns expressed by me and many other CD posters, Democratic Party players hold fewer US Congressional, and state office seats (including governors) than they have in 90 years.

The largest declines occurred during the first terms of Bill Clinton and Obama when they followed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) play book by signing in GOP legislation (NAFTA for Clinton, ACA for Obama) to assure that Democrats would stay home in the subsequent election, effectively handing control of Congress to the GOP, thereby making it easier for the POTUS to deliver for the 1% at the expense of the 99%.


I'm sorry. I must challenge the above statement. Twice on NPR there was a profound discussion about just how deftly Republican strategists have worked the voter districts to produce the above outcome. In other words, it is NOT organic; nor does it represent a TRUE majority.

Since politics is basically where lots of today's Wall St. temple money-changers place bets, it's become a VERY dirty business. And that means LOTS of dirty tricks are used and the overriding ethos (if it could be called that) is "it's not against the law unless someone is caught."

I'll look for the link.

Until this info is known and understood, a comment like yours would APPEAR to be true in the same way that some pundits STILL argue that G. Bush, Jr. actually won the elections of 2000 and 2004.

Another example, did Hillary actually win the nomination... or was that result generated through LOTS of behind the scene graft, corruption, secret deal-making, and major vote count anomalies?

It essentially comes down to "depends what win means."


BRAVO! Tell it like it is Jake!

To paraphrase Obama......"What we heard in Philly this week wasn’t particularly Democratic – and it sure wasn’t progressive/left. What we heard was a deeply deceptive vision of a country where the 1% corrupts politicians and government and turns us against each other, and use the rest of the world for profit alone. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems – just the fanning of resentment and mouthing deceptive words to continue the rule of the 1% that generated anger, and hate/contempt. And that is not the America I know."

What we heard in Philly this week were apologists for corrupt politics and leadership. Manipulative, but empty, sugar-sweet words that evaded the critical issues of our time that millions demand - party propaganda and hyper-partisanship. Deceptive words that bypassed the decades of increasing betrayals of the Dem establishment away from the people, the 99%, and its servitude to 1% big-money and power, and the depraved quest for profits above all else.
those mechanisms must be torn down.......

To paraphrase D.M:

"Our lives are not our own, we are bound to others and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future."

They try to make us believe: "There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well. This movement - to tear down the systems that built it -.will never survive"

They try to make us believe: "No matter what you do it will never amount to anything more than a single drop in a limitless ocean, but what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?"

"We must all fight and, if necessary, die to teach people the truth". "You have to do whatever you can't not do."

"If (we) had remained invisible, the truth would stay hidden. (we) couldn't allow that."

"And what if no one believes this truth?"

"Someone already does."


Hate half-fast corporate liberals? You betcha.
The Democrats have, especially since Bill Clinton, spouted liberal rhetoric talking peace while fomenting war, touting civil rights while expanding prisons and the racist police state, promising economic justice while shipping out jobs, eliminating the safety net and pushing neo-liberal economics. The Democrats spout this stuff in order to attract and suppress the left. Liberals buy it. They can be counted on to vilify progressives and stab us in the back in any struggle and they can be counted on to claim the gains made afterward.

Let's all hold hands, sing and sway back and forth for drone assassination, Zionism, war and bank deregulation -- so long as Democrats do it. . . .

To hell with them. I'm grateful that this election cycle has grown the actual left and shown the phony liberals for who they are.


The Dems take labor, liberals and the left for granted. After all, you aren't going to vote repug.

It takes independent candidates to change that. Lets shake 'em up.


During the 60's no one thought of themselves as "progressive". We were communists, socialists, anarchists on the left and then the liberals--oh, and yeah, right-wingers such as HRC Goldwater girl. FDR under the influence of his remarkable wife Eleanor Roosevelt and the support of some socialists passed social welfare. His aim, let's remember, was to save capitalism. Glad that so many among our youth are hip to the ravages of this predatory system. My solidarity is with them and Mother Earth--they deserve a future.


From the article:

"The 2016 revolt is in part a reaction against the system that Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page describe in their remarkable 2014 study, in which they conclude that "In the United States...the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose."

"And that's the point: The people "generally lose," and they're tired of it. They see what's happening to them, to their kids, and to their communities, and they are no longer satisfied with the explanations of those who insist that everything is just fine."

I would bring HONEST readers' attention to the above statements which serve as absolute contrasts with some of the forum's "regulars" who endlessly posit that voters get what they want, or that voters are to blame for bad policies.

These memes are repeated here DAILY. And it's a JOB refuting them in the interest of Truth, Liberty, and the possibility of restoring Justice to this land of the undermined and under-served.


I see the Democrats as digging a bigger and bigger hole for themselves with all the propaganda this week.


"Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud "



"They see that Democrats favor loyalty to the president over principled opposition to corporate "trade" pacts that threaten workers and the environment."

This idea that Democrats standing FOR TIPP and TPP represents loyalty to the President is the Cover Story.

Too many within the upper echelon of the Democratic Party are "friends of " Monsanto, Big Pharma, and other corporate interests that are INTENT upon passing these odious policies which, as many have pointed out, are less about trade than about suppressing citizens' rights (all over the world) to determine what's in their own food, which environmental laws will prove binding, and which hard-won labor rights will remain sacrosanct.

The premise of loyalty reminds me of the way Bill Clinton was praised for his "bipartisanship" which really meant that he crossed the aisle to make common cause with Republicans who, at that time, WERE the party of Big Business.

This was the moment when both parties were morphed into two wings of a bird that flew exclusively in the direction the 1% sent it.

It should prove no mystery given the financial facts on the ground as cited in the Piketty Study: That over the course of the past 2 decades, almost ALL newly engineered wealth went exclusively to the 1%.

The Clintons are to global corporate cronyism what the consigliere is to the Mafia Crime Boss.


I have done these things. So what?

These "individual-centered" remedies don't mean shit to a tree when events are already catastrophic and call for CENTRALIZED responses...

The protocols put in place during World War II to save precious metals and conserve resources represent an example of what could be done... in terms of mass mobilization.

But citizens are held hostage by corporations and their lifeblood is profit.

Also, when consumer-driven money streams dry up, don't forget: These entities are in cahoots with those who just PRINT money. And that's easy enough. Fund a politician's career to the tune of several million dollars and end up with "the printing rights" to produce BILLIONS hot off the Fed's presses!

Then this money--generated out of thin air--is not just passed around, it's used as collateral against which very real and precious assets are purchased. Thus the melding of the fake economy with that of the real one has lent incredible financial (and whatever else it can buy) advantages to a relatively small number of persons.

What's the current figure? That 48 individuals/families own HALF of the world's assets?

They own The House and the House always wins in an economy based on Casino Capitalism and its Shock Doctrine tentacles.


Those who come to these threads without an agenda, might consider the following:

When I call out those whose job appears to be blaming voters, and I cite evidence exposing just how disingenuous this castigation is... very few people back me up.

When I call out the significant political impact of the Christian Right, I also find very little support.

And this forum certainly does have a rather disproportionate number of Trump supporters.

What do all three have in common?

Well, Trump has "won" the Christian right. And one of the hallmarks of right wing thinking is the Blame Game. Plus, real conservative wish to preserve the status quo (corrupt as it is); so the best way to protect Power is by blaming those without it for the corruptions of our times. (I've laid out some lucid examples in recent comments.)

All three of these items comport with the patterns of behavior/commentary that I have accurately identified.

In a time of such vast deception, funding in place to saturate Internet sites with political propaganda, and an over-arching spy state that also is tasked with controlling opinions... NOTHING I've exposed should seem far-fetched.

Again, the lack of "the usual posters" backing up these comments suggests either strategic indifference or hiding from their own complicity. "Just following orders" style.


"(...) Looking to chart a new course — a "third way" — for liberals who were apathetic or even hostile toward organized labor and friendly toward organized wealth, the Democratic Leadership Council emerged as a powerful voice within the party's establishment, touting the benefits of "private-sector economic growth" and attempting to counter the perception that Democrats are the party of unions and "big government." (...)"

This, to me is one of the most loaded paragraphs in the article and yet not even close to being mined for its conceptual treasures. The entire trope of very real corruption being sold as "big government" was, if the timeline is observed, a magical hinge replacement from open/close to hyper-greased revolving back door that actually has made "big corporate government" a fascist force that we now have to hunker down to grapple with.

Looking back to the Reagan era, I find myself wondering about a another "B" -for-bizarre actor element that was exploded massively and ubiquitously on the scene. And that is manipulation of public perceptions of TIME and causal relationships.

I regard these as earmarks of not only the incompetence of legacies of predation, but the inevitable inherent inability to recognize the structural weaknesses because the system is predicated on generation after generation of constantly aggregating 'externalized costs' (all the stuff not counted, recognized or claiming that they do not exist) in the very premises. If you try to build a structure with voids, guess what it is that you end up with?

One of my favorite illustrations of this is the serpinski triangle.

Scroll down to the subsection describing the operative function "Removing triangles". Please note the glaring omission in the description that that the first cut is INVERTED, as are ALL subsequent cuts.



Maybe this part of the reason why?

This is called "Free speech". The people are locked in a caged area and given the "right" to carry signs protesting the Government. How many Hilary supporters think this a good idea or that would suggest "Under trump it will be worse"?

Maybe the DNC should sell tickets to the Hilary supporters and they can come around and take pictures of the protestors as at some zoo .Fundraising at its finest!

Those soldiers over there in Syria and Africa and places too numerous too mention are killing poor peoples in those Countries to defend this right to "free speech" at home.

Hey at least the protestors are not forced to speak Arabic , right?


Some of us are still Reds -- maybe more than ever.


I think this is one of the best articles written here lately. It will take some time to read it, and read all the reference links, but you will have an education by the time you are done.

Follow-ups could be an economic study about the debt, and control that wall st has on our economy, and then about how outsourcing has destroyed quality of products and quality of life in America (while allowing the wealthiest to clean house).