An explanation from a foreigner, if it's all right.
Tl;dr-version: democracy means you get to vote and then the politicians tells you what to do.
Longer version:
It becomes quite clear what kind of party, including their hangers-on all the way down to Antifa and the black nazis of BLM are if you look at it with a european perspective:
Du…
An explanation from a foreigner, if it's all right.
Tl;dr-version: democracy means you get to vote and then the politicians tells you what to do.
Longer version:
It becomes quite clear what kind of party, including their hangers-on all the way down to Antifa and the black nazis of BLM are if you look at it with a european perspective:
During the rise of democracy in Europe, it rose together with nationalism, due to a great many people heeding the truth that all peoples have the right to self-governance should they so wish it. This of course scared the britches off both the old aristocracies, the budding capitalists and the bourgeiosie as well as the marxists (remember, this is way before the Russian Revolution - we're talking early to mid 1800s, the inspiration being the American and French revolutions).
As both the idea and actual parliamentarism grew in many nations and areas and the idea came to be accepted as the golden standard (mid to late 1800s, generally speaking) and "the normal", so did the various proto-parties. On the conservative and liberal sides, the worry was that uneducated masses could be easily led astray by demagogues promising a Schlaraffenland if they got the vote, and on the nationalist sides the amoral and predatory international capitalism was seen as a danger to kith and kin, it not putting anything before profit, and on the marxists side(s) the people were again seen as uneducated and stupid ready run right back into the fold of the old masters (conservatives moral-wise and liberals financial-wise) if these masters only tugged on the heartstrings of nationalism, church and blood & soil.
A tangled mess to be sure.
The conservatives and liberals generally allied with the financial and commodity-owning elites, alloying politics to (capital) ownership and in effect becoming the political branch of capitalism. This naturally made them smalle in number than the various marxists, who instead took control of the unions, often by founding and funding supra-unions, or a union for unions so to speak, complete with international co-operation. It was this structure soviet-loyal marxists then tried to co-opt for the entire 20th century. The marxists in many nations had to concede that the last thing most people wanted was violent and armed insurrection, and that the working class had "bourgeois" values: honest pay for honest work, one law for all, criminals get taken care of or taken out as need be, family values, tradition and no imperalist expansionism, racial hatred or any other progressive notions.
So what to do, if the marxists were to take control of the means of production and usher in a communist Golden Age, when the people wasn't interested in that? Simple: add democrat to socialist. Use the democratic system and its institutions to take control of civil society, from there take control of the banks and the economy via law and taxation, and then legally buy the entire economy with its own resources, essentially moving money from your right pocket to your left.
Socialist Democracy, and drop the -ist for good measure.
So to sum up this lenghty tirade (?), that's what's happened to your Democratic Party in the US: they have added Socialist to their name and ideals, without spelling it out. While the US certainly has done its share of "cultural imperialism" as we used to say during the Cold War, the exchange goes both ways. How many times have US liberals, progressives and Democrats held up the Scandinavian nations as paragons and proof a high-tax strong and all-encompassing state-system can work and is good? Unfortunately, that misses the main point why our societies worked like literal clockwork up until recently: we were ethnically, culturally and racially homogenous and had been since before Christ*. US isn't, never was, and if I may say so as a foreigner the very idea of racial and cultural homogenity is alien to the idea and ideals of the US (and should be too, I think, as your nation is consciously and purposefully founded - it didn't grow naturally out of Ice Age tribal societies).
That's why the policies of the US (Socialist) Democrats are doomed to fail, and might drag the entire nation, plus Canada and Mexico, down with it.
*None of this entails or demands or even leads to 'racism' or racial hatred, quite the reverse. The normal attitude in any such nation is: "Foreigners have strange ways that are normal to them, if they come here they must obey our norms and if we go there we must obey theirs". Which is pretty much the opposite of racism.
An explanation from a foreigner, if it's all right.
Tl;dr-version: democracy means you get to vote and then the politicians tells you what to do.
Longer version:
It becomes quite clear what kind of party, including their hangers-on all the way down to Antifa and the black nazis of BLM are if you look at it with a european perspective:
During the rise of democracy in Europe, it rose together with nationalism, due to a great many people heeding the truth that all peoples have the right to self-governance should they so wish it. This of course scared the britches off both the old aristocracies, the budding capitalists and the bourgeiosie as well as the marxists (remember, this is way before the Russian Revolution - we're talking early to mid 1800s, the inspiration being the American and French revolutions).
As both the idea and actual parliamentarism grew in many nations and areas and the idea came to be accepted as the golden standard (mid to late 1800s, generally speaking) and "the normal", so did the various proto-parties. On the conservative and liberal sides, the worry was that uneducated masses could be easily led astray by demagogues promising a Schlaraffenland if they got the vote, and on the nationalist sides the amoral and predatory international capitalism was seen as a danger to kith and kin, it not putting anything before profit, and on the marxists side(s) the people were again seen as uneducated and stupid ready run right back into the fold of the old masters (conservatives moral-wise and liberals financial-wise) if these masters only tugged on the heartstrings of nationalism, church and blood & soil.
A tangled mess to be sure.
The conservatives and liberals generally allied with the financial and commodity-owning elites, alloying politics to (capital) ownership and in effect becoming the political branch of capitalism. This naturally made them smalle in number than the various marxists, who instead took control of the unions, often by founding and funding supra-unions, or a union for unions so to speak, complete with international co-operation. It was this structure soviet-loyal marxists then tried to co-opt for the entire 20th century. The marxists in many nations had to concede that the last thing most people wanted was violent and armed insurrection, and that the working class had "bourgeois" values: honest pay for honest work, one law for all, criminals get taken care of or taken out as need be, family values, tradition and no imperalist expansionism, racial hatred or any other progressive notions.
So what to do, if the marxists were to take control of the means of production and usher in a communist Golden Age, when the people wasn't interested in that? Simple: add democrat to socialist. Use the democratic system and its institutions to take control of civil society, from there take control of the banks and the economy via law and taxation, and then legally buy the entire economy with its own resources, essentially moving money from your right pocket to your left.
Socialist Democracy, and drop the -ist for good measure.
So to sum up this lenghty tirade (?), that's what's happened to your Democratic Party in the US: they have added Socialist to their name and ideals, without spelling it out. While the US certainly has done its share of "cultural imperialism" as we used to say during the Cold War, the exchange goes both ways. How many times have US liberals, progressives and Democrats held up the Scandinavian nations as paragons and proof a high-tax strong and all-encompassing state-system can work and is good? Unfortunately, that misses the main point why our societies worked like literal clockwork up until recently: we were ethnically, culturally and racially homogenous and had been since before Christ*. US isn't, never was, and if I may say so as a foreigner the very idea of racial and cultural homogenity is alien to the idea and ideals of the US (and should be too, I think, as your nation is consciously and purposefully founded - it didn't grow naturally out of Ice Age tribal societies).
That's why the policies of the US (Socialist) Democrats are doomed to fail, and might drag the entire nation, plus Canada and Mexico, down with it.
*None of this entails or demands or even leads to 'racism' or racial hatred, quite the reverse. The normal attitude in any such nation is: "Foreigners have strange ways that are normal to them, if they come here they must obey our norms and if we go there we must obey theirs". Which is pretty much the opposite of racism.