How The Clintons Killed the Soul of the Democratic Party

In this April 6, 2016, photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO Convention in Philadelphia. A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that Americans trust Democratic presidential front-runner Clinton more than Republican leader Donald Trump to handle a wide range of issues, from immigration to health care to nominating Supreme Court justices.(AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

In this April 6, 2016, photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO Convention in Philadelphia.(AP Photo/Matt Rourke)(Credit: AP)


The Democrats have no soul: The Clintons, neoliberalism, and how the “people’s party” lost its way

Republicans never had one. That makes Democrats’ betrayals, deceit and crisis of legitimacy that much more serious

Anis Shivani


Looking beyond the daily tussle between Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party, or Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party, let’s consider the larger historical picture to see what the current election campaign tells us about the state of the two major political parties and their future.

Over the last forty years both major political parties have been in a state of terminal decline for a number of reasons, primarily the ideological contradictions each has developed quite in sync with the other, driven by the same economic trends. Both are in a death spiral at the moment, but this being America, where political accountability is not as rapid or conclusive as in Europe, it’s likely that they will continue in more or less their existing forms for the foreseeable future, further deepening the crisis of legitimacy. Whatever the realities about their loss of credibility, we are not likely to hear an announcement anytime soon that the Democratic or Republican parties are dead, having ceased to serve the respective functions for which they accumulated much legitimacy at different points in the twentieth century.

It may seem, with stronger party identification over the last couple of decades, that the parties are stronger than ever, but this would be misleading on several counts. The fact most frequently cited in support of the parties’ strength is increased polarity in Congress, where in recent decades members of each party have moved farther toward the extremes, which means less bipartisan consensus. The electorate has sharply divided, with left and right divisions more pronounced, amidst the now familiar phenomenon of the red state/blue state split which first became prominently visible in the 2000 election.

But it would be a mistake to confuse ideological polarity with party loyalty. In Congress, members have no choice but to support the party closest to their ideological leanings, and likewise for the populace at large. Third parties have had a difficult time getting off the ground in America—what should have developed into a breakaway anti-corporate party after the Seattle WTO protests in 1999 and Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000 never happened—so the lack of party choice at the national level creates the illusion of strong party support.

The last time the establishment—both Republican and Democratic—publicly bemoaned the loss of legitimacy for government, which included the state of the parties, was in the 1970s. This was a persistent theme throughout that decade, after the landslide McGovern defeat in 1972, and the ouster of President Nixon in 1974. An impression was perpetuated by the elites that the U.S. was on the run against communism on all continents. After the 1973 oil embargo, and the stagflation that lasted throughout the decade, Keynesian policy—the glue that had held the New Deal coalition together for decades— swiftly unraveled. The crisis was deep and sustained, both domestically and globally, and the parties and their allied establishments seemed to have their days numbered.

Bizarre and illogical compromises began occurring at that time to preserve the sanctity of the parties, and of the narrow liberal-conservative identification, awkward arrangements that are bearing full fruit only today.

On the Democratic side, President Carter began nudging the party in the direction of corporate, free trade, tight monetarist policies that were later to find their most optimistic rendition during Bill Clinton’s administration. The recession of the early 1980s, which coincided with President Reagan’s first years, was actually launched by Fed chairman Paul Volcker under a Democratic president. The invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union led the Democratic party down a renewed path of militarism—although during the 1970s and 1980s often by proxy means rather than direct intervention—that reached a crisis point in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

But all this provided only a patchwork solution to the Democratic party’s crisis of legitimacy. Was it a pro-corporate (neoliberal) or pro-labor (New Deal) party? The actual tendency was for the party to move firmly in the former direction, while escalating rhetorical claims for the rights of cultural minorities, at the same time as the Republican party moved swiftly toward a neoconservative solution to its own crisis. Meanwhile, the Democrats never really addressed the popular roots of dissatisfaction: in a global economy with more dispersed power, both economic and political, how was the standard of living of the American middle-class to be maintained?

The huge popularity of Bernie Sanders on the left today speaks to precisely this dilemma, fundamentally unaddressed through four decades of deceit and illusion to maintain elite power, as inequality continuously rose in that period of time, the middle class became ever more diminished, and real political power became confined to a vanishingly small elite group.

The Republican establishment, over the last forty years, pursued a parallel, and often intersecting (especially in times of war and recession), path as the Democrats. Although Ronald Reagan didn’t make it all the way in 1976, because the wounds from Nixon’s ouster were still too raw, their own patchwork coalition—nationalist and militarist, beholden to the myth of the free market and personal responsibility, and committed to pulling back the hard-won social and economic rights of the minorities and the poor—proved to be a winning one for a long time.

It meant that the Republican elites had to put up with a lot of sound and fury about cultural issues like abortion (to feed the evangelical beast), while having a free hand to accumulate the same kind of power, economic and political, within an increasingly smaller elite’s exclusive grasp as was the case with the Democrats.



Editor’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow us to advertise!



4 thoughts on “How The Clintons Killed the Soul of the Democratic Party

  1. “Republicans never had one [soul]. That makes Democrats’ betrayals, deceit and crisis of legitimacy that much more serious.”

    No republican has ever had a soul? All democrats have always had souls?

    There is a lot of filth and schlock coming out of Hollowood and I know much of it is generated by democrats. Yes, the author above is talking primarily about politicians, but the crude stereotype is just too intellectually irresponsible to accept.

    Now, let me stereotype. Much of the American citizenry is politically indolent and apathetic, and many of them are democrats. They are mimics who favor mimicry. They aren’t metaphysically sophisticated, because they have no ambition to be–and they aren’t motivated to be, either. They are waiting for someone else to change the milieu of their lives. Some are waiting for a more “equitable” wage, so they can increase their rationalizations about their frivolous indulgences. They know more about the starting line-ups of sports franchises than they do about their local city government. They are rabid about their entertainment, because they are unable to conceive or create for themselves. They are followers who want to be led by the simplest explanations about life and politics. They are part of a body politic that is salivating for the next installment or sequel to their lives featured at the nearest movie theater.

    Whom are we getting are values from? Politicians? Hollowood? The Media?

    Are politicians a mere reflection of the decline found within our neighborhoods?

    The above article reads like one side of a story–and it isn’t the truth.


    • I disagree. The bulk of the population seems to know better than this. In general, Americans – in large majorities – support: universal health care, same-sex marriage, cuts in the military budget, more money for education – including free college tuition at public schools, Also an end to foreign military adventures,the right of unions to organize, a social safety net for those who need it, an end to the political power of banks and other corporations, equal pay for equal work and much more. The problem here is that there has been no way to express any of that politically. Why do you think Bernie Sanders has been drawing crowds of up to 100,000 in California?
      There have been many demographic studies of those in the country who don’t participate in elections. They are not lazy or apathetic. They belong to the same groups that, all over Europe, are members of socialist, labor, and Communist parties. They simply see no alternatives here. People are of course driven to mindless entertainment and consumerism. Given no respect, no dignity, no meaningful work or satisfying home lives, they are driven down by a system that reinforces their worthlessness and drives them to mindlessness and consumer goods – it’s all that is available to them.
      We need to listen to these people, understand their concerns and together, we need to provide an alternative. This work is hard, but it must be done in order to retain our own dignity and integrity.


      • Ron,

        I would argue people are apathetic and seek sedation through distraction, whether with a narcotic or pop-culture entertainment, or both. There are many people in this country who are fanatical about sports, but apathetic about politics. They expect their leaders to secure particular “entitlements” for them. I know so many people who exempt themselves from the political process or the further development of their conscience because they feel secure about their employment, the marketability of their skills, and the lifestyle they are living. They don’t concern themselves with what is going on next door, abroad, or with other ecosystems. They do their time, eagerly await the next sporting event, and feed meatballs to their preferred, pampered canines.

        Our economy doesn’t need full employment. Capitalism doesn’t require the full employment participation of all its citizens. I would argue we need universal employment before universal healthcare. Most fundamental to living in society, other than properly developing your conscience, is acquiring food, clothing, and shelter. If you want to eat, you must participate in the process; you must work for your nourishment. It is staggering to me that 200 million owned canines and felines are exempt from the fundamental living process of working for food and shelter, while we–humans–slaughter billions of other animals to feed ourselves and our preferred pets.

        We are all lazy and apathetic. We just choose to be lazy and apathetic–and ignorant–about different things.

        Bernie Sanders will never contextualize life the way I do; therefore, he will never say what really needs to be said to the people. The political strategy Roland has propagated over the last six months is merely a game of conjecture–his way of trying to cope with the inanity and insanity entrenched in our political system, because he knows the politicians he talks about, whether on the left or the right or in the middle, are metaphysically foreign to him.

        He is playing a political game of chess with himself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.