The Democratic Party's Failure to Contain or Appease Leftist Populists is a Threat to the Republic

America is not a pure democracy. Just as the Jacobins misconstrued the Founders' design, leading them to run astray in their failed French replication—into horrific orgies of blood and totalitarianism—pundits and politicians today similarly err in their definitions and in their conflations of ideals with reality, which are invariably at odds with not only Hamilton and Jefferson's quasi-monarchist aspirations for the nation (heavy with distaste for the “swinish multitudes”) but with America's founding documents that call for a regimented system of checks and balances. Citizens should undoubtedly have a say over the direction of their nation and who forms their government, but we must ask ourselves at what point does the dismantling of the traditional limits on the mob's coercive powers ensure a tyranny by the majority? This may seem like a cynical question, especially since the populism victorious in 2016 was bound to a conservative ideology that supported the republican model as well as these checks and balances. However, the possibility of a Sanders win in 2020 begs the question of what dangers leftist populism (which would paradoxically want to do away with a great deal of representation but also greatly enlarge the state) poses to the nation, its institutions, its laws, and to liberty in general.

“Democratic” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. Kuehnelt-Leddihn points out in Leftism Revisited that the noun “republic” is also missing from the aforementioned documents. On this matter, the Constitution only states that “member states of the Union should have a republican form of government.”

Since its conception, the United States of America has functioned as a representative [federal] republic. It qualifies as an indirect democracy, but this isn't justly reflected in the revisionist histories and stump speeches popular today or in the emulations exported to conquered third-world nations around the globe.

The Founders were actually quite suspicious of pure democracy. John Adams suggested that democracy would inevitably evolve into oligarchy and into despotism (The Works of John Adams, vol. 6, p. 516). After all, all it takes is 51% in a democratic referendum to liquidate the other 49%. He claimed that:

The people, when they have been unchecked have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous, and cruel as any king or senate possessed by an uncontrollable power. The majority has eternally and without anyone exception usurped over the rights of the minority.

In his conversations with Madison, Jefferson, and Kay, Adams reiterated that:

· no [pure] democracy ever did or ever can exist;

· no love of equality, at least since Adam's fall, ever existed;

· no love frugality ever existed as a passion, but always as a virtue;

· the word democracy signifies nothing more nor less than a nation of people without any government of all;

· and that democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel.

Much later, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg (1884-1951) echoed these sentiments and the suspicions held by the Founders when he stated that:

The government of the United States is a representative republic and not a pure democracy. The difference is as profound today as it was when the foundations of the Constitution were set in the ages...We are a representative republic. We are not a pure democracy...Yet we are constantly trying to graft the latter on the former, and every effort we make in this direction, with but few exceptions, is a blow aimed at the heart of the Constitution.

Not all in the thirteen colonies shared Vandenberg's and the Founders' antipathy for pure democracy, and this ideological schism contributed to the polarity within the early government. The essential historical struggle between the chief American political parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson, ostensibly has been, on the one side, to conserve and preserve the republic, and on the other side, to assimilate and promote democratic elements within it. The latter pursuit has not been in vain or without fruit; the expansion of the meaning of the prefix demo has since been modified to include women, blacks, and other groups previously denied involvement and a say in the political process. More recently, critiques of the Electoral College and aggrandizements of the popular vote have placed new emphasis on the role of the People contra their elected representatives as well as the transmogrification of the People's Will by electors and super delegates.

This dichotomy is no longer represented by the left and the right, proper, or by Republicans and Democrats. It now manifests as the opposition between the new populist movement and the establishment, the latter largely populated by the rich and by ideologically-consistent traditional liberals, neocons, and apolitical crony-capitalists. David Frum, for instance—who debated Steve Bannon on this very topic in early November 2018—belongs to the establishment, and Bannon, though established, belongs to the populist "resistance."

The representative republican ideal is as much seated in and relied upon by Pelosi and Schiff as it is by Romney and Graham. This is why bipartisan collaboration was not a rarity up until now, with the exception to hostile periods under Nixon, Clinton, and Obama. It is, however, an ideal that has been tried and found wanting. Why? Many of those in the political class took those they represented for granted. They said one thing, did another, and enriched themselves while in office at the expense of the American People and the country itself. Unless blindfolded by the partisan's blue or red tie, it is apparent that the establishment Democrats have become coastal aristocrats sure to inspire division with identity politics because classic Marxist divisions would paint them all as villains. Conversely, the RINOs across the aisle have enriched themselves into indifference and have altogether lost themselves in daydreams set in exotic locales abroad, all upset by Trump's deconstruction and American exceptionalism.

As the great balance between the Republicans and the Democrats fractured post-9/11, neither party sought reform. The Greens attempted to apply pressure on the Dems, but were ineffectual. Progressives within the Democratic Party attempted to spread their wings, but their wings were quickly clipped. It was not until 2009 where real change began unfolding, and it certainly wasn't as a result of President Obama's double-down on establishment policy. The Tea Party accosted the Republicans and emphasized to them the extent of the disconnect between the average voter and the political leadership at all levels of government. Two years ahead of Occupy Wall Street, they knew the tide was turning and they knocked some sense into the GOP, although the establishment RINOs were resistant (up until the point that Trump beat them into a slurry with their own arms).

Keith Koffler documented Steve Bannon's road to the White House in Bannon: Always the Rebel. The Tea Party, with Bannon's help, took off in 2009/2010 and revivified a libertarian / conservative / paleoliberal populism that first pinned its hopes on Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, who spoke plainly, frankly, and about issues common people cared about, and then successfully on Trump, who boasted the common man's common sense. While the Democratic Party dug in its heels, Bannon and his team recognized that the American government was bloated and detached. If it wasn't cleaned up--if the swamp wasn't drained and if the American People's faith was not restored in their political institutions--then leftists and revolutionaries would be unopposed when they finally got an opportunity to tear it all down following their "nihilistic tendency to recreate and refashion all forms of human experience after a tabula rasa of total revolution.” Right-wing populism, ultimately realized by Donald J. Trump, would see the state rolled back, taxes cut, and constitutional liberties reasserted. It would embrace American exceptionalism and once again become suspicious of foreign military adventures and overseas nation building. It underlined the importance of:

"self-reliance, personal responsibility, fiscal prudence, freedom under the law, respect for American history and tradition, and patriotism opposed to the arrogance of internationalist, bureaucratic elites who wielded big government and big corporate power against them" (Koffler).

While the populism on the right is tradition-affirming and appears to be a resupply of blood to Washington's brittle veins, the populism on the left is destructive where republican tradition is concerned. It is collectivist, not individualist. It is urban-focused and antagonistic to rural America (recall Jefferson's statement in 1785 that, "the mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body"). Leftist populism tends to be: atheistic; anti-capitalist; big on eugenics and population control; hostile to entrepreneurs; convinced that America is an evil place; an enemy of the nuclear family; anti-Christian; anti-Semitic; class- and race-conscious; utopian; and epistemologically rationalist as opposed to empiricist, meaning they are all for forcing humanity to fit their vision rather than refining a vision to accommodate humanity. The populist left shirk responsibility yet demand rights, and are terrified of liberty. With direct democracy they hope to level all differences in society. The America of the populist left is uniform in thought and humanist creed. There, it is not only the economy that is directed but life itself; micromanaged by the mob from birth to death.

It was not this destructive nature that prompted the Democratic establishment to stamp it out in 2016. After all, many of these destructionist policies and dehumanizing plans have been fully embraced by the Democrats. Leftist populism threatened the Dems' stranglehold on Washington. It threatened their dynasties just as Trump had. It threatened their pay-outs from Raytheon and GE, given they might not be able to guarantee another protracted war. Even though misguided and murderous, the challenge posed by leftist populism also meant that the Dems might have to give the American People their due.

Instead of the coin toss in 2016 having a populist on either side, one a leftist and the other a nationalist conservative, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazile, Podesta, and the mainstream media conspired to kill Sander's movement, which has gained steam again in recent months. (Note: they tried even harder to fix the election against Trump, but failed miserably.) Their hubris in 2016 and their failure beforehand to deter the rise of leftist populism with real leadership and results will be remembered as the Democratic Party's undoing. They are right now attempting to fix the primaries again against Sanders, and again their efforts will backfire. Their fear and opposition will excite the populism on the left--just as the RINOs' opposition did the Tea Party--until they are either consumed by it or pushed out of the way. It is unfortunate that the Democratic Party is so out of touch, so unlikable, and so damned corrupt, because their failure here means that once again, the rest of America will be forced to solve a problem the establishment created.

Bannon celebrated the fact that the Democrats missed the populist boat and suggested that this gives the GOP ample time to become the worker's party in America, which it seems Trump is succeeding at with record-low unemployment, lower taxes, jobs returning to America, and so forth. It is also a boon for American republicanism that the populist movement on the right, while antagonistic of the new aristocracy, the deep state, and those helming the nation's institutions, are not willing to dismantle the system of checks and balances. In fact, recognizing the densely-populated coasts to be the chief threat, they are more willing than ever to fight to protect the electoral college. Trump has also stacked the courts with constitutionalists (187 Article III judges including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, 50 judges for the US Court of Appeals, 133 judges for the US District Courts, 2 judges for the US Court of International Trade--and he's just getting started) meaning that it will be difficult in the event that the coin is tossed with Sanders winning for the leftists to tear it all down.

A quick look at the odds above (sourced on February 1 from Bet365, which I found to have the most accurate predictors in 2016 and in 2018) indicates Trump's second term is inevitable; that the vox populi identified in nationalist conservative populism will have its say for several years to come, echoed by a conservative Supreme Court and Senate. We are all familiar with the key demands issued in this voice: build the wall; secure our borders; bring jobs back to America; make drugs more affordable; lower taxes; cut government interventionism; and avoid foreign entanglements. While this populist incarnation stands a better of chance of working within the representative republican system because of its present complementary nature and the right’s penchant for the maintenance of law and order, the left has discovered the truth behind President's rhetoric and the coalition of "Swamp things" and "fake news". The more that CNN and MSNBC and The Washington Post and the Democratic Party ignores or discounts the populism on the left, the greater the fallout will be when they are finally subsumed by it.

Jefferson suggested that “everyone by his property, or by his satisfactory situation is interested in the support of law and order." People will support a political system so long as it seems to tend towards fairness and to provide opportunities for social and economic mobility. However, the People—for a multitude of reasons, including automation, globalization, unchecked immigration, etc.—have recognized that the system is not working for them. Just as it didn't work for Camden or Detroit, it is now not working for the rest of America, with few exceptions. In this regard, the unexceptional: are disenfranchised; are bereft of savings; rent and are unable to own property; enjoy no job security, never mind a career path; and they would love to see the status quo dismantled. It’s not envy, as some Occupy critics first thought (though envy is the main driving force of socialism). It is survivalism that looks to America’s democratic grafts for mobility and to republican checks-and-balances as obstacles.

Michael Moore, patron saint of poisoned water wells, hospital waiting lines, and the rust belt, has decided to shill for the establishment while waxing poetic about the poor. Nevertheless, he was absolutely right in 2015 about Trump: people wanted to vote for him in droves because he symbolized the Molotov cocktail they could throw at the system. His victory as a populist would signal the "biggest fuck you" in American history, and it did. But it was neither the end of the movement or its full realization. It was simply the beginning—the first of many incendiary cocktails.

American populists all seem to have little confidence in the present political system, although President Trump has mollified a great deal of the anger on the right as he rips and tears until it is finished. Unlike their counterparts on the right who see this as a challenge to fix and restore the best system in the world, the left has been seized by nihilism and pessimism. They are instead keen to destroy what could otherwise be fixed and cut out the middle men in their representative republic (e.g. upend the Electoral College). They want to drive closer to direct or pure democracy as it carries the promise of recapturing control of their collective destiny.

Populism has the potential to bring about violent change. Accord to Crane Brinton’s Anatomy of a Revolution, the preconditions for revolution, all ostensibly met in today's America, are:

· discontent that affects nearly all social classes;

· widespread feelings of entrapment and despair;

· unfulfilled expectations;

· a unified solidarity in opposition to a tiny power elite;

· a refusal by scholars and thinkers to continue to defend the actions of the ruling class;

· an inability of government to respond to the basic needs of citizens;

· a steady loss of will within the power elite itself together with defections from the inner circle; [and]

· a financial crisis

(Hedges / Sacco. Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. p.231).

The establishment, supported by the mainstream media and by big business, didn’t learn much from the Occupy Movement, which was the lighting before Trump and Sanders’ thunder. Instead of addressing the concerns of the working poor and the middle class, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all played right into the populist framing; acting as caricatures of the villainized establishment, bailing out the banks (too big to fail) and sending the sons and daughters of the poor to fight pointless wars to appease extranational elites. Bush's Floridian victory over Gore rooted out the left's confidence in the electoral system and drove home the need to stack or attack the Supreme Court and end collaboration in the Senate. Obama’s inaugural promise to bailout bankrupt homeowners and his enactment of Obamacare a year later—while dumping funds into foreign infrastructure and climate-change initiatives—drove the reformulation of Ron Paul’s failed presidential bid into the fiscally-conservative Tea Party movement, which called out Washington for its preference for big cities, globalist ideals, and government enlargement. (It didn't help the cause of Tea Party detractors when Obama used the IRS to target their bank accounts.) These and myriad other reasons are cited by populists of different stripes as cause for change, especially dangerous with the conditions for revolution having been met years ago.

Trump has several times been called the bull in the proverbial China shop. Perhaps if he destroys enough ceramics without damaging the underlying infrastructure, he could sate the populists on the right and perhaps even some on the left. Progressive YouTube comedic-news broadcaster Jimmy Dore may not ever admit it to his hundreds of thousands of listeners, but clearly admires the fact that the 45th president has flipped the tables and thrown the usurers out of the temple. While it may provide such leftists with a modicum of satisfaction, I doubt it will quell the anger and frustration on the far left with their own party.

They will not stop until they have power, and with executive authority they will attempt to usher in direct democracy, with which the coastal metropolises will control American destiny. Judging from the politics of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, it is abundantly clear that such democracy will be tyrannical and almost certainly totalitarian.

Bernie Sanders' candidacy must be taken seriously. If the Democratic Party is going to ice him again, they must explain why and their explanation must be satisfactory for leftists, otherwise the party has resigned itself to being the party for liberal corporatists and will see the birth of a new progressive party driven by leftist populism. If the Democratic Party alternatively embraces him, they best nerf his administration, otherwise they will watch him destroy the system we all rely upon. If he does become their candidate and has the cardiovascular strength to somehow beat President Trump, the true terror of destructive, leftism populism will be seen for the first time in America, and by the end, we will all see what horrors republican checks and balances fended off.