Home | About | Donate

Establishment Democrats and the Next March of Folly


Establishment Democrats and the Next March of Folly

John Atcheson

The March of Folly Defined: In 1984, Barbara W. Tuchman wrote the much acclaimed book, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam in which she documented four cases where governments pursued policies contrary to their own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives, and despite evidence that the chosen courses of action would have devastating consequences.


I have been a Democrat all my life. At this point my head is ready to explode. After the Hope and Change fiasco, anyone who supports Hillary has simply not been paying attention. I will vote for Bernie Sanders in November even if I have to write him in. Even if Trump wins and I am accused of throwing my vote away. I will NEVER vote for Hillary.
"We the People are so screwed!"


Bernie is going to win the nomination despite the democrats who support more war and ignore environmental collapse.

People want Bernie to win because he is a sincere man who wants nothing more than to heal our country and Earth. Bernie Sanders will be the next president, especially if he chooses congressional representative Tulsi Gabbard for vice president.

I am not afraid of Donald Trump and will write in Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard as my own personal plan b.


As I've said many times, the number 1 job of Democrats is to lose to Republicans.

In this sense, Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate. And, should she accidentally eke out a win in November, the mid-term elections 2 years later will be a boon for Republicans in congress, "forcing" her to "compromise" and implement a right-wing agenda, the Democrats (and Republicans) real agenda.

It's all so obvious and so scripted, and, amazingly, large swaths of the populations don't see it. It boggles my mind.


I really, really don't want to see Donald Trump in the Oval Office. But I am no longer willing to allow the Democratic Party to exploit the absolute absurdity of a president who is totally unqualified to force me to vote for someone who promotes war, big banks and exploitative business and opposes most of the reforms desired by most people in the United States. Anyone who does not more or less automatically support, work for, and speak in favor of single-payer health care for everyone has already decided that s/he doesn't care for the good of the people. Anyone who supports--however tepidly--the TPP has already chosen to throw American workers under the bus of amoral multi-national corporations for the benefit of a few people who are already obscenely wealthy and who are pathologically incapable of being satisfied by any economic concession granted to them. Hillary Clinton is one of those people. I am quite willing to concede that she has supported some worthy social causes which Donald Trump would probably undermine (though it's hard to know, since Trump will say, and has already said, almost anything about almost everything). So even though I wretch and gag at the thought of a more-or-less imperial Donald doing whatever he decides to do on any given morning, I will not support a candidate who represents the status quo of the financial and political elite. If the Democrats want my vote, they will have to present me with a candidate who offers a real alternative, not only to Donald Trump, but also to business as usual.


Totally agree with you!


Ever since the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed in 1985 the Party's mission has focused on getting more corporate cash than the GOP. Winning elections is secondary.

With three decades of pandering to corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us, the Party in recent years has been raking in more than a billion corporate dollars per year. Nominating Sanders will result in the loss of most of that money. Nominating Clinton sustains the flow of corporate money irrespective of the general election outcome.

The Party and many operatives including the Clintons got rich from previous follies. Many more will get rich or richer from this folly.


"To run a candidate who could very well lose to him verges on criminal. Yet such is the power of entrenched self-interest - such is the commitment to the status quo"--TRUTH! For the Establishment, running Hillary makes perfect sense--even if she loses to a billionaire Republican. It's not the interests of the people they care about. Bernie represents the people, which means trouble for the Establishment/1%.

"Sanders, they contend, would whither under the assault of a general campaign, while Hillary – the seasoned candidate – will get stronger." WHERE ON EARTH does the assumption come from that Hillary is "the seasoned candidate" compared to Bernie Sanders?...

THIRTY FIVE years ago Sanders beat a five-term, entrenched incumbent to become mayor of Burlington, an office to which Sanders was re-elected 3 times. He then served 16 years in the U.S. Congress and is now in his second term in the U.S. Senate--offices to which he had to continually run for and be re-elected!

And Hillary? Let's see, she was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, re-elected once and then aborted her second term for an APPOINTMENT to the office of Secretary of State. Then she ran and LOST her bid for the presidency, and isn't looking too successful now, except where her Machine can effectively rig the results one way or another.


Beautifully said. Thank you!


This seems like a highly delusional opinion.


Indeed, the collective power of the Establishment has been gathered against Sanders in a confederacy of dunces from the very start, doing everything they can to assure that they nominate a status quo candidate in a year when people are screaming for a reformist.

The whole article was well written and insightful. And the above quote is exactly what is happening. Also I just read a blurb from a recent Noam Chomsky interview on Democracy Now and he pointed out that today's GOP is the biggest threat to humanity that has ever existed.


Do you really think that the MSM is liberal or behind the Democratic Party? The press is liberal is a mantra the far right has been chanting for years. The MSM is the news arm of several corporations that are decidedly not liberal. But then neither is the mainstream Democratic Party. I just don't see any evidence that the MSM supports the Demos over the GOP. Look who gets all the press. Trump.


Tuchman, who is Jewish, left out one very important place where we've pursued a policy against our national interest--ISRAEL/PALESTINE.


I am pro Bernie and will support him and the policies he represents though the convention and beyond.

Here in California we have voted enough Republicans out of office that they can no longer sabotage our state's government and economy for their political games. Voting Republicans out of office has made a substantial difference for California, so I will be voting for anyone that is not a Republican.

I encourage everyone else to do the same thing.


I don't understand this statement. It's not obvious to me that any person or party engages in politics to lose. Please help me understand your meaning. Thanks.


The Democratic establishment at the moment is aligned with the will of the people. A large majority of voters in the Democratic primary have voted for Hillary Clinton and she has won the pledged delegates by a large margin. So as of now the Superdelegates and voters have arrived at the same decision. It is hard to imagine the Democratic establishment overriding the will of the people and choosing Bernie Sanders as the nominee based on match-up polling data. That would risk alienating a lot of voters who are part of the Democrat Party's base, particularly African American voters. So I think the Democratic establishment will do the right thing and stick with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates. It appears Hillary Clinton will get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination and will wind up being the nominee regardless of what the data from the match-up polls show.


Tulsi Gabbard would be a great choice for running mate., but I wonder if former State Senator Nina Turner (Ohio) would be a better choice. She might help bring in the African-American vote that is so unaccountably missing among Sanders' supporters.


This captures the essence of what I meant.


Chomsky: I agree, but in the long run, Clinton could likely be worse than trump by postponing a progressive movement, and in the short run, imo, in trade, debt, and wars.


Exactly. "The MSM will control the outcome..." Until the general population learns that the main stream media are not on their side, they will continue to be under the spell of their trusted entertainment personalities, the "news" reporters and the opinion makers in the media. For example, didn't we just see the Millennial's icon Trevor Noah on The Daily Show bashing Bernie Sanders for his "unrealistic" and expensive social programs? Yes, the skit was turned into a joke but the jab was unmistakable and memorable. Ordered from on high, no doubt, with an eye to its target audience. Bought and paid for.