Why are the Democrats so desperate to regain and retain power?
One reason is that the gap between the parties has grown in terms of goals and policy, and so there are few areas of agreement anymore. But that brings up another question: why has that happened? I think it was the fruit of a few decades of leftist indoctrination in the education system, plus the fall of the Soviets which allowed new generations to wax Romantic about socialism/Communism, the spread of leftist ideas online, and the presidency of Barack Obama – our first leftist president, as far as I know. He carefully calibrated his leftist policies to fit what the electorate could take, but he definitely moved the Overton Window to the left.
But it’s not just about policy, and in fact policy may be way way down on the list. To say it’s about power doesn’t really say much either, although power is a big draw for some people of a certain personality type. But power is also about money. With revelations such as this about the vast sums given to NGOs, for example, or Medicaid fraud (and kickbacks and/or payment in votes from the grateful fraudster community), not to mention speaking fees and insider trading and the like, there’s a lot of money to be had.
Trump in particular is a threat – not because he’s a “Nazi” – they clearly don’t mind Nazis if they’re Democrat Nazis – or an “authoritarian” (likewise; authoritarians are great if on the left). It’s because he’s actually serious about “draining the swamp,” which not only has the potential of cutting off the power they wield even when Republicans are in charge, but cutting off the money spigot or at least reducing it.
There’s still another reason, which is the things they’ve done in the past: leaks of classified information, planting false conspiracy theories such as Russiagate, lawfare for political reasons, and now gerrymandering (which both parties have always done but which the left had especially mastered). They may not go to prison for things like the classified leaks, but when their machinations are revealed they do lose face with at least some voters.
Plus, during the Biden administration they were so very close to so many of their goals. They almost were able to pass their transformative legislative package. The only thing that stopped them was the fact that Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t vote for the nuclear option. Manchin and Sinema are gone now – funny thing, that – and the only possible stopper if the Democrats get power again (accent on the “possible” because I’m not sure how he’d really vote) would be Fetterman.
Put it all together and the GOP must be fought with every tool possible, some of them quite creative. With the help of leftist judges, it might be possible to do a lot of shady things now but especially in the future, if the Democrats can win control. That’s why the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision blocking their redistricting efforts for this year was such a shock and such a blow to the left. That’s why, if they come to power again and gain a majority in Congress plus the presidency, they will pack the US Supreme Court to make sure it always rules for their side.
That’s why Hakeem Jeffries said this recently:
Just days before an apparent assassination attempt on President Donald Trump’s life, one of the Democratic Party’s leaders called for “maximum warfare” against Republicans.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made the inflammatory remark while warning Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., against redrawing the state’s congressional map ahead of November’s midterm elections.
Jeffries said that if DeSantis attempted to counter Democratic gains in Virginia following the state’s aggressive gerrymander, Democrats would continue to ratchet up pressure on Republicans nationwide.
“We are in an era of maximum warfare. Everywhere, all the time,” Jeffries said Wednesday at a news conference.
Note the subject matter was redistricting, and Jeffries was basically saying to Republicans, “We can do it but you aren’t allowed to do it.”
“the presidency of Barack Obama – our first leftist president, as far as I know”
Wilson’s Progressive movement wasn’t too much different: desire for world government, obsession with race, the state above all. He just didn’t couch it in the fake hopey-changey way the Lightbringer did.
My take on their desperation
1st Trump, through all their H8 plots not only survived, rises up to the President again.
Had they let him go in 2020, he would have bedn gone and betvthey again would have ran rough shod over him like 2016.
2nd their power has diminished, hope their LGBQXYZ is falling apart.
50 years or more of running Cultural Marxism Seminaries yet while their numbers are growing yearly, their revolution isn’t going anywhere.
the fact that Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t vote for the nuclear option.
That time. Both voted for the nuclear option on December 9, 2021, before they took their “principled” stand on January 19, 2022–only three days after their previous filibuster set-aside was due to expire. Call me cynical for doubting their sincerity.
The same is true today for Susan Collins with respect to the SAVE Act at least as recently as October 2025.
I can’t see into anyone’s heart to know if they really had some kind of genuine conversion experience in the short time between the votes for nuking the filibuster and the votes against, of course. Collins and Murkowski seem to repeatedly experience such conversions, and only God can definitely say they are not genuine, every time.
The bill Sinema and Manchin voted for that nuked the filibuster contained the following language:
It has a misleading title because it was a House bill that was hollowed out and repurposed. This is the big problem with the “principled stand on the filibuster”, that they resort to these kinds of tricks to make it harder to follow what was done. I think in the case of a true principle, people don’t try so hard to disguise what they are doing.
When the Democrats tell us what they’re going to do, we should believe them. They will do anything it takes to keep their promises. But the Republicans have blundered away their best chance to keep the country on a centrist trajectory. To me, the filibuster is bi-modal–you either like out enough to codify it as a Constitutional amendment or you hate it enough to blow it up by a partisan change to the Senate rules. The Dems have already said they’ll blow it up. Thune and his crew of “traditionalists” want to pretend that the Dems won’t blow it up. I believe that they’re wrong.
I would have proposed a Constitutional amendment on Inauguration Day 2025 and told the Dems that if it wasn’t ratified by 12/31/25, we’d end the filibuster and pass popular Republican priorities (like the Save Act). The Dems, like the Iranians, would have dragged their feed hoping to wait out the Republicans. But ending the filibuster–as promised–on 12/31/25 would have given the Republicans the opportunity to pass their agenda in time to salvage the mid-terms (and motivated their base at the same time). But those days have passed. The Republicans won’t end the filibuster when they have control of both houses of Congress–but the Democrats will. The Dems will do whatever it takes to pass their unpopular agenda (open borders, amnesty, court packing, and Senate packing), while the Republicans won’t pass their popular agenda, which would move the country toward prosperity. The Republican leadership reminds me of the missionary who hopes the cannibals will eat him last.
But power is also about money. With revelations such as this about the vast sums given to NGOs, for example,…
I agree. I don’t recall which commenter said it many months ago, but when we were discussing congress and the pols in the House, some commenter said, “It’s all about appropriations.” This is the primary point where the money gets allocated and I suppose the safeguards, or lack thereof, is established.
neo’s Instapundit/X link is certainly fascinating and makes me a bit more hopeful that this sort of federal spending and money laundering can be curtailed, but it’s much too early to tell if will have any traction. One obvious question is: how much GOP grifting would or could be exposed? And will less than unanimous GOP support kill it?
@Chad King:to me, the filibuster is bi-modal–you either like out enough to codify it as a Constitutional amendment or you hate it enough to blow it up by a partisan change to the Senate rules.
In reality, it’s “Simon Says”, a majority of 51 sets it aside whenever they wish, often for one time only. Useful for dodging accountability for outcomes. It’s sometimes done without any media noise whatever and euphemistically described as “procedural maneuver”.
As with so many things, follow the money.