Of the political grass-roots movement which came to prominence during the Presidency of Barack Obama, few are more memorable than the 2009 Tea Party and 2011 The Occupy Movement. What is interesting to note is that the Occupy Movement was liberal “answer” to the “crazy” Tea Party Movement.
Why all of this bears re-telling is the recent development of a so-called “Liberal Tea Party” who finds its locus in the popular socialist and hand-waver-in-chief, Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. Sanders, some readers might remember, gathered a near fanatical following up and down the Democratic party line and also drew considerable support from outside the party from liberal and socialist minded centrists and independents – as well as out-and-out communists. His calls for a “political revolution” considerably energized both his and Clinton’s base.
With the specter of the Wasserman-Schultz scandal and Clinton’s defeat at the hands of Trump still looming over the Democratic Party there is a growing thirst for new DNC leadership and new ideas. But there is a snag – loyalty.
Clinton may be a lame-duck at the moment with low popularity and considerably lower political capital but her die-hard followers are pushing valiantly for Tom Perez to head up the currently reforming DNC. His opponent, Keith Ellison, a former friend of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and a practicing Muslim, is firmly backed by Sanders. Due these facts, in addition to the upcoming bid for the chair of the DNC, a distinct rift within the Democratic Party has opened up – Clinton-loyalists and Perez on one side, ossifying and cloud-headed – Ellison and Sanders on the other – buoyant, energetic and filled with ideas of “revolution.”
Change is either good or it is bad, and though I find both Sanders and Ellisons ideas utterly repellent, I think that their victory over the Establishment would be a net positive for those more on the right side of things. My reasoning is that with Clinton’s old band everyone knows what they are getting and nobody likes it. Ellison’s chairmanship, however, could go in all sorts of directions. However, the direction Ellison takes is far less important than his election itself and his close ties to Sanders – once and for all the veil would be ripped away and reveal the Democratic party for what it has become: an Islamophilic, globalist, socialist party whose better-half care only for perceived oppression and whose worse-half seeks to continue the devolution of the United States from a Grand and Sovereign nation-state to a internationalist, economic platform. It will be the beginning of the end of this insidious political hide-the-ball best typified by Chris Matthew’s interview of Hillary Clinton, wherein she was asked, “What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” to which she replied, “I’m a progressive democrat.”
So let’s champion Mr. Ellison – let the socialist transmogrification of the Democratic Party be just as clear as the malformation of the GOP’s.
Follow Kaiter online here