Two-Party Duplicity

And yet there never was a more widespread feeling in England than now, that the old parties are doomed, that the old shibboleths have become meaningless, that the old watchwords are exploded, that the old panaceas will not act any longer… But in England, where the industrial and agricultural working-class forms the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion of the working-class, neither more nor less… Yet the English working-class allows the landlord, capitalist, and retail trading classes, with their tail of lawyers, newspaper writers, etc., to take care of its interests. No wonder reforms in the interest of the workman come so slowly and in such miserable dribbles. The workpeople of England have but to will, and they are the masters to carry every reform, social and political, which their situation requires. Then why not make that effort? Frederich Engels, A Working-Men’s Party, July 23, 1881

In the middle of July, the House of Representatives considered amendment 114 to H.R. 580 that would reduce US military aid to Israel by $500 million, the amount designated for Israeli missile defense. Sponsored by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the amendment offered a rare opportunity for our national leaders to show a modest objection to Israel’s genocidal foreign policy or, as in the case of Greene, to voice opposition to an unnecessary subsidy from a debt-ridden country to a country with universal healthcare and subsidized education-- the lack of which account for two of the biggest factors in personal debt in the US. 

Though only a gesture, a yes-vote on the amendment would have brought great attention to the ongoing brutal genocide in Gaza, to the nuclear-weapon-backed bully daily slaughtering starving Gazans as though it were a sport. It would have slowed the flow of US dollars supporting Israeli violence.

A yes-vote would have shown some actual principle behind the hollow slogan of “Make America Great Again” espoused by so many who neither really care about the US people nor have any idea where its greatness would lie. 

But the amendment received only six votes, and few “news” purveyors even bothered to report it. 

Some will heap praise on the four Democrats and two Republicans, citing their courage and independence.

But that profoundly misunderstands the moment.

It is wrong to offer accolades to those who are simply doing what they should do. The fact that there are so few supporting the amendment is less an expression of the moral worth of the six than a measure of the depravity of the many. We expect our representatives to do that which is morally correct. Gratitude is reserved for those who exceed their duty, not those who simply do what any decent person should do. 

Voting no-- as did 422 House members-- is a despicable, scurrilous act. Voting to give the Israeli government even a dollar for its death-dealing enterprise deserves our utter scorn. 

It is important to fully grasp what it means for nearly the entire legislative body of a country to back the genocide of another people, a people virtually defenseless for over eighteen months.

It would be easy, but cynical to see the House vote as reflecting their constituents or their apathy. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 32 percent of US respondents approve of Israel’s actions in Gaza, a substantial decrease since the beginning of Israel’s systematic killing of Gazan civilians. Therefore, the House vote is far from a reflection of the sentiments of all US citizens. 

Instead, it is a result of the corruption of US politics, specifically the two-party system. AIPAC-- the leading lobbying group for Israel’s interests in the US-- distributed $29,078,901 to 335 House members last year, according to Open Secrets. Other Israeli interest-groups contributed to House members, as did US apocalyptic fundamentalists that identify with Israel’s supposed Biblical role. 

Of course, it is not only the issue of Palestine’s right to exist that is shaped by the wholesale purchase of the two-party system. Publicly-run national healthcare, free of insurance companies-- overwhelmingly popular with the people-- never gets a serious legislative debate because of the influence of the profit-sodden insurance industry and Big Pharma. And the unpopular wars and massive defense spending keep coming, thanks to the effective, generous lobbying of the military-industrial behemoth.

My Italian-born grandmother often repeated a saying meant to explain crass opportunism and shamelessness: “Sei come Bertoldo, che mostra il culo per un soldo” (Bertoldo, shows his ass for a penny). Over fifty years of following the Democratic Party has taught me the real meaning of the insult.

Besides our morally corrupt representatives, the US mainstream media has historically thrown its support behind Israeli policies, almost without exception. Only alternative media and a profound distrust of the capitalist “news” outlets nourish opposition to official support for genocide.

What is truly remarkable, given the long standing “bipartisan” toadying to Israel and the high and growing costs of dissent in the US, is the noble actions by students and activists in the US who risk careers, arrests, and even deportation to show that everyone is not bought and sold in political life. 

The old Nixonian notion of a silent majority in the US has been turned on its head. Today, it is not an alleged conservative trend that exists beneath the political life shaped by elites, but a latent pacifism, egalitarianism, and class partisanship smoldering beneath the surface of ruling-class politics (a part of which has defected to right populism out of impatience and frustration). 

That sentiment is ill-represented by the broken, bankrupt two-party system. 

Neither major US political party captures this undercurrent. But this fault is especially true of the Democratic Party that traditionally claimed to be a home for more progressive policy. A mid-July poll conducted by The Wall Street Journal shows how distant the Democratic Party is from the people. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party-- the highest number since the poll was initiated in 1990.

Where the Republican Party broke into negative net favorability in 2005, the Democrats sank into negative territory in 2016 and today stand 20 points below the Republicans, who, nonetheless, also remain out of favor. 

The WSJ article captures well both the decline of the two-party system and the collapse of the Democratic Party in the face of Trumpism:

On the whole, voters disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and foreign policy. And yet in each case, the new Journal poll found, voters nonetheless say they trust Republicans rather than Democrats to handle those same issues in Congress. 

In some cases, the disparities are striking. Disapproval of Trump’s handling of inflation outweighs approval by 11 points, and yet the GOP is trusted more than Democrats to handle inflation by 10 points. By 17 points, voters disapprove rather than approve of Trump’s handling of tariffs, and yet Republicans are trusted more than Democrats on the issue by 7 points.

By any rational standard, one would have to conclude that voters are dissatisfied with both parties, but view the current Democratic Party as beyond hope. They may disapprove of Trump, but find nothing suggesting an alternative with the Democrats.

The WSJ article quotes Democratic Party pollster, John Anzalone: “The Democratic brand is so bad that they don’t have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party… Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they’re for and what their economic message is, they’re going to have problems.”

The hope that they will reconnect flies in the face of years, even decades of tailing the Republican Party, locating their platform slightly left of the Republicans, a place that Party leaders felt confident would hold labor, African-Americans, women, and other groups in the Party’s clutches. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats were vigorously pursuing the suburbanites and bedroom communities with lifestyle politics. Democrats gave the people answers to micro-aggressions when they were desperately looking for help with economic macro-aggressions.

Many loyal Democrats and earnest liberals are pressing the Party’s watchdogs to read the polls and repent, citing recent studies that show that working-class voters are hungering for an active social justice agenda. The Democratic Party left represented by DSA and Jacobin hope to rescue the Democratic Party from its leaders by underscoring the recent Mamdani primary victory as well as polling that shows that working people want what Mamdani offers and much more-- better pay, better benefits, cheaper prices, affordable housing, health care, etc.

But experience teaches that the Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis, Schumers, Jeffries, and Bookers are determined to steer the Democratic Party ship on the course dictated by its billionaire donors. They are perfectly happy allowing Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to paint the ship with left-wing slogans, provided that they don’t threaten to abandon the ship.

However, there is good news and cause for hope.

A mid-May poll conducted by the ultraright Cato Institute and YouGov found that-- with 18 to 29-year-olds-- socialism is quite popular and-- to their shock-- Communism has substantial support as well. Despite years of indoctrination, the Cato fellows were hysterical to discover that 62 percent of these youngsters had a favorable view of socialism and even 34 percent had a favorable view of Communism. After all the years, the money, and the effort in painting Marx, Engels, and especially Lenin as agents of Satan, the kids still don’t get it! One can only hope that more of their elders will show the same independence and escape the clutches of the capitalist propaganda mill.

But there is more good news, coming from the UK! 

In a bold move, Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana have announced the founding of a new party to the left of the Labour Party. The Labour Party-- since its brief flirtation with left social democracy after World War II-- has been drifting, even rushing, rightward. In many ways, like the Democrats, it has postured as the home of liberal and reformist ideas. And like the Democrats, it will not depart from business friendliness, minimal social advance, and an imperialist foreign policy today. Any deviance from conformity has been met with strict discipline and ostracization.

Former popular leaders of Labour-- counterparts to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez in the US Democratic Party-- have signaled that they have had enough by announcing the creation of a new, left party on Thursday, July 24. In first-weekend polling, Corbyn and Sultana’s no-name party drew 15% of the respondents, roughly the same share as the in-power Labour Party polls.

On the following Monday, Morning Star commented enthusiastically: 

Four hundred thousand and counting. Sign-ups to be part of founding the new party initiated by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana already surpass the membership of any existing political party in Britain.

While the appetite for a left alternative to Labour has long been clear, even supporters of the project cannot have expected a response on this scale…

[The] …rejection of the post-Thatcher political settlement is in reality a rejection of the consequences of the right’s policies — privatisation, deregulation and deindustrialisation — since these have been pursued by both governing parties since the 1980s…

[T]his is a very encouraging beginning. The march of authoritarianism and racism across this country, the disgusting consensus behind complicity in Israeli genocide and the attempt to keep public ownership and wealth redistribution off the table can all be challenged by the emergence of a left movement on this scale. No socialist can close their eyes to that.

Of course, we have to temper our optimism by acknowledging the tremendous challenges ahead. We saw how the auspicious start of the German alternative left party organized by Sahra Wagenknecht in 2024 faltered after remarkable early success. Nonetheless, the new German party, while failing to maintain its momentum, succeeded in shifting politics leftward and restoring confidence in a class-based agenda.

In the Corbyn/Sultana party, many see even greater opportunity to escape the stale politics of social austerity and military aggression. The initiative has already rocked the UK political system.

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com 

Nine into Two: The Failure of the US Two-Party System

When the so-called “Founding Fathers”-- the elites who constructed the US republic-- unfolded their unique vision of republicanism and political decision-making, they went long on stability and continuity and short on broad participation and social change.

Accordingly, most of them opposed political factions or parties, but very soon after the new government came into existence, major differences arose, leading to factions and swiftly into parties.

Predictably, the break in unanimity came with the formation of two parties, in the US, a Federalist and an anti-Federalist party.

But what is truly remarkable is that subsequent political differences in the US have been contained by only two parties for over two centuries. In most countries that embrace a parliamentary system, political parties emerge with the development of social classes and distinctive social strata. 

Further, as social classes generate internal differences, they too spawn new parties. In addition, religious, regional, and economic differences have generated distinctive political parties.

This is the pattern that exists throughout the advanced capitalist countries, creating multi-party parliaments as a commonplace. But not in the US.

Where there have been emergent third or fourth parties, the two parties have either placed insurmountable obstacles in their way or absorbed their political identity.

Stunted class consciousness, illusions of social mobility, perceived opportunities afforded by an expanding frontier, and entrenched loyalties are among the many factors securing a two-party system. The distractions of wars and conflicts, demanding unity and stability, have also played a role in preserving the two-party system.

In truth, the US ruling class has won a remarkable achievement in maintaining an electoral vessel filled to overflowing with diverse, incompatible interests. When will that vessel fracture?

A Pew Research Center study enlisting over 10,000 respondents in a political typology study, the most robust of those conducted by Pew since 1987 suggests a possible answer. What they found bears directly upon the validity and viability of the-two party system. In the words of the study, “...the gulf that separates Republicans and Democrats sometimes obscures the divisions and diversity of views that exist within both partisan coalitions – and the fact that many Americans do not fit easily into either one.”

Researchers found clusters of political attitudes that define independent voter perspectives that are hard to coexist comfortably in the two existing parties. They identify the following clusters and their respective percentages of the population:



It should be noted that these clusters are constructed from answers to questions that were posed to those participating in the survey. Thus, they are biased by the researchers' preconceived notions of the issues that they believe divide the US. Nonetheless,they do identify potential factions that coexist uneasily in both parties.

So we find that Pew identifies eight significant factions-- four that tend to vote Democratic and four that vote Republican (with stressed sideliners representing disinterested, disgusted, less frequent voters)-- funneling their votes into two electoral vehicles that cannot possibly represent them all adequately!

Moreover, the conventional illusion that each of the two parties represent a consistent, shared ideology obscures the many possibilities of creating useful coalitions or alliances in moving politics out of the stagnation and ineffectiveness of the US system.

Just to mention one of the insights to be drawn from the Pew study: [Members of the] "...Populist Right hold highly restrictive views about immigration policy and are very critical of government. But, in contrast to other parts of the GOP coalition, their criticism extends well beyond government to views of big business and to the economic system as a whole: 82% say that large corporations are having a negative impact on the way things are going in the country, and nearly half support higher taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations." In addition, more than any other group, they believe that they have been left behind. They also share with the left, the view that profits are too high.

While they share many left views that might be the basis for a tentative or calculated alliance with left forces, any such approach has been hysterically denounced by the liberal media, political purists, and smug elitists as consorting with evil, those who Hilary Clinton famously called "the deplorables".

If we were to burrow even deeper than the Pew topology and examine class differences-- and even more tellingly, various class ideologies-- it would become apparent that the two-party framework would fail abysmally in giving voice to the broad spectrum of political opinion characteristic of a modern, advanced capitalist state. In that regard, the two-party framework is a hindrance to democracy and neither a vehicle for nor exemplar of democratic decision-making.

Apart from its failure to capture ideological diversity, the two-party system encourages conformity on issues that are easily susceptible to patriotic or nationalistic zeolatry-- foreign policy, the military, loyalty, etc. Politicians in a two-party system dare not allow the other party to challenge them on these matters.

Consequently, we have two-party conformity on the “evils” of such diverse nations as Russia, PRC, Iran, DPRK, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, and others, who share only one common feature-- they are made a target by our two-party dominated government. 

Nor do politicians of each party dare to question the glory or budgets of the military, the FBI, the CIA, etc. for fear that they will be called out by zealots in the other party-- again, a demonstration of the surfeit of democratic debate in a two-party parliamentary system.

Pepsi or Coke, Yankees or Blue Jays, ketchup or mustard are frivolous, but harmless choices. Democrat or Republican-- in the crises before us-- too often becomes frivolous as well, but increasingly harmful.

Unfortunately, too many people have invested heavily in their respective parties, succumbing again to empty, cynical promises like Obama’s risible “hope and change” slogan in our day. No amount of disappointment can seemingly separate the act of faith that cements voters to the two-parties. The prior investment in the Democratic and Republican parties generates what economists call the “sunk cost fallacy”, the idea that too much has been expended on the respective parties to jettison them now.

But it is a fallacy and until we learn to break away from the irrationality of the two-party charade, the Democratic Party will be an obstacle to the kind of changes that we desperately need to make.

Greg Godels
zzsblogml@gmail.com

The Lemming Effect and the Left

 With two weeks before the mid-Presidential-term US elections, the number of Democratic Party political solicitations in my e-mail inbox now approaches fifty a day. The curious-- “cynical” might be a better word-- thing is that none mention a genuine issue, none suggest an argument for a cause. All come with a folksy tone, an easy familiarity (from Bob, Chuck, Nancy, or Michelle) and all presume that I’m on their “team’  with cash at hand. The cheap emotional card is pulled frequently-- “Do you want to wish President Obama/Michelle Obama/Nancy Pelosi a happy birthday?” or “You didn’t respond to our request, do you HATE Bob Mueller?” Some are scolding: “TRAGIC ENDING. I [Nancy Pelosi] e-mailed yesterday. Barbra Streisand e-mailed. Harry Reid e-mailed. Now I’m e-mailing again…” And some are foreboding: “This is bad news…” One of the hilarious best: “Hi Friend, I just got off the phone with Senator Menendez, and he asked about you specifically.” Sure, he did...

But not a serious issue, an urgent cause, or a principled stand revealed.

Despite the lack of issues, not to mention a program, the Democrats fundraising tactics are working: ActBlue reports that Democrats raised $385 million in the third quarter alone, more than they raised in the entire 2014 midterm effort. Clearly, Trump-hating, even in its most visceral form, pays off.

However, the fund-raising orgy comes with a cost to democracy. Over 60 contested house seats sought by Democrats drew over a million dollars in campaign-fund donations in the third quarter alone compared to only 3 in the same quarter of 2014. The price of running a competitive campaign has risen dramatically (Source: WSJ, 10-16-2018).

Texas Senate Democratic hopeful Beto O’Rourke, a frequent solicitor appearing in my inbox, raised $38 million in the third quarter.

To date, Democratic House candidates have scheduled $122 million in TV commercials (Republicans $67 million) (WSJ, 10-16-18). It should be obvious that such fund raising is beyond the reach of truly independent candidates. The financial bar is set far too high to forego support from corporations, other well-heeled organizations, or wealthy contributors and expect to wrest power from Democratic or Republican incumbents. Accordingly, democracy is further stifled.

The notion of an authentic grass-roots campaign has nearly disappeared from the arsenal of the two major parties.

While posturing as a “people’s party,” the Democrats have largely substituted emotion for issues. Hatred of Trump and fear of Russia have served as the catalyst for the 2018 campaign. The Democrats have crudely sought to fold the two emotions into a brew disconnected from the sinking living standards, growing insecurity, and uncertain future of working people. A truly meaningful assault on Trumpism would necessarily target Trump’s pro-capitalist measures, cast light on betrayals by the Democratic Party, and underscore the failings of the two-party system, consequences that Democratic Party leaders dread.

It is no wonder that some commentators are describing political behavior today as “tribal.” In place of principled differences, the two parties have urged an amalgam of brand loyalty and blind faith. Stoked by a corporate media with its own interest in masking class-based issues and promoting imagery of class harmony, personal invective, anonymous charges, rumors, and internet gossip constitute the substance of political debate today. We have a reality TV-star President for reality-TV political theater.

After many decades of rightward drift by the two-party monolith, it is exceedingly difficult to find even a glimmer of hope that either party can be wrested from its corporate mooring. Yet hope does spring again and again with large sections of the US Left which attempt to pry open a door and commandeer the “people’s party,” a task now embraced by the youthful veterans of the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Our Left

With the last Presidential election, growing dissatisfaction with centrism found a home with Trumpism, a process that previously fueled the Tea Party movement for the Right. The Left experienced a similar distaste for centrism, a counterpart process that fueled the Bernie Sanders campaign-- a candidacy quickly subverted by the Democratic Party leadership.  

After the election, disenchanted young Democrats found expression in the nominal political residence of their pied piper: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). DSA provided an organization; its burgeoning numbers provided energy and impact; but it left the youthful activists in ideological limbo, torn between a slapdash socialism and a decadent Democratic Party.

Like endless numbers of their predecessors, the youthful idealists are preparing to exhaust their principles and vision on the bastion of hypocrisy, the Democratic Party. Inexperience may excuse this illusion, but older veterans of the Left know no similar excuse. They have witnessed the subversion of George McGovern’s Presidential campaign, rallied around an exciting 1976 Democratic national platform, only to see the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter quickly run away from it. They have observed the Democratic Party leadership wilt in the face of right-wing reaction, abandoning the New Deal gains piece by piece. They have supported “insurgents” like Jesse Jackson or Howard Dean, only to see the dissidents pacified and escorted back into the fold.

It is a long and tortured history of failure, Don Quixote-like journeys to wrest the Democratic Party from the grip of its corporate owners. Sadly, many who embarked on these journeys were lost by the Left; disappointment bred inaction and cynicism.

Beyond the socialists (DSA), the US left is a small, largely electorally irrelevant motley mix, stretching ideologically from center-left liberals disenchanted with the Democrats to committed Marxist-Leninists.

Despite the fact that their endorsements or support will have virtually no effect on the outcome of the interim elections, the predictable stampede to support the Democrats has begun. Grandiose exhortations to stop Trump will serve as coded messages to support Democrats in the interim election. The ideological bankruptcy that fails to put promoting third parties, independent candidacies, anti-monopoly coalitions or advocating for socialism ahead of unconditional support for Democrats guarantees that the rightward two-party drift will continue, Trump or no Trump.

Unconditional support for Democrats reinforces the two-party stranglehold in two ways:

1. It acquiesces to the already prevalent view that there is no other route to progressive change.
2. It thwarts the development of third parties or actions that will disrupt the grip that Democrats have upon the Left.

That grip is continually strengthened by the insidious material influence (money!) spread by foundations, nonprofits, think tanks, right-wing labor organizations, etc. that enables the Democrats to capture the Left. And of course many reluctantly support the Democrats because they fear the ire of their allies in the broader mass and labor movements.

For decades, Leftists have explained their support for Democrats through a clumsy, misappropriation of Marxist-Leninist theory. Many have advocated a “United Front” tactic in the face of what they perceive as the threat of fascism. Specifically, Republican Presidential candidates-- Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, and now Trump-- are seen as harbingers, if not bearers of fascism. It is a bitter irony that much of the 1968 Nixon-era Republican platform would appear largely acceptable to today’s Democratic Party leadership.

But the fascism of the first half of the twentieth century does not figure in the crises facing the US today. Fascism was a ruling-class response to a dire challenge to its rule spawned by disillusionment from a bloody, but meaningless World War, crushing economic crises, and, especially, the political challenge from a powerful revolutionary Left.

Those conditions simply do not coalesce in the US at this time.

Instead, the ruling class in the US (and many other countries) faces a crisis of the legitimacy of the centrist parties that have ruled throughout the Cold War until today. Opinion polls in the US (and many other countries) show nearly non-existent confidence in the long-standing ruling parties. The Trump phenomenon and the Sanders experience demonstrate that dissatisfaction, no matter how imperfectly. The electoral successes of non-traditional parties in many other countries equally demonstrate a popular desire for a new course, a new direction.

One can bury one’s head in the sand and refuse to recognize the mass shift in political allegiance; one can continue to slavishly tail the Democratic Party or the now-discredited, corrupt parties of social democracy; one can choose to embrace the myth of containing the barbarian hordes; but this moment is different, demanding different strategies.

The Left must discard the unproductive, out-of-touch approach of defending the left flank of capitalism and begin an earnest search for a new, independent politics. The growing mass rejection of the old politics demands it.

The Left cannot grow in size and influence if it continues to attach itself to a rotting Democratic Party.

Paradoxically, continuing to support the discredited Democratic Party and failing to offer a credible alternative will only encourage more people to look rightward for inspiration and answers.

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com

Election Follies

Intercept reports via Extra! that CBS CEO Les Moonves is ecstatic over the revenues flowing into entertainment coffers from the primary campaigns (I've never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us.”). Moonves, the entertainment mogul, understands better than most the triumph of entertainment over substance, posture over issues; CBS and the other mega-corporations peddle reality television and tabloid news. So it's not surprising to see him hail the current electoral season's antics as special (“Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ...Who would have thought that this circus would have come to town?”). For Moonves and his ilk the more inanity and sensationalism, the more money flows into corporate coffers (“You know, we love having all 16 Republican candidates throwing crap at each other. It's great. The more they spend, the better it is for us...”).

But lost to many in the explosion of vulgarity and outrageousness is the strong and strengthening connection between the dominance of money-- big money-- and the increasing irrelevance of bourgeois democracy. Every election cycle ups the ante-- from millions to billions-- in competitions contested around increasingly marginal issues and massive doses of insincerity. Bourgeois democracy is to genuine people's democracy as “reality” television shows Survivor and Duck Dynasty are to the reality of working peoples' lives. The campaigns are driven not by political import, but by competitive entertainment value.

Of course the losers in this charade are working people, the poor, and minorities. Their representatives and institutions are dominated by liberals largely content with a slightly more humane, less nasty capitalism, though, sadly, elected liberals seldom deliver even that for them.

The capitulation to this bankrupt ideology of the traditional support system for working class and poor people-- unions, religious institutions, the Democratic Party, ethnic organizations, etc.-- explains, in no small part, the desperate turn to Trump. Tepid, aloof liberalism breeds desperate options like the outlandish Trump when conditions deteriorate sharply and no radical options appear available.

The always sharp Doug Henwood offers the “...proof that Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, are the cheapest dates around-- throw them a few rhetorical bones, regardless of your record, and they'll be yours to take home and bed.” (from his new book, My Turn, as quoted in the NYRB, 4-7-16)

No candidates promote this cynical behavior more consistently than the Clintons and their “New” Democrat acolytes.

That the Democratic Party selection process has been fixed against party insurgency since the overturn of the McGovern party reforms and the McGovern defeat of 1972 should be obvious to everyone. Nonetheless, the party's operatives and loyalist zombies will answer that the system forgoes undesirable electoral landslides like the one occurring in 1972. What they don't say is that McGovern lost overwhelmingly because these same party stalwarts failed to campaign for McGovern and mounted a stealth campaign to give away the election rather than support a leftward swing. In fact, the system is designed to stifle any inner-party rising like the one currently mounted by Bernie Sanders.

The fact that the other party felt no similar need to stack the deck accounts for the current anti-Trump hysteria in the Republican Party.

Consider the deck-stacking that makes a Sanders' victory just short of impossible: 719 super delegates loom over the process, a group made up largely of reliably centrist party hacks ready and willing to block insurgencies. Should the hacks stand as a bloc, they make it possible for a preferred candidate to win roughly 40% of the contested delegates and still gain the nomination.

The Democratic Party establishment strengthens the super delegate bloc by favoring proportional apportionment in the primaries over winner-take-all. Without the possibility of taking all of the votes in a large state, an insurgent candidate loses the opportunity to counter the super delegate bloc with a boost from delegate-rich states. While proportional representation formally appears more democratic, it actually and paradoxically denies fair representation in the face of a loaded, undemocratic bloc of delegates. The road becomes much steeper.

The party fixers organize the primaries so that the generally more conservative states speak early and often in the primary season, favoring the perception of a more conservative electorate and forestalling any momentum gained by a left insurgent. Demonstrating this advantage, the party elite's favorite Hillary Clinton enjoyed early victories in Southern states that the Democratic Party has no chance of winning in a general election, but leaving the mistaken impression that she was more “electable.”

Amazingly, Democratic Party zealots and apologists deny that their party's primaries are structurally fixed, that they are effectively undemocratic.

But the voters seem to sense this fact: Pew Research Center telephone polls show that the election has drawn the highest political interest of the last five Presidential campaigns (85%). But the same respondents show the second lowest confidence (36%) in the primary system of elections dating back to 1996.

Sanders supporters, recognizing the stacked deck presented by the super delegate system, have been contacting the super delegates to sway their votes or, at least, convince them to stay neutral until the convention. The party hacks (largely staffers and elected officials) have reacted with indignation, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. How dare rank-and-file Democrats reach out directly to their party's leadership!

But counting on the gullibility of voters is not limited to Democratic Party operatives. Nobel laureate economist and darling of liberals and the soft left, Paul Krugman, added his magisterial voice to the stop-Bernie crowd. In a recent NYT column (4-8-16), he addresses a key tenet of Sanders' campaign: “Let's consider bank reform. The easy slogan is 'Break up the Banks'... But were big banks at the heart of the financial crisis and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?”

For most people, the answer would be a decided “yes.” But astonishingly, Krugman disagrees.

“Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions are no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on ‘shadow banks’ like Lehman Brothers that weren't necessarily that big. And the financial reform that Barack Obama signed in 2010 addressed these problems.”

Seldom will a reader encounter four sentences with more hair-splitting, nit-picking spin and deflection than in Krugman's disputation. Furthermore, it would be difficult to find a more misleading and flimsy apology for the big banks.

Rather than address the Krugman claims in detail, it is enough to attend to the AP news story (4-11-16) following only days after the NYT column. Writer Eric Tucker records the $5 billion settlement by Goldman Sachs against charges made by the Federal government. The settlement “holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full of mortgages that were likely to fail.” Tucker notes that JP Morgan Chase settled similar charges for $13 billion, Bank of America $16.6 billion, Citibank $7 billion, and Morgan Stanley $3.2 billion. Tucker wisely attributes these negotiated settlements to big bank activity “kicking off the recession in late 2007...” Krugman preferred to blame the dead-- two banks that were “executed” for their bad behavior.

But that's where you are taken when you shill for Hillary Clinton.

As the electoral season winds down and moves inexorably towards a stage managed, more elite-satisfying finale, it might be a good moment to reflect upon the future. How do we turn these regular exercises into real contests? How do we escape the two-party trap with its relentless rightward drift? How do we inject class and race into the superficialities of the bourgeois political process? How do we create a political force that can contest on behalf of working people and their allies without surrendering independence to a ruling class party? How do we break the two-party monopoly?

If we continue to ignore these questions, we will find the left even further marginalized watching an unfolding “drama” with a predictable outcome.

Zoltan Zigedy

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com