Democrats Caused President Trump; They Caused His Victory

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

Here’s a video where Carey Wedler explains in her own thoroughly truthful way in just four minutes, how and why Democratic Party voters for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primaries did more than perhaps any other single political group of Americans to help make Donald Trump become America’s President. But here, in my own equally truthful way, which you can easily verify for yourself by simply clicking onto a link anywhere that you question a statement’s veracity (which, of course, can’t be done with any video), I’ll explain it, very differently:

Democratic voters during the Presidential primaries were given a clear choice, and blew it badly; they chose the by-far-weaker of the two candidates (Clinton instead of Sanders), weaker not only in all of the many polled head-to-head matchups against each and every one of the possible Republican candidates (and he led specifically against Trump by 10.4%), but weaker in the progressive ideology that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had brought to the Party and which had made the FDR-era (1932-1980) Democratic Party the engine of progressive change in America. Bill Clinton killed it, and Hillary Clinton’s election would have prevented the progressive Democratic Party from ever being resurrected again; and here’s how that happened:

Bill Clinton had come into office as the new anti-FDR, pro-unrestrained-capitalism, virtual founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, which repudiated not only the anti-Wall-Street tradition of FDR but all of FDR’s approaches and programs to achieve increased equality of economic opportunity in America. Not only did he do this by passing the Republican George Herbert Walker Bush’s NAFTA into law and by passing the Republicans’ deregulation (especially ending FDR’s Glass-Stegall regulation) of Wall Street into law, but Clinton and the DLC rebuilt the Democratic Party as being instead merely a less extreme version of the post-Richard-Nixon Republican Party: Republican-lite, running against Republican-extreme (which was the existing Republican Party). By doing this — moving the Democratic Party to the right — they moved the American political center substantially toward the right, because now, in Bill Clinton’s wake, any Republican incumbent who fails to move toward the right was being challenged in Republican Party primaries by ‘Tea Party Republicans’ who accused any such incumbent of being a Republican In Name Only, or RINO. Consequently: Congress and other political bodies did become more right-wing.

Voters for Hillary Clinton in the primaries were pushing that rightward movement of America’s political center even further. In fact, on many issues (such as her three policies for war to defeat Russia and its allies such as Syria) she was far to the right of Donald Trump — and she even had the nerve to criticise Trump for his opposition to her on that, calling him “Putin’s puppet”. She was resurrecting, but now in the new post-1992 conservative Democratic Party, the hatred and lies from the Republican Party’s Cold War anti-communist Joseph R. McCarthy — and communism and the USSR and its Warsaw Pact had ended long before, in 1991! Hillary was in many respects the super-Republican and the leading neoconservative, and so Republican mega-donors flocked to her more than they did to Trump. (Of course, she swamped Trump even more among the Democratic Party’s billionaires, but Hillary broke all fundraising records for support among Republican mega-donors backing a Democratic Party candidate; she was The Establishment’s — the American aristocracy’s — candidate to an extent that none before her had ever been.)

Like Russ Belville headlined at Huffington Post on 29 February 2016, “The Problem With Hillary, Chez, Is I Don’t Vote Republican”. He listed there 25 major stands of the Republican Party that Hillary stood for, and that Bernie stood against, and he concluded: 

Those are 25 pretty good reasons why we Democrats don’t vote for Republicans, don’t you think?

So why would we vote for Hillary Clinton, the Rockefeller Republican who exemplifies every one of those 25 statements?

If Donald Trump wins the presidency over Hillary Clinton, it’s not the fault of people like me who won’t vote for Republicans. It’s the fault of the Democratic Party for nominating a Republican. For me, the horror of a four-year Trump term is less frightening than cementing in the Far Right / Center Right corporate duopoly in American politics created since Hillary’s husband sold out Democratic principles on welfarecrime, racelabor, tradedrugs, and media.

He expressed my views perfectly. And he expressed the views of many other progressives (including Carey Wedler) who avoided voting for such a candidate: we either voted for Jill Stein, or for Donald Trump (who was actually far more progressive on many issues than Hillary was or than any of the other Republicans were — such as his constant repudiation of the Bush-Clintons’ NAFTA), or else we left a blank on the Presidential part of the ballot November 8th, or we just stayed home altogether. Turnout was the key, and the Republican-lite Hillary Clinton wasn’t able to match the turnout of the Trump-supporters in the battleground states. Trump got trounced like was expected in the heavily Democratic states, which are always Democratic in Presidential elections, but the Electoral College is won or lost in the battleground states, which is where the lack of passion for Hillary decided the election’s outcome.

By contrast, Trump generated real passion in the Republican base, and so they came out in droves on Election Day. And Trump’s focus on winning the votes of many disaffected Democrats who recognized that the Clinton-Obama mega-corporate politics are part of the reason why America is declining, also brought to the polls on Election Day millions of people who had never voted before for a Republican — including myself (for reasons that I have explained). Furthermore, because of the far higher intensity of support by Trump’s supporters than by Hillary’s, Trump brought into the voting-places far more Republicans than Hillary brought into the voting-places Democrats, and this depressed turnout by Democrats at the polls caused both a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and it also greatly boosted the numbers of Republican candidates who won local and state races.

Liberal voters (the pro-Hillary Democrats) have destoyed the Democratic Party; progressive voters (the pro-Bernie Democrats), the ones such as Bernie who want to restore the FDR Democratic Party, are the only people who can ever bring back progressive governance to the United States.

I won’t return to the Democratic Party until the Bernie-Sanders, Elizabeth-Warren, Sherrod-Brown, FDR, wing of the Party is back in control, as it was from 1932 to 1980. If one of those three individuals — people who have been consistent opponents of Obama’s ‘trade’ deals (which were actually proposed transfers of democratic national sovereignty over to international-corporate dictatorship, a higher world government by the world’s largest international corporations) — takes over the Party in 2020, then I shall again be a Democrat; but, otherwise, one of those three should create a new “Progressive Party” on the ballot in all fifty states with that person’s name on it as being the Presidential candidate, and that will be the end of the Democratic Party, just like Abraham Lincoln’s quitting the Whig Party and virtually starting the progressive Republican Party in 1860 (which lasted until he was assassinated in 1865, after which the northern aristocracy took control of it and turned it quickly conservative) ended the once-dominant Whigs.

Not only have the Clintons and Obama destroyed the Democratic Party by making it Republican-lite, but Hillary Clinton was actually the most dangerous major-Party Presidential nominee in American history — the only one whose policies were aimed straight at producing a nuclear war — and that can’t be forgiven, and won’t be forgotten.

Either the Clinton-Obama, pro-aristocracy, Democratic Party ends, or the Democratic Party itself will end.

Every nation that has a Presidential instead of a parliamentary political system alternates rule between a pro-aristocracy party and an anti-aristocracy party; and we can’t have two major parties both of which are pro-aristocracy. One of the two, in any authentic democracy, is pro-democracy. America needs to become an authentic democracy again. (We’re now ruled by the aristocracy, an “oligarchy”.) If it doesn’t happen in 2020, then maybe it never will. But if Hillary had won, then the Democratic Party would surely soon thereafter be ended. Only by the dint of Donald Trump and lots of good luck will the Democratic Party be granted a reprieve: either to transform back to the FDR ideological model, or else to die. Her election would have meant certain death. (And not only for the Democratic Party.)

Maybe yet again, there will be a Democratic Presidential nominee whose final ad before Election Day can be as progressive as was that of the Republican Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, the 2-minute ad that was released on November 6th. If President Trump lives up to the values and vision with which he there closed his campaign, he will restore to the White House the legacy that was established by FDR — Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And what then will be left for the Democratic Party to do, after its having abandoned that legacy since at least 1992? If Trump lives up to that ad, then only a Presidential nominee who is even more progressive than that would stand any chance of winning. Perhaps it will be possible, but that ad looks remarkably like the best ones of Bernie Sanders, except with Donald Trump being shown in it and saying at its end “… and I approved this message.”

It’s certainly not a campaign ad that Hillary Clinton could have done. No way. But ‘Democrats’ voted for her. That will be a deep scar on the history of the Democratic Party, from which to recover will take decades — if ever — or else the Party itself will simply have to be replaced, like the Whigs were when ending slavery was the country’s main issue.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • diogenes

    “liberal Democratic voters” did not elect Trump, the criminal corrupt Democratic Party elected Hillary by rigging its “nomination process” to nominate Clinton instead of Sanders, who was the winning candidate. They did this with the full collaboration of the mass corporate media. And now articles like this collaborate in the coverup. Puke.

  • WillDippel

    Here is an article that explains how Donald Trump could still not become president:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/11/the-faithless-elector-explanation.html

    While it is highly unlikely, the Electoral College could still function as a roadblock to the Oval Office.

    • dayanmao

      That’s possible, but I’d put the chances at about 1% or lower. The general election was far fairer than the fraud that took place during the democratic primaries.

      On another note, I’ve read (via other posters so I haven’t been able to check it yet) that with the ongoing counts Trump actually won the popular vote too. We’ll see, though in the end that means nothing as well.

      But, I will say this, having CA called so incredibly early for Hillary has me questioning the result there (I’m in CA and for the first time ever, had a hard time voting), just like the rigged primary.

  • kimyo

    Democratic voters during the Presidential primaries were given a clear choice, and blew it badly; they chose the by-far-weaker of the two candidates (Clinton instead of Sanders)

    only a propagandist would write a sentence like that. a true ‘investigative historian’ would acknowledge and report on the possibility that the primary was stolen by clinton using a variety of dirty tricks.

    • jo6pac

      Thank You and I’ll never be back being a demodog. The list you provided EZ is enough for me to say the demodog needs have stake driven through what they call a heart.

    • Eric Zuesse

      I too believe that the nomination was probably stolen from Bernie, but Hillary’s turnout in many states during the primaries was sufficiently high so that no one can say with any certainty that Bernie would have won the Democratic nomination in the event that there had been none of that rigging. Your comment therefore is irrelevant to my point here, which is that there were a great many Democratic primary voters who ignored reality when casting their vote for Hillary, and in this article I call them ‘Democrats’ instead of Democrats. That is today’s Democratic Party, at the level of the voters, and I am saying that their minds are controlled by the aristocracy to such an enormous extent that despite Sanders being stronger across-the-board in all the polled matchups against each one of the many Republican candidates, those mind-controlled ‘Democrats’ did vote for the weaker general-election Democratic candidate, not for the stronger one.

      • kimyo

        there is a giant disconnect here. you wrote with great fervor in support of sanders for many months.

        yet you show essentially zero interest in whether or not he won california.

        does not compute.

        ps: what was the final count in cali? i’ve searched, to no avail. they stopped reporting numbers about a week after the primary.

  • dayanmao

    All I’ve been reading is how racist white men made Trump the winner. Did I miss something?

  • David Schultz

    The Democratic Party appears to have learned nothing and is heading for another loss 2020. They need to listen to Bernie Sanders for once.

    • kimyo

      sanders and warren endorsed clinton. they have no credibility whatsoever. chomsky, likewise.

      they were all advocating for nuclear war. how can they possibly look us in the face and expect to be taken seriously?

      • Eric Zuesse

        That too isn’t relevant to my article. But again, I happen to agree partly with the irrelevant point that you’re making. I am especially angry that Sanders ignored Jill Stein’s offer for him to replace her as the Green Party’s nominee. If Sanders had accepted her offer, then there would have been a flood of money into the Green Party and I believe that Sanders’s Green-Party run wouldn’t have been anything like any previous post-1860 third-party Presidential run, Sanders would probably have beaten both Clinton and Trump. It would have been like Lincoln’s 1860 win. It would have ended the Democratic Party and replaced it like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party in 1860. But, again, that’s not relevant to this article.

        • kimyo

          it surely is relevant, as you state:

          I won’t return to the Democratic Party until the Bernie-Sanders, Elizabeth-Warren, Sherrod-Brown, FDR, wing of the Party is back in control

          these are maniacs, who were advocating nuclear war, yes? these are the people you want in charge?

          did you not write this?: Vote as if your life depended upon it, because it does.

          But a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for nuclear war against Russia, regardless of whether or not the voters know this.

          ps: seeing as how it irritates you so when i go off topic, if one is forced to question the sanity of those who argue that nuclear war is a better outcome for humanity than orange bouffant hair man, one must also question their other strongly held convictions.

          for instance, anthropogenic climate change.

  • Westcoastliberal

    Good piece and just to underline; I was a Bernie supporter all through the primary and was appalled and disappointed when he sought to switch his voters to Hilliary; knowing she’s a neocon warmonger seeking nuclear war made a vote for her impossible. For the first time in my voting history I voted Republican for Trump and was not surprised at his victory over the evil, criminal bitch.

    • Eric Zuesse

      You’re like I. I was furious that Sanders remained a Democrat after what the Party did to him, and considering how monstrous Hillary is for the country. Either Sanders began there to lie about what he thinks of Hillary — and what he had said when he was running against is what he really believed — or else he never really believed it in the first place. And either is damning against him.

      But this doesn’t mean that Sanders isn’t hoping to restore the Democratic Party. I think that he is, but that he’s not particularly bright. And he proved that he’s also not as honest as he had seemed to be when he was running against Hillary.

      • Aldous Huxley

        Come on! You had to know Bernie was going to be a sellout the minute he said “Enough about your damn emails!” at the October 2015 (D) primary debate:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOfwN0iYxM
        Any legit opposition would have used that issue.

  • kimyo

    the ones such as Bernie who want to restore the FDR Democratic Party

    this is an an obvious untruth. he has no such intention.

    Bernie Sanders: Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief

    “That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that’s what dictatorships are about, that’s what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.”

    zh commentary: Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.
    No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion.
    They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.

    • Eric Zuesse

      That’s partly true, but also largely false. One of the objections I have to FDR’s Presidency is that he never even allowed investigation much less prosecution of the people, especially Morgan and the DuPont brothers, who were involved in the plot in 1934 to overthrow him and replace him by a stooge-President patterned upon Hitler and Mussolini. However, FDR might have been wiser than I: maybe if he had pursued them, the ability to keep the country pretty much united behind his New Deal would have broken up into pieces and disappeared and his Presidency descended into failure. So, my objection to Sanders concerns instead, much more, his having refused to pull a Lincoln and accept Jill Stein’s offer.