The Democratic party is in trouble, but their refusal to see it and make drastic changes will hamper their ability to win…
Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat from Ohio, has finally broken the silence from his side of the aisle and admitted what the rest of the country realized quite some time ago—the Democratic platform is toxic.
What he actually said was, “So we’re asking candidates in these deep-red districts to battle the Republican Party. We’ve got a lot of energy in our base, which is very exciting for a lot of us to see that on the ground—but you’ve got to beat the Republican, and you’ve got to carry this very toxic Democratic brand on your back, too. That’s a tough thing to ask a candidate running for Congress, and so we’ve got to figure that out.” Unfortunately for him, the Democratic party leadership has no intention of changing their current platform. They have put all their effort and energy into an extreme view and rhetoric.
Once again, Ryan is calling for Nancy Pelosi to vacate her position as the minority leader of the United States House of Representatives. He ran against her in November for that same billet but only garnered 63 votes as compared to the 130 Pelosi received. Even President Trump got involved, stating that the worst thing for the Republicans would be to have the Democratic leadership replaced with moderates. “I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party – and please let Cryin’ Chuck stay!” I don’t see this being an issue, however. Power is exceptionally corrupting, and Nancy Pelosi has grown quite accustomed to its perks. She will not leave that post until she is forced from it in one way or another.
Having the Democratic party returning to a more moderate platform would spark a very interesting fight within the organization. It seems as if every day, liberals turn more and more virulent, even toward their own base. As their cause gains public acceptance, these individuals want to push the envelope further to the left, excluding those who were once very much part of the group.
For example, look at the women’s march that took place during the presidential inauguration. One of the groups that was sponsoring the march was a pro-life feminist group. Once it was discovered that this group was pro-life, they were uninvited. Why? It is the new age liberal belief of “you are either with me completely or you must be destroyed.” Then there were the University of Michigan students demanding that the campus designate a space for only “students of color.” In other words, a group of students who are protesting against inequality and lack of diversity are demanding an area be commissioned that celebrates inequality and lack of diversity.
One of my favorite examples, though, is Black Lives Matter. At first, their stance was against white police officers shooting unarmed, innocent black men. Even when it became clear that the suspects in the most explosive of these cases were not so innocent, they simply screamed down their detractors. However, when it became clear that it was not just white police officers shooting black criminals, their mantra changed to simply anti-police. If the reality does not fit the narrative, tweak the messaging to include a larger group of people to hate.
To try to break ranks with these groups, who are so focused on their agenda without the ability to compromise, will be a show to watch. This is where the party currently finds itself. Not only will it have to deal with the anger and potential violence that will come from them turning against their extremophiles, but they also have the overwhelming task of winning back the same individuals their party had been attacking previously. Tom Perez gave us the best example of this. As the party chair of the Democratic party, he stated that if you wanted to be a Democrat, you had to be pro-choice. Even though the party played a great game of musical chairs trying to walk that statement back, the number of Democrats who permanently turned away from the party cannot be measured.
You can see this in any party or group that has been around for any length of time. The Republican party has many of the same problems regarding their quest and lust for power. The difference is the devils that the parties have chosen to side with. The Republicans do not really have a cause that they fight for, so it is hard to tie them to any particular group. The Democrats have not only called out their support for these groups, they have publicly supported their views in the most extreme instances. Whether it is the play “Shakespeare in the Park,” where a figure eerily reminiscent of President Trump is killed, Ex-CNN host Kathy Griffin holding up a decapitated and bloody Trump head, or where former Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated, “They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again”—nothing taken out of context here, we can rise up and bleed and die again. How is that not promoting a culture of hate and violence? Maybe she should do some historical reading. Robert Kennedy stated, “What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by an assassin’s bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled or uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.”
Ryan is correct—his party’s brand is exceptionally toxic. The question is who is going to pull them away from that brand. Clearly it is not the current leadership. They have given themselves no way out. The only thing that is certain is that they are going to have to change to survive.