The Democratic Party: Internecine warfare is the deadliest

By Jon Phillips

Jon reacts to the November 4, 2022, opinion piece by Colbert I. King in the Washington Post regarding the Democratic Party under the Biden Presidency; "Internecine warfare is the deadliest."

Liz Cheney

Look at what a decade of party fratricide has done to the GOP. Half are supporting nutters and the nutty margin is growing as the MAGA fascists try to retire the remaining establishment Republicans, now clearly labeled as “RINOs” and traitors by today’s version of fanatical jackboot lickers who serve Trump’s agenda from one chaotic moment to the next. They used to be John Birchers, etc. Trump MAGAngsters are the new incarnation of right wing whack job in America.

 

What do we end up with if the Democrats also self destruct under pressure to move to their lunatic left wing fringe? Radical authoritarian right at war with radical peace loving progressive liberals? No — that’s not what happens. Progressive liberals will not survive a political wartime climate. Typically, only dictatorial types survive that environment.

Joe Manchin

It’s a race that gets meaner and more vicious in each cycle. The “nice” people just don’t make it. The progressive liberals would eventually be replaced by a radical authoritarian left either because they get forcibly retired as “LINOs” or because they learn to be vicious and unload their moral qualms to stay in position. That’s how it goes. It’s an ideological arms race that increasingly rewards brutality and punishes those who try to be ethical and fair.

 

Eventually those “snow flakes” are all melted away and horrible people are in power. By horrible, I don’t mean feisty politicians, I don’t mean typical politicians who’re painted by right wing fantasies like Q and Pizzagate to dehumanize them (look at the nonsense spread in Brazil’s recent election aimed at each side — it went all the way to cannibalism). I mean Hitler vs Stalin (and somewhat less vicious examples) as a psychopathic reality. Hitler and Stalin are sort of the most distilled examples in history of brutal right and left. People who murder many millions to serve the interest of their power.

 

Look at Central and South America. They’ve been stuck in that quagmire for many decades. Right wing authoritarians or left wing authoritarians. Periodic pseudo or full up brutal dictatorships. Occasional periods of decent government. Political violence and civil insurrection

 

That’s the logic of those who suppose that having a singular “correct” ideology is the way forward. A march toward extremes until, in terms of civil rights, both sides are brutal and indistinguishable when it comes to persecution of their political adversaries. As practical matter, both sides are the devil and use similar methods of coercion and brutality.

 

Democracy thrives best under centrist left and right parties. Why this is true is rather obvious. Centrists can work together and pass legislation that lasts and creates stability since the center is, by definition, where most of the people live on average. They’re capable of tolerating differences

 

But when you increasingly flip flop between far right and far left wing ideology, you tear stuff down. Institutional things that were very difficult to build. You try to build up and then dismantle over and over again and government loses public credibility against the tsunami of hateful lies “flooding the zone” — eventually from both sides. Eventually the center cannot hold and democracy recedes.

Donald Trump, September 6, 2016

 The only way to stably have radical government is under brutal authoritarians. People who physically crush and persecute their political opposition. They literally purge their opponents. Many Americans seem to suppose that is what they want these days — a strong man. Either a right winger or a left winger who will restore a singular order. The purpose being the elimination of significant ideological difference. That is not a nice place to be. It’s purely a fantasy that it might be better. The large majority will eventually suffer under it.

 

We’ve been stable for a long time and I suppose that Americans have no real idea how horrid things can get and how ruined a country can become and how quickly. Most of them have no relevant experience unless they grew up in a ghetto somewhere or fled some authoritarian country and migrated here. American voters don’t often know what very deep poverty is about in a personal sense. They’re not well “traveled”. When they leave the US, they go on vacation. Sometimes I hear them say how awful it was to see real poverty — but frankly at a distance.

 

They don’t go on vacation to see how the impoverished of the world live under chaotic and often authoritarian governments. Why would they go somewhere and risk getting dysentery or risk succumbing to violence or crime? Or just finding it too uncomfortable either physically or emotionally. Out of sight, out of mind. If they visit the developing world, they often go to some fancy resort with security guards. I’ve done that a few times. Relaxing on vacation is important, but often not very educational about the world.

 

But I’ve also spent much more time working overseas and been there for considerable time when not on holiday. I’ve been chewed on by vermin in a flea bag hotel and had dysentery. I’ve even had my life threatened a couple times. That’s where a large part of the world lives everyday. The main difference between the developed and developing world is the quality and history of governance institutions and their stability.

 

Sound and effective government institutions are very difficult to build. If you tear them down, everything else good eventually follows them in that collapse. Then we all live in the ruins and the ruins are most often governed by “King Rats,” not by “fair and just people.” Let’s not fool ourselves, and ruin ourselves.