Conclusions of a reluctant Democrat.
I have voted Democratic for the past 25 years because there were no logical alternatives. I voted for third parties a few times before then, but concluded that third-party voters usually end up helping candidates that they like least. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote gets all of the state’s electoral votes for president and vice president. Thus, it is very difficult for a third party to win a state’s electoral votes and affect presidential elections directly.
“I liked Ike” and was a young, naïve supporter of Goldwater. I later voted for Jimmy Carter and tried to remain independent. With the election of Ronald Reagan, however, I gave up the Republican Party, which has since degenerated into the cult of Donald Trump. So, I have voted Democratic, reluctantly.
The 2024 presidential election was the most important election of my 85-year lifetime. The two-party system led to the election of a candidate who promised to rule the nation as an autocrat rather than serve the people as a president. Donald Trump convinced enough voters that it would take a strong, autocratic leader to bring about real change, and those who voted for him were desperate for change. All the Democrats had to offer was the stability and civility of the political status quo. There was no viable third-party alternative.
I did all I felt I could individually to inform voters of the importance of the 2024 election. I tried to warn people of the consequences of electing someone who had expressed no intention of respecting the constitutional limits on the power of the presidency. We are now seeing the consequences of the election in the intimidation of Congress, defiance of the Supreme Court, and the step-by-step transformation of our democracy into an autocracy or dictatorship. The Democrats in Congress seem powerless to stop or even slow the erosion.
After the election, I posted that Trump’s victory was not a landslide, as he has claimed, but was a vote of “no-confidence” in both Democrats and mainstream Republicans. I later posted that anti-Trump doesn’t necessarily mean pro-Democrat. I pointed out how the policy positions of many people who voted Democratic were more Progressive than Democratic: more like those of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than Kamala Harris or Joe Biden.
The polls consistently show that the American people overwhelmingly support a progressive policy agenda. However, the Democratic Party seems more concerned with appeasing its own billionaire and corporate funders than responding to the needs and preferences of ordinary people. Biden seemed to be moving in the right direction, but he didn’t break with the corporate oligarchy or move far enough, fast enough to convince the people that he was committed to real change.
I will continue to do whatever I can individually. However, I thought maybe I should become involved with others in the larger political movement. So, I decided to attend a Democratic Town Hall meeting in my hometown. I wanted to see whether the Democratic Party in my community might be amenable to change, and if so, what I might do to help.
Tickets for the Town Hall were sold out, and the seats were full. Luckily, I had registered online. One of the first things I noticed when the crowd had settled in was the lack of young people in the audience; the average age was probably around 65. There is nothing wrong with old people, I’m one of them. However, young people have much more at stake in the nation’s future, and when motivated, have the enthusiasm, energy, and stamina to demand and bring about lasting change.
The Democratic congressman holding the Town Hall appeared to be a competent legislator, but I wasn’t impressed with his politics. He represents a “purple” or swing district near Chicago and came across as a mainstream, status quo Democrat. He reportedly is considering running for some statewide office and was testing the political climate of southern Illinois. He had a friendly audience and didn’t need to be concerned about offending many, if any, by expressing any concerns he had about the current threats to our democracy. But he didn’t, except for a bit at the end about fascism with no direct reference to Trump.
He praised Nixon’s policies on the environment and Reagan’s deregulation. He talked about John Lewis and the civil rights movement, but didn’t mention Biden or Obama. He also defended globalization and targeted tariffs, but didn't go into the potential implications of Trump's trade war for inflation, tax cuts for the rich, or the standing of the U.S. in the global community. He spoke about how Trump's executive orders conflicted with congressional and judicial authority, but focused on the need for Republicans to find the courage to uphold the Constitution, not on what Democrats need to do to stop him.
I was also disappointed in the comments of the people who took the opportunity to ask questions. The questions were mostly about budget cuts and their effects on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits, education, and other things affecting people directly. These concerns are relevant and important, but there seemed to be less concern about how these cuts were being made than about the effects on them, personally.
When a few people questioned Elon Musk’s role in spending cuts, the illegal deportation of immigrants, and the impotence of Democrats in Congress, the congressman offered no defense other than to blame the Republicans. There was no sense of urgency or crisis concerning Trump's executive actions, the dysfunction of Congress, the vulnerability of the federal court system, or Trump’s open defiance of the rule of law on immigration issues.
One question was asked concerning the failure of Democrats to address the lack of affordable health care, housing, childcare, education, transportation, and other essential services in rural areas like Southern Illinois. The response was that Democrats running for statewide or national offices probably felt they could win Illinois by focusing on Chicago and other urban areas, without recognizing that many urban residents have the same problems as people in rural areas and Democrats have done little to address them.
These same concerns seem to resonate with the thousands who are attending Bernie and AOC’s rallies. I’m convinced that a majority of the people, all across the country, rural and urban, want this same kind of change. They want real and lasting changes to make life better for everyone, not just the privileged few. But those who want change see Democrats as defenders of the status quo, and have no third-party alternative.
A couple of people who spoke near the end had attended Hands-Off rallies and asked about the effectiveness of the various opposition movements. The congressman encouraged them to keep demonstrating, but didn't indicate that he thought doing so would make much difference.
David Brooks, a mainstream Republican columnist, wrote in the New York Times, “It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants, and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.” I would have been tempted to become more involved in the Democratic Party if the congressman had made a similar statement. He didn’t.
Maybe others who attended the Town Hall came away with a different impression. Our differing experiences affect our perceptions. However, I have concluded that the Democratic Party won’t change until forced to do so by the people it claims to represent. I plan to take my place among the hundreds of thousands and millions who have been taking to the streets to start a national civic uprising. I think the various progressive movements need to join forces not only to foment a mass movement to oppose Trump and defend the Constitution, but also to recruit and support progressive candidates for Democratic primaries, particularly for the 2028 midterm elections.
The Tea Party changed the Republican Party by primarying out mainstream Republicans. The Progressive movement may have to do the same to mainstream Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proved it can be done at the congressional level, and Bernie Sanders almost did it at the presidential level in 2016. The Progressives need young candidates who understand that the current political system isn’t working and isn’t going to work unless they change it. The old progressives may need to create opportunities, but the Democratic Party needs the imagination, enthusiasm, and energy of the younger generations.
There isn’t enough time to create a viable third party. When Lincoln won the election of 1860, there were four viable parties in the U.S. He won with less than 40% of the popular vote. By the time a new third party could gain momentum, there would be no free and fair elections, as in Russia and North Korea today. I have concluded that the only way to save our constitutional democracy is to change the Democratic Party. Democrats who refuse to change need to be replaced by those who will. Regardless, the need for change, real change, is urgent. If Democrats lose another round of congressional elections, we may well have lost our democracy.
John Ikerd