All you need to know about the Democratic Party is summed up here:
Kaine: No serious 2012 primary challenge to Obama
WASHINGTON – The national Democratic Party chairman says he thinks the chances that President Barack Obama will face a serious primary challenger in 2012 are “virtually nil.”
Tim Kaine says there’s always the possibility that a fringe candidate could try to mount a challenge. But Kaine says Democrats feel very good about Obama’s re-election prospects if, as Kaine puts it, the president keeps doing the job that people elected him to do.
The presidency of Barack Obama thus far has been even more conservative than many past Republican presidents. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, continuing one war, expanding another and covertly starting two more, facilitating massive bailouts to Wall Street, the insurance industry and the auto industry, and by engaging in constant hippie-punching, Obama is somehow described as “doing the job that people elected him to do.”
Now, in a twisted sort of way this is true. Obama may not be doing what progressives had in mind when they voted for him in 2008, but he is doing exactly what his corporate pay-masters wanted him to do. He is fulfilling the corporatist agenda of sabotaging the poor and middle class while enabling the further accumulation of mind-numbing riches by the very wealthy. Obama wasn’t elected to enact real “change”; had he been a genuine liberal, he would never have reached the national stage – at least not the stage controlled by the corporatist media.
There are other bits of truth cleverly woven into the above story, the most pertinent being the reference to a “fringe candidate” mounting a challenge. Here we have an excellent example of doublespeak in use, as in this sentence “fringe” actually means “mainstream.” That is, a “fringe” candidate is one who actually shares and represents the interests of the American people, rather than the vast corporatocracy. A fringe candidate is your Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich – a candidate who, according to all polls, shares the same beliefs and values as the vast majority of Americans, but is deemed “unelectable” by a mainstream media which refuses to cover anyone outside of the extreme Right.
And this is another nugget of truth in the article – that Obama will remain the Democratic presidential candidate largely due to the fact that his “electability” remains strong. Of course, in our society “electability” generally means the extent to which the media pays attention to any given candidate. And as we all know, any candidate who stands outside the painfully restricted, radically conservative boundaries of the corporatist-media world view simply will not be covered. This is why candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel are routinely barred from debates, and even when allowed to participate, the talking time is heavily skewed towards the corporate favorites. As in 2008, when from the very start of the Democratic primaries the media was fawning over the three most conservative candidates, Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
But we should not be surprised by such tomfoolery from the Democratic Party. We should expect it. We need to understand that the Democratic Party does not represent our interests any more than the Republican Party. Both are but arms of the same corporate machine, and both will do nothing but increase the appalling wealth disparity which has destroyed the American middle class.
So why waste our time worrying – or even thinking – about who will be the Democratic nominee in 2012? Who really gives a shit? It means absolutely nothing. Instead, we should be devoting our time, energy and resources towards building up viable non-Party candidates. And yes, I say Party with a capital P because really, our elections are not much different from those in say, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It’s no great shock when the dictator wins the election, given that he’s running against himself.
We need to step outside the party system altogether, and refuse to even acknowledge the main Party candidates during election season. Some will argue that in doing so we may be “wasting” our votes, or contributing to a Republican victory. But voting for a Party candidate of any kind – regardless of the color he affiliates himself with – is a wasted vote, so why not vote according to your conscience? According to your actual interests and convictions? “Fringe” candidates remain “fringe” only as long as we ignore them. “Unelectable” candidates remain unelectable only as long as we buy the corporate media lies and get bullied into voting for the Party.
The thing about our long national nightmare is this: it ends when we choose to end it. As with any dream, it ends as soon as we just wake up.
Failed Empire 
I agree with much of this post. While I would say that the Democratic Party represents progressive interests somewhat more than the Republican Party, the difference is not at all what it should be. But yes, it is getting to the point where I don’t know if I can continue voting for most of the Democratic options I have.
Thanks for the comment, vjack.
I agree there are slight differences between the Democrats and Republicans, and that the Democrats do tend to be slightly more progressive. However, I agree with Chomsky’s opinion that the differences we observe between the two parties represent the difference in opinion within the corporate elite. The Democrats may inadvertently take up some progressive issues, but as a whole the party represents the interests of corporate America only.
That said, there are some individual Democrats who are worth supporting. Dennis Kucinich is one obvious example. In fact, I became a Kucinich supporter after reading your blog (I can’t remember if it was Atheistrev or Consequences of Republicanism). The problem is, the Democratic establishment will never allow a genuinely progressive politician such as Kucinich to reach the national stage. Real progressives are relegated to obscurity, while conservatives like Clinton and Obama receive all of the attention.
In light of this, although Kucinich and others like him are worthy of receiving our votes, as long as they associate themselves with the Democrats their potential impact will be limited. Even if we vote for them, the party establishment will actively work to keep them down, as was amply demonstrated in the 2008 primaries.