Elections, Democrats and the Underclass
A lot has been said about the Democrats cozying up to Wall Street and big corporations. But, this very complaint assumes that the Democrats could be any different from who they are and what or whom they represent. This very complaint reveals the false liberal perception that the state power can be won by ordinary working wage-earning people through election campaigns that are mainly and mostly financed by big corporations, a perception or rather a misrepresentation which helps keep the state power in the hands of the billionaires by presenting elections as the way to change from the party that had a chance but didn’t right the wrongs back to the one that had the chance the previous time which is now going to do better and the cycle continues and things never change, despite huge campaign signs promising “change”. The truth is however that the state isn’t an independent entity to be shifted from one class to another whenever there is an election which is determined by big money, anyway.
Liberals also help shift the focus away from the fact that once the elections are over, it’s not the people’s lobbyists who will pressure and dictate policies to the former candidates but the corporate lobbyists for corporate interests, interests which for many decades have been presented as the same as those of people’s by both parties. The Democrats aren’t different from Republicans in whom they represent, but by how much or how little they want to give to the working class at any given time, which varies by time and based on political conditions and calculations. Both parties would be open to giving more than before depending on political “facts on the ground” and both are equally likely to take back when conditions are conducive to taking back. In fact, Democrats are often more capable and therefore more likely to venture in such take backs since they don’t elicit as much outcry from unions and liberals. The good cop is often more likely to win a confession than the bad by employing a somewhat different approach. The point that should be kept in mind is that they both work for the same institution. Electing a Democrat and being surprised why working people’s lot didn’t get any better reminds one of Einstein’s explanation of insanity: doing the same experiment every time and expecting a different result.
When I state these facts which no one is able to refute and disprove, some ask rhetorically: so whom do you suggest we vote for? The answer is: when you have a problem that you want solved, first you must start from analyzing and understanding the facts. That itself can do a bigger service in the long run to bringing about the solution than sticking to a tried and tired “solution” that never works. And the reason it doesn’t is because it’s based on a wrong assumption: that the Democrats do or can really represent working people, that the state is there for the taking by a class of people who aren’t in power, who don’t own or control the media or the police or the courts or the military or the decision making power of large corporations which have budgets bigger than many nations’, that such entrenched power can easily and without a large and protracted people’s movement change hands. That’s the false message and miseducation perpetrated by liberals and Democrats, a false message that allows the state to remain in the same hands as it has been through lies and deception. That’s the contribution of the Democrats to people’s political awareness: hamper and prevent their awareness and understanding, promise that things will get better for the middle class through and within the system and channel their anger against the other party, rather than to bring about real and fundamental change.
If you listen to the statements of the candidates, after you disregard all the patriotic nonsense about “American exceptionalism”, you will realize that except for some extremely reactionary and crazy ones, those who have a shot at winning all say and promise pretty much the same things, especially when things have been looking down. After spending over a trillion dollars on the two wars started by Bush, candidates of both parties were promising “change”. And now, with income and wealth gap being at levels never before seen, with corporations wreaking an unprecedented amount of profits and the vast majority struggling to survive, with millions still out of work, including new college graduates who can’t find work even after undertaking tens of thousands of dollars of debt and many families still not able to afford to see a doctor due to the out of pocket costs, they all are talking about the unemployed, the income gap and vanishing middle class. And as for those millions who aren’t exactly considered in middle class, which itself is now defined at a much lower stratum than in years past, those who work two or three jobs when and if they can find them and still struggle to pay their bills, who have no time to spend time with family and whose poverty is considered a natural and normal part of the system, those who in fact through their cheap labor contribute the most to the lavish lifestyle of the wealthy, they aren’t even mentioned. And for good political reason: they actually don’t count because most of them have instinctually realized what most liberals can’t after many “intellectual” and “theoretical” discussions: that voting won’t make any difference to them. They’re “poor” in theory and can’t convince you “intellectually” why their voting won’t make a difference. But they know it won’t, nevertheless. And politicians have learned through experience to not count on them because they know most of them don’t vote. But, they’re partly right in their thinking, only partly. They think they have no power to ever change things and get out of the poverty they’re in and that’s the part they’re wrong about.