Your browser does not support the HTML5 canvas tag.

18 November, 2016

Dear Americans: the Democratic Party is purely neoliberal, NOT Left!

by system failure

In the wake of Trump's unexpected victory, for many, there is an ongoing battle in various discussions about the ideological orientation of the Democratic Party in the United States. A part of those who attack the establishment inside the Democrats and rather belong to the group of Far-Right white Trump voters, like to point the Democratic Party as part of the Left in the United States, or even, as the key representative of the Left in the country.

The first response to this simplified perception, is that the real Left in the US was never existed in reality. During approximately the last 100 years, Franklin D. Roosevelt was probably the one who applied only a flavor of Leftist policies, by implementing Keynesian economics through government investment and spending, to create jobs for the Americans who had been destroyed from the 1929 financial crisis of casino capitalism.

In fact, the then corporate propaganda, was accusing him even as 'Communist', for shifting economy towards the state control, because it was losing its privileged position. A quote from a Roosevelt's speech is characteristic: “A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it "Fascism," sometimes "Communism," sometimes "Regimentation," sometimes "Socialism." But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.

The absolute domination of financialized capitalism from the early 70s until today, has basically reinforced further the US bipartisan authoritarianism, as both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been taken over by the neoliberal doctrine. This can be seen clearly, especially after Clinton administration, where not only the imperial wars continued, as always in the past, but the financialization had penetrated in everyday life, creating fake prosperity and financial bubbles, which later led to the new 2008 big meltdown.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have chosen to rescue the banking parasites at the expense of the taxpayers, preserving a deeply unequal system. At the same time, the complex of the deep state, the corporate lobbyists and the neocons, continued to influence the Congress concerning every key decision that had to be made.

As a result, we had more destructive wars, more terror attacks, more suppression measures, more job losses, more destruction of the welfare state, more refugees, more poverty, more inequality. At the same time, we had, of course, more profits for the banks, more profits for the arms and the oil industry, more power to the hands of the lobbyists.

Therefore, in order to maintain this 'business as usual' status, the establishment had to maintain some ideological differences on the surface, in order to find a way to divide voters ideologically and keep them tied with the US bipartisanism, to make sure that would never lose control.

Hillary Clinton sold a lot of fake progressiveness by supporting the immigrants, the homosexuals, the women of course, in her desperate attempt to exhibit a fundamental difference against Donald Trump. She failed because she was the one who voted for destructive wars. She was the one who was taking money from the lobbyists. She was the one who avoided to mention any specific, substantial measure for the poor and against the financial elites. She started saying something about these issues only when she saw the Bernie Sanders threat coming.

But the Republicans too, because of their traditional, sacred belief in the free market and the corporatism, as every Right-Wing party in the Western financialized economies, are actually closer to the neoliberal doctrine. But under these circumstances, it was impossible to elect a "politically correct" candidate. They invented Donald Trump to manipulate the displeased masses with his extreme rhetoric. And he did it. He appears to be only a reserve of the establishment, in order to maintain its sovereignty.

So finally, you can understand that what the establishment fears truly, is the authentic Leftists like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein. We witnessed it clearly in the case of Sanders.

When the media pundits saw with terror that Bernie was beating Trump by a far more significant percentage than Hillary, they knew that they had to get rid of him. It was much easier to do it in the primaries with the unfair and undemocratic system of superdelegates and the inside war from DNC. They wouldn't risk to see Bernie at the finals with Trump, where the whole world would watch closely. Indeed, WikiLeaks revealed that the DNC establishment had launched a dirty war against Bernie, but also that, some lobbyists wanted to get rid of him too.

Therefore, dear Americans, the Democratic Party as well as the Republican, are purely neoliberal. The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with the Left!



  1. I like this article, and I agree about Donald Trump probably being a stealth stalking horse, but I must point out that your idea of the free market is wrong if you lump it in with corporatism and neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism. There are 2 kinds of markets, free markets, and all others are rigged markets. The general public cannot rig the market in its favor, the whole purpose of the function of a free market is that it serves the needs of the whole community without bias or prejudice. When a market is rigged it can only be rigged to favor some narrow special interest. That's why leftist attempts to rig the market to help the "People" never work and cannot work. Instead of trying to rig the market, why not let the free market do its job of creating wealth and then, afterwards, make provisions for helping the people that would otherwise suffer unduly as a result. Instead of trying to rig the game to make it come out more evenly, which is an economic lie, why not provide consolation prizes, as it were, so to speak, for those who most severely lose the game? I think that's what some people had in mind for what became the "welfare state" to accomplish, but the situation regarding free markets and welfare systems has not been well enough understood to find the right balance, yet.

  2. Regarding the financial implications I suggest this commentary: