Sometimes I wonder if Obama actually takes a look at what is going on in the party, or if he just reads the cue cards that he is handed with the money he gets for making the appearance. If the party goes after the people who might vote for either the Republican or the Democrat, then they are making the same mistake in 2020 that they made in 2016, and it will postpone the inevitable takeover of the party until 2022 and 2024.
This revolution within the party must be particularly difficult for people who have long related as Democrats but who have grown more conservative as they've aged, and who don't want to vote Republican in order to address it. Most of those people identify so much as Democrats that they will vote for the nominee regardless of who it is. Any of them who cannot get excited about joining millions of young people whose futures depend on sweeping changes need to be left behind, not coddled. They can be the opposite equals of those in the GOP who say the Republican party left them. Maybe they can get together with them and commiserate about the days when only some people had health care. Perhaps, they can meet in a doctor's waiting room for the checkup they will no longer need to put off due to the cost. Better yet, on a public college campus.
It is understandable why people want to hear what Obama has to say considering his intellect in comparison to the Republicans who bookend his terms. However, people need to consider his motivations and loyalties when listening to what he has to say.
Let's go back to the 2016 election. There was a standoff in North Dakota over whether the government has the authority to permit a private company to build a pipeline across land that was the subject of a treaty. Of course, according to the treaty, the government does not have the authority, but, according to American history, the government doesn't care that it doesn't have the authority.
Barack Obama made a tour of the sovereign lands of our indigenous brothers and sisters in 2014. He seemed so genuine and honest when he said that he would be the president who stopped violating treaties. He actually had the chance to put his mouth where his money wasn't by standing with the water protectors. Instead, he opted to keep the party donors happy, and to allow historians to criticize him for lying to our native brethren just like any white man who has ever held the office.
Obama is the most significant president in American history when it comes to race. He was not the best president ever. He did not make significant inroads for civil rights. He did not bring peace to the nation, and certainly not to the middle east. He did not unite the nation in harmony. Obama is a nice person with a beautiful family. He is eloquent, handsome, and persuasive. It's the persuasiveness that we must examine.
When Obama speaks of the party moving "too far left," he is referring to Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard of the candidates still in the race. Both Bernie and Tulsi are threats to the establishment sect within the party. Both of them are willing to work with people in both parties, but only on matters that benefit all of us. They never work with people to repay campaign donations from wealthy donors. That is what is at risk for people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the Clintons.
They will still be rich, but they will not have the influence in the party that they had when cronies who play the same game held seats that are being won by Justice Democrats. Young people are tired of wealthy people stealing all the money and resources they will need to survive. That bloc of voters has amassed sufficiently that they cannot be outvoted if they held together, which is unlikely in 2020 unless Bernie or Tulsi is the nominee. However, with old people dying and new voters becoming eligible at the rate of 100,000 per day, the 2022 and 2024 elections are theirs to decide.
Hillary Clinton has been vocal about Tulsi Gabbard. Her libelous attacks against the representative from Hawaii have been played like there is a conspiracy behind it. Perhaps, it is even being promoted by foreign interests. She sounds a lot like Trump when he tweets his deep thoughts on political foes. Tulsi is a Major in the Army Reserves; Hillary is a has-been who miscalculated how much America loves her for sticking with a husband who cheats on her.
Obama is taking a more diplomatic approach in undermining those who would deprive him of opportunities for huge checks for speaking to rich donors to the party. He is warning about becoming too socialist if we want to draw all the Republican rats who are leaving the Trump ship. I guess he doesn't get it that those of us who support becoming more socialist don't want the rats from Trump's ship on our ship until they realize they don't have to be rats on our ship. We do, however, want voters who identify as Democrats to join the young people by giving up the cocktail socials where small talk is business.
Obama's advice is bad because his appeal resonates with the people who remember the good old days that were not such good days that people didn't romanticize the past then, too. Obama represents the past. That is the way time works. If the statement about Obama offends you, search deeply for whether it is because you think that I don't understand what he meant to the party. Do you know who else won't understand? A lot of the people who are 13 to 17 today, and who will be voting in 2024. Do you know whose opinion today won't matter in 2024? Everyone who feels that we don't understand what he meant to the party today and who dies between now and 2024. It is called attrition.
The world is at the point that it can no longer sustain less than one percent of the people getting super rich and ninety-five percent of the people slipping behind. The trends have to change. The main question we must ask ourselves as the aging population is whether we want the changes made by ballots or by bullets.
It is illogical to support people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tulsi Gabbard, and Bernie Sanders, and to also support people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. One set is fighting for the interests of all people except the rich and greedy, and the other set is fighting to hold onto donations for representing the special interests of rich people.
People who identify as Democrats, especially those who espouse voting blue no matter who, need to understand that if they join the young people in getting behind the candidates who represent big changes, that we can get these people elected. If saying voting blue no matter who is really a disguise for telling people to get in line behind whoever the moneyed people choose, they won't get the young people voting for the nominee.
One side will need to concede to the other in 2020 to assure a victory for the Democratic nominee. If we learned nothing else from 2016, let us have learned that progressive voters need a reason to vote for a candidate beyond "she's better than he is." Progressive voters will be taking over the identity of the Democratic party. We are not particularly enamored with people who discount their past behavior unless it reaches a point where it needs an apology and some deflection for the blame. If they cannot face up to past mistakes with reasonable explanations, there is always that feeling that money was the motive.
Obama's advice to not take the party too far left is bad advice. It is better advice to get on the right side of history, so you don't have to discount your behavior or apologize for it and try to deflect the blame.
