Home The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here
Home The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here

The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here

There are really two Democratic parties.

One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.

They will say absolutely anything to get elected.

Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.

The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.

They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.

Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol' boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.

Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.

The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.

Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.

Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.

Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.

The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.

Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.

Republicans benefited from a Democratic civil war. They were running a traditional campaign against a more traditional part of the Democratic Party. They didn’t really beat the left. They beat the old Dems.

The old Dems were crippled by the progressive agenda. They were pretending to be moderates while ObamaCare, illegal alien amnesty and gay marriage were looking over their shoulders. They married Obama and it was too late for them to get a divorce. And it doesn’t look any better down the road.

The Clintons became the public face of the Democrats, but Instead of turning things around, they presided over a series of defeats. Bill Clinton couldn’t even save Mark Pryor in Arkansas. Not only that, he had to watch Republicans take every congressional seat in Arkansas and the governor’s mansion.

Bill had wanted Hillary to play Sarah Palin, turning her into a kingmaker and building on a narrative of female empowerment by having her back female senators. Instead Kay Hagan, Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes and Amanda Curtis lost. Not only did Hillary Clinton fail to deliver, but the War on Women narrative was turned inside out by the rise of Joni Ernst. Ernst’s emergence as the definitive new senator of the election killed any chance that Democrats had of spinning the election results as sexist; even if Harkin’s Taylor Swift crack hadn’t done that on its own.

The Dems had gambled that the War on Women could offset Obama’s unpopularity, but voters were more concerned about the economy than the culture war. Not only novelty candidates like Wendy Davis, but incumbents like Mark Udall, tried for what they thought was a winning strategy.

But the War on Women wasn’t a strategy, it was a fake talking point that their own consultants had forgotten to tell them was disinformation that they had created to seed the media and spread fear among Republicans. Romney had won white women in every age group.

Increased turnout by minority women had skewed the numbers, but those numbers reflected racial solidarity, not a gender gap. Progressives had not bothered to tell their old Dem cousins what they were doing. The Senate Dems marched into political oblivion by adopting the Wendy Davis platform to the bafflement and ridicule of female voters.

The War on Women meme was greeted with laughter in New York and Colorado. Senator Udall was dubbed Mark Uterus by his own supporters and performed worse with female voters than in 2008. Meanwhile in Iowa, Joni Ernst had split the female vote which Harkin had won by 64 percent in 2008.

Not only did Hillary Clinton do more damage to her brand by failing to deliver white and women voters, but the Democratic Party is stunned, confused and divided. And the damage is self-inflicted.

The Clintons thought that they could reunite a splintering Democratic Party by taking on a Republican midterm election wave. Obama sabotaged Reid to keep the Democratic Party leaning to the left. Reid is now attacking Obama openly in a way that would have been inconceivable a year ago. Obama’s people are returning the favor by going after Reid and Schumer. The war of the two parties has begun.

The old Dems have no ideas and no agenda. The progressives want to get as much of their agenda done even if it’s by executive order and even if it makes them even more unpopular than they are now. The old Dems have realized that they are the ones who will pay a political price for progressive radicalism.

And waiting in the wings is the 2016 election.

Obama has made it clear that he is willing to nuke his own party to get amnesty done. But for the first time his party seems less than eager to sacrifice its short term greed for the agendas of the left. And the only man who could tie the two wings together has emerged weakened from the Battle of Arkansas.

Amnesty promises radical demographic change, but red state Dems want to protect their positions today. They aren’t doing it for the ideology. They want to stay in office. The mutual backstabbing ended in disaster for the Democrats and there’s no reason to think that the backstabbing is going to stop.

Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans for the next two years. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.


  1. Excellent piece.

    I have five steak dinners riding on Elizabeth Warren being the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States. People continue to look at me incredulously, and make the bet because it seems bizarre. I have seen the future. I will be eating a lot of good steak in 2016. Your piece points out precisely why.

    I become an angry white guy when people say the Republican Party is owned by the religious right, corporations and the military-industrial complex. And that Republicans are "so mean," and that "our nation is coming apart because our politics are so uncivil." Or they'll channel a little Rodney King: "Can't we all get along?" There is precious little self-analysis. Where is the yielding on Democratic positions on teachers unions, civil service unions, low-wage worker unions, Hollywood hedonism, and gay marriage? Ask such questions, and you are met with a puzzled look... "Because people who oppose these things are wrong." Oh, okay, I get it now. This is the educated, nuanced thinking that Democrats covet as their exclusive high ground. No critical thinking required. Quaint.

    For the Left, politics is everything. Elizabeth Warren is the real deal. She's got the backstory and rhetoric Lefties love. Point out that she's not really 1/32 Native American, and Leftists laugh. Ha-ha they say... as though you're really not that stupid to believe that the things Lefties say have to be true. They don't. The Progressive universe is Nietzsche's universe: the superman, the will to power, and the connection to big ideas one learns when attending college. America's universities are divorced from truth, free from the demands of proof, and absolved from the admonishments of humility. They dream of how wonderful human consciousness will be when John Lennon's "Imagine" is America's national anthem, and we bring these values to a world desiring the kind of material consolation the Left promises, while damning them to the romantic primitivism of shared misery.

    Harry Reid, et al, have no one to blame but themselves. They nominated a man in Obama with no past, voting present, and promising a bright future with platitudes of streets paved with entitlement gold. At no cost, of course, but to the "rich." The great Progressive and Leftist lie is very simple: "You can have [whatever you want] for nothing." Magical thinking... the kind of thinking a population of public education graduates will believe when they are taught by the most in-the-bag believers in Progressive thinking in America today: the teachers unions. And the teachers are aligned with it because Progressive thinkers like John Dewey were the geniuses who gave us command-and-control public education along the Prussian model, and a university system based on an imaginary SAT-based "meritocracy" where logic and rationality are worshipped until it's time to discuss politics.

  2. Cont'd...

    Elizabeth Warren is the perfect Progressive candidate. She validates the Progressive base's life story and vacant beliefs about everything America should/must/ought be, while spitting on political opponents who have a different view of what America should/must/ought be. But the Progressive can exempt himself/herself form the standards (they set) for this debate, because the other side is amoral, incorrect, wrong, racist, homophobic, evil, etc. The non-Progressive is not WORTHY of consideration. And such ideas are tied to the concept of value, and the Left always asks "Whose values?" Indeed.

    Traditional Democrats losing the war with Progressive Democrats is bad news for America. It will push the Republicans to Libertarianism, which will destroy the Reagan coalition with religious conservatives. Libertarians don't support a Republican campaign apparatus, phone bank or get-out-the-vote ground game. Libertarians are ideologues, intellectuals who will destroy the American ideal just as surely as the Prog-Left ideologues and intellectuals. It's not a true choice. It's misery either way. It's an either-or proposition: EITHER equality or liberty. The only way out of this pickle is a both-and, which is the practical pragmatism of the American middle.

    And last, but not least, we have our vaunted newsmedia-entertainment complex, with its SportsCenter-like juvenile approach to real political problems. This is where we watch both political parties shred each other with titillating delight while we ignore the Separation of Powers that makes the whole system work. Obama and Reid enjoyed working together long enough to wreck the Senate's function, didn't they? All while cheered on by a news media that isn't serving it's proper function as a public trust based on freedom. My idea of a good journalist is a consummate cynic who doesn't trust any politicians because he knows they just want one thing: power. Today's media wants a transfer of power. And Elizabeth Warren is their perfect candidate.

  3. Daniel, this makes a good "part 2" to your "A Tale of Two Republican Parties" article. Both were keenly insightful.

    The only thing that might be missing from this one is a discussion of the low-information voter base of the Democratic Party. I know, strictly speaking that's not the party, so this isn't a criticism of your analysis. But mobilizing them (and the relationship to voter fraud) plays a big role for the Dems political ambitions and those two concepts seem like juicy article fodder for you, I think. :]

  4. Anonymous9/11/14

    Brilliant! I have been reading your thoughts for a long time now and wanted you to know how much I enjoy and appreciate your work,thank you so much

  5. Anonymous9/11/14

    Do you think that Reid and Pelosi will relax Party discipline enough to allow some veto overrides and take revenge on the radicals? (And perhaps save the Republic.)

    Andy Texan

  6. Reid might find ways to hurt Obama, but he's still basically a careerist. Pelosi is quite close to the radicals, though her brain is mostly empty.

    I wouldn't count on a veto override from them, but there might be a rebellion brewing especially from Dems in areas where they suddenly look like an endangered species.

  7. Anonymous9/11/14

    Let us earnestly hope that there are enough loyal Americans among the Dims in congress decide to save the Republic from this Mussolini want to be.

    Andy Texan

  8. Common 'tater10/11/14

    There used to be a wing of the Democrat party that was conservative, and some of them jumped ship to become Republicans (either to ride the Reagan wave or due to actual ideology). I will need to find your article on the two Republican parties, but we saw the results in 2008 and 2012 when the R's gave us McCain and Romney and promises of "immigration reform", aka amnesty, despite constituent protests. It is now the D's turn as the ideologues insisted on playing the same old victim tunes. In many places the electorate recognized that hope and change are not the same as jobs and a paycheck. Actually, if we are lucky, both of these old parties will splinter and perhaps come up with a new mix that at the very least manages to dump the big government, big spend, more taxes. If we are really, really lucky both parties will spend so much time arguing with each other they will pass fewer and fewer laws and let America run itself.

    Great insight, I sure hope you are right.

  9. While I agree with what is written here, I don't think the Republican party is any different than their counterparts. They recycle the same old guys ad nauseum while repressing newer, younger, and hopefully less corrupt future leadership. I am glad this country has spoken through its votes. But i am skeptical that things will truly change.And although I'd hate to see it, I think Hillary will be our next prez (as long as Bill is alive simply because she cannot win without him) because any decent candidate on the Republican side is not who old Republican leadership will support.

  10. One of the finest pop analyses I've seen. clap clap clap.

  11. Anonymous10/11/14

    "Libertarians don't support a Republican campaign apparatus, phone bank or get-out-the-vote ground game. Libertarians are ideologues, intellectuals who will destroy the American ideal just as surely as the Prog-Left ideologues and intellectuals."

    Spectacular comment until you got here. Have you not acquainted yourself with US Sens. Lee + Paul?

    Don't forget that feminists and religious ultra-conservatives are fighting the same battle, essentially. Libertarianism is hardly a threat to our country, as the aforementioned ideologies surely are.

  12. Anonymous10/11/14

    It is possible that with the exception of the die hards, those who voted last week, and those who will vote in the future, see Democrats still in Congress as Obama's enablers. It is also possible that when the new costs of Obamacare kick in, the enablers will be in even more trouble.

  13. Why would any illegal want amnesty? Right now they can work without paying taxes, drive drunk without license or insurance and never spend a day in jail for that or any other non-violent offense, get free health care, free money, free education, free food, use any hospital and run up millions of dollars in health care bills they never have to pay, and help with housing. Why would they want to give up all those things? It's probably the same reason PRicans never wants to become a state. When you become a US citizen or state, you pick up a burden to support those who won't support themselves. They would rather be on the free end. Like my friend always said: "When my father was alive he voted Republican, but now that he's dead he votes Democrat."

  14. DenisO10/11/14

    "...there’s no reason to think that the backstabbing is going to stop."
    Obama deliberately sabotaged many Dem. Senators because of his King ego, and they will find their sharp knives, which are never far away. Those up for reelection in 2016 will be willing to vote to over-ride his veto on things like Keystone, killing coal jobs and Democratic seats, and halting EPA's fanaticism.. Amnesty is not an obvious benefit to them, either, and they will want to show they voted against his agenda when they run in 2016, He is now a loser, whether he knows it or not, and his next Demorat home is "under the bus".
    It would take less than a dozen scared Demorat Senators to join Republicans in overriding, or impeaching, and Joe Biden would gladly call in favors for Demorat impeachment votes that would give him the "job", I'm sure.. Impeachment isn't a good idea, IMO, particularly with Biden as replacement, but knowing it was a real possibility might make Obama less arrogant. I think Valerie Jarrett will pull in his leash. She knows how much destruction he's caused, and will want to try and save the Party. He's used to being King, however, and he's not too smart.

  15. Anonymous11/11/14

    Denis, You have a point about about Slo Jo, he's always wanted to be president, at his age, even pres.-by-default might appeal.
    However, I don't see Jarrett as ever 'reigning in" Obama, she has always been most of the problem, and would never take a role in the solution.


  16. Your insights on Islam are completely undermined by your buying into the mythical victim world of the American Right.
    If you want to win the War on Islam, you are going to have to change your domestic political beliefs to ones that transcends Conservatism and Liberalism.
    There is a lot of cynicism, hatred and sadism on the American Right, pretending that it is not there does not help to win the battle with Mecca.

  17. Anonymous11/11/14

    Northern: Speaking of cynicism and hatred.....and the American Right is getting sick of being told what it 'has' to do. The best sponsor of hatred and cynicism in America currently resides in the WH.. Take your grievances to him and his misguided supporters.

  18. I think what we'll see eventually sometime in 2015 or early 2016 is a Democrat delegation going to Obama, explaining that their own political survival is forcing them to lean towards voting for impeachment...and offering him a pardon from interim Prez Giggles Biden in exchange for a resignation to avoid the drama and damage of an impeachment trial.

  19. Anonymous12/11/14

    Fauxcahontas Vs The Cuckquean, live on pay per view.

  20. @Anonymous 10/11/14:

    I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the Libertarian Party. If you're a wing nut moron quasi-radical pot smoking loser, you might be a member of the Libertarian Party. Since you mention Senators Lee and Paul, I suspect you're not. However, if you think (small-L) libertarianism is going to protect you from vegan feminist fanatics, you're smoking something. You just might be a member of the Libertarian Party, or should consider membership. (Big-L) Libertarians are spoilers who claim to be above all other mortal thinkers, based on principle. They are nothing but bratty, propeller-head losers who'd rather lose than make a difference. Religious conservatives are not a threat to you, sir. Perhaps the "ultra-" variety are, but not the rest of us. We just want to be left alone and not be forced to pay for or condone the killing of innocent human life. If that puts us up there with radical feminists in your nook, we're all doomed.

  21. Anonymous15/11/14

    So God-Soetoro created mankind-americans in his own image, in the image of God-Barry he created them; male and female and 46 other genders he created them, through amnesty HE created them… (Genesis ameliorated)

  22. Anonymous15/11/14

    I do not see Congress doing anything to reign in Obama and amnesty being declared no mattered how bad it affects the USA. Amnesty will hurt both parties (Democrat and Republican) and lead to public backlash against all politician in 2016. The election in 2014 was a Republican wave election due to the public hating the Democrat's actions, but 2016 will be a wave election to throw out every incumbent politician due to what has happened and what wasn't stopped. This includes who runs for President being a politician during Obama's reign and if they were in his party, cabinet, or was in place to stop his activities but did not.

  23. Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans for the next two years. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.

    Will he have to fight Republicans? Boehner seems more than eager to surrender.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like