The Theft of Democracy and the Consent of the Governed
The DNC is undermining basic democratic processes. Here's how.
As I've been leaning more and more into the American political scene leading up to the upcoming election, I've been shocked by the brazenness of the corruption I'm seeing in the Democratic party establishment. While media pundits dismiss conspiracy theorists—blatant corruption of the democratic process goes on visibly for all to see. Why does there seem to be so little reaction to it? Do we so doubt our ability to change it? Have we been desensitized to such corruption like the frog slowly boiled alive? Or could it be that this corruption isn't as obvious as it seems to me?
To me, corruption seems so widespread, systemic, and obvious that we ought all be marching in the streets and participating in mass civil disobedience. Though, it may be I'm jumping the gun. So I'll share a bit of what has inspired these feelings in me. Either we are complacently obedient to an undemocratic government, or I'm missing something here. If I am missing something here, let me know. Here's the situation as I see it:
The US government used to be the model of democracy for the whole world, being emulated by many of the major democracies in Europe. Though, it seems like the moral, democratic authority of the US government has been hallowed out from the inside. Our government still espouses democratic values even while completely undermining democratic processes. You can see this when the US funds the war in Ukraine to defend democracy, while that very war has caused Ukrainian president Zelensky to postpone the next election.
Perhaps this, in isolation, is a minor issue. Though, none of us truly believe we still live in a democracy, do we? In an authentic democracy, would it take millions of dollars for candidates to even get on the ballot? In an authentic democracy, would corporations be able to give millions of dollars to politicians to support specific legislation?
Of course, we still have an apparently democratic system with voting for legislators and such—though the level of corruption tips the scales to such a degree that hardly anyone could possibly think it fair. Also, the collusion between government, corporations, and mainstream media outlets creates a propaganda machine that operates in service to specific financial interests above those of everyday people. It's no wonder, then, that while Biden boasts a “thriving economy” most Americans can't afford a house.
Even these things, though, are subtle compared to what I’m about to discuss—the issues regarding the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which is the official organization of the Democratic political party. The operations within the DNC have been blatantly corrupt for years. I first became aware of this in 2016.
I was highly invested in the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. I was attending local events. I donated to his campaign. I made phone calls to gather support for him. At first, the media attempted to ignore his campaign as irrelevant, though this became increasingly difficult as he gathered crowds of tens of thousands of people—garnering more passionate support than perhaps anyone else in the presidential primaries (including, arguably, Donald Trump). Bernie was immensely popular to a degree that I had never previously seen in any politician in my life. His only competition within the Democratic party was Hillary Clinton—a woman who had already failed to win the Democratic primary against Barack Obama in 2008 and garnered almost none of the passionate fervor that Bernie's campaign was known for.
All this and yet, somehow, Hillary Clinton won the election. How did she do this? A quick Google search will reveal articles from various mainstream media outlets saying that Clinton not only won fairly but that if there was election bias, it was in favor of Bernie. However, those of us who were actively engaged in Bernie's campaign, and who attended the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, know that the election was anything but fair. I'll leave this link to a Quora answer that catalogs over 20 different ways that the election was rigged in favor of Clinton. The answer includes a link to a politico article by Donna Brazile who saw the affair firsthand. I won't go into the details of the 2016 Democratic Primary debacle here. I'll only mention the most obvious and insulting of the ways that the election was fixed from the start.
For those of you who don't know, elections aren't directly determined by the votes of the American voters. Rather, the vote is determined by a group of delegates, some of whom are required to vote in line with the American people. However, of the 4,750 delegates who determine the Democratic primary election, over 700 of them are what are called superdelegates. These delegates are not required to vote for the candidate supported by the populous. In 2016, almost all of the superdelegates pledged themselves to Hillary Clinton before the votes even came in. This meant that, effectively, Hillary Clinton was guaranteed nearly 15% of the votes regardless of the opinion of the American people. The effect of this on the 2016 election was profound and may have just cost Bernie Sanders the election.
Given that Bernie had the highest net favorability rating of anyone in the 2016 election and was the only presidential-likely with net favorability over 50%—he quite likely would have won in a general election against Donald Trump. This is especially likely given that Trump was the first president ever elected with a lower than 50% favorability rating. This means that it’s quite likely that the meddling of the DNC in basic democratic processes led directly to Trump’s election.
Regardless, whatever your opinion of Bernie, Hillary, or Trump—we all should be upset with the blatant undermining of our democracy. While the problems I mention are regarding the internal processes of the DNC, it is still significant. In a two-party system like we have, the internal functioning of each party greatly impacts the results of the general election.
The upcoming election may suffer the same fate if we're not careful.
Already, the DNC has been flagrantly acting in defiance of fair, democratic processes. They ignore the collective will of the people with no accountability—hardly even trying to assure us of the fairness of the process.
Around 68% of eligible voters say they want to see a debate among the three current Democratic presidential hopefuls: Joe Biden, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Marianne Williamson. This number is even greater for people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020, at 79%. Additionally, 63% of Americans don’t think Biden is mentally fit enough to serve another term. Despite this, Biden has thus far refused to participate in a debate. Given that Biden is the incumbent and a democratic party insider, this clearly benefits him and him alone. This is especially clear to whoever has heard either Kennedy or Williamson speak—both are incisive, intelligent, and extremely critical of establishment politics. However, we are still denied the opportunity to see them publicly debate Biden on stage and have their voices heard alongside Biden’s.
Yet, the deceptive tactics of the Democratic party don't stop there. It seems that the Biden administration is even willing to endanger the very life of RFK Jr. to hurt his political chances at victory.
For many months, RFK Jr. has been requesting Secret Service protection from the Whitehouse while on the campaign trail. Recently, after much nagging by RFK Jr.'s campaign staff, Biden responded to RFK's request with a denial, shocking people on the campaign. Why is this so shocking? A few reasons.
First of all, this kind of secret service protection for presidential hopefuls is the norm. 18 US Code 3056A promises secret service protection to anyone on the campaign trail within 120 days of the election date. Technically, this would be 120 days before November 5th, 2024. Though, customarily, this kind of protection is offered sooner in special circumstances. Barack Obama, for example, received Secret Service protection in May of 2007 due to death threats he was receiving, nearly a year and a half before the 2008 election.
Even more ironic, according to this government document, it seems that 18 US Code 3056A was created specifically after the assassination of a presidential nominee on the campaign trail. Who was that person? Bobby Kennedy, none other than RFK Jr’s own father. Not long after the assassination of JFK, Bobby Kennedy's brother, Bobby too was assassinated on his campaign while running an extremely successful populist presidential campaign. Now, the son and nephew of these two famous political figures is running his own extremely successful populist campaign and is denied secret service protection. What possible justification is there for this?
It is certainly not because RFK Jr. and his family are not at risk. Obviously, he is a controversial figure. He does receive death threats. The Whitehouse knows this from the 67-page risk report submitted with Kennedy’s Secret Service request. Because of these risks, Kennedy has had to hire a private security detail. The cost for such a detail has been estimated to be $38,000 a day. Even if it costs less than that, that is a major expenditure for a candidate who is funding his campaign primarily through small, individual donations rather than gigantic corporate sponsors. RFK Jr. himself has stated that this is quite likely a political tactic to drain his campaign of resources and make it harder for him to run.
Recently, a man was even arrested at one of Kennedy’s events impersonating his security detail. The threat is real and present. There is plenty of precedent for providing such protection. The denial of this protection, then, is quite definitely a political move.
However, this isn’t the end of the primary shenanigans. Recent moves to change primary regulations have placed considerable hurdles ahead of RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson. While it appears that superdelegates are no longer allowed to vote in the first round, they can determine the election results in a “contested election”. Furthermore, the DNC is changing rules in New Hampshire and Iowa. Some of these rules would serve to penalize candidates who campaign in these early primary states. Furthermore, rules have been passed in Georgia that would ban any candidate who doesn’t follow the DNC’s rules.
What does it mean when the democratic party says that the votes of Iowa and New Hampshire won't be counted if they meet their candidates? What does it mean when an institution prevents potential nominees and voters from meeting each other? How can we possibly call this process democratic when we are being told certain people's votes will simply not be counted?
The thing that shocks me the most about this is how obviously corrupt such measures are—and they're fully aboveground. If this is the way democracy is being undermined in the light of day, what must be occurring behind the scenes?
Yet, when such things happen, what do we do about it? I mean this question in two ways:
What are we doing about it? How is the American public currently responding? Not very noisily, in my perspective. Democracy, itself, is threatened right before our eyes and there is hardly a murmur of anger. Regardless of political alignment, we all ought to be outraged at what is an obvious distortion of the democracy that has made our country great, that our forefathers fought and died for, and that offers us power and influence over the functioning of our government. Are we really so politically discordant or disengaged that we are willing to let these things happen without challenge?
As well: what should we do about it? The Whitehouse is not required by law to provide secret service protection until 120 days from the day of the vote. Furthermore, the DNC is a private entity, not a part of the US government. Therefore, it is not beholden to the duty to uphold democracy, a position it shamelessly endorsed after being sued regarding the 2016 shadiness mentioned above.
The fact that so much of the democratic process has been co-opted by private interests is, of course, a central element responsible for the destruction of our democracy. Why should a private entity control so much of our democratic process—especially after so clearly demonstrating its dishonorable and anti-democratic nature? But again, what do we do about it?
If you're hoping I'm going to offer an answer here, you may be disappointed. The same forces of financial entanglement in the US political process have also apparently made it difficult for everyday people to challenge these things on legal or political platforms.
Though, I do know one thing. Government depends upon the consent of the governed. I don’t know about you, but our current government is looking less and less worthy of our consent. Perhaps it is time for the people to unite in solidarity. We are corralled into political tribalism wherein we war with each other while elite powers steal our political power away before our very eyes. I don't know what we should do about this plutocratic takeover of our democracy. However, I do know that any action on our part must be organized by the unification of our collective will.
This is why I share the appalling information I've shared above. I'm left-leaning, so this is the corruption I know. Right-leaning folks may know of totally other, equally corrupt dealings. However, this is not an issue of just the democratic or republican party. As I said before, we should all be outraged at the theft of our democracy.
Perhaps it is that collective outrage that will finally unite our collective will.
Then we can start talking about what to do.