The Democratic Party During My Life

 I recently became a senior citizen.  The 2020 election season caused me to think about what the Democratic Party has done in my lifetime.  Below are those examples which stand out in my mind.

First, during most of my pre-teen years, Democrat-run Southern states maintained racial segregation and restricted voting.  While they enforced racist laws, they didn't enforce their murder laws when it was committed by the KKK / racists against African-Americans.  (Some may ask: Didn't Congressional Democrats vote to end this?  When Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964: in the House, 80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes; in the Senate, 82% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats.)

In the late 1950's, as he prepared to run for president, Sen. John F. Kennedy promoted the myth of a "missile gap" (claiming the USSR had more nuclear missiles than the US.)  Wikipedia says this was false.

In April 1961, the Kennedy administration participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion (an attempt to overthrow Cuba's government.)  Cuba had not attacked the US.

Wikipedia says, "In response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961 and the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev agreed to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to deter a future invasion."  When Kennedy learned this, he threatened nuclear war if the missiles weren't removed ("The Cuban Missile Crisis.")  When the missiles were removed, JFK lied to the public, saying he'd scared the USSR into leaving with nothing in exchange.  Only in recent years, we've learned, "Secretly, the United States agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter MRBMs, which had been deployed in Turkey against the Soviet Union..."  Kennedy lied, maintained his fake missile gap story and hid the fact the US had created the situation.

Early steps towards the Vietnam War began under Kennedy, and Johnson pushed into all-out war.  Not only was the war unjust, but they lied about the facts.  When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers we learned of extensive lying to the public and misconduct by the Democratic administrations.

Under Pres. Johnson, the FBI spied on Martin Luther King Jr., and even sent him a blackmail letter threatening to release embarrassing personal information.  This was part of the COINTELPRO program which was used to spy on and disrupt women's rights, civil rights, anti-war, environmental, Native American, Puerto Rican independence and other organizations.

Wikipedia says: In 1970, Sen. Kennedy proposed a single-payer health care system.  Then, Nixon proposed "a more limited package... an employer mandate to offer private health insurance if employees volunteered to pay 25 percent of premiums, the federalization of Medicaid for poor families with dependent minor children, and support for health maintenance organizations (HMOs)."  Committees in the Democratic-controlled House and Senate discussed this, ""but no legislation emerged from either committee."  Although government health care systems had already been enacted in England, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, neither committee was willing to be as liberal as Nixon.

In the midst of the Watergate scandal, Vice President Agnew resigned due to corruption charges.  Pres. Nixon then made Gerald Ford his new VP.  When Watergate caused Pres. Nixon to resign, Ford became president.  Pres. Ford gave Nixon a blank pardon - not listing specific acts but pardoning Nixon even for things Ford had no idea Nixon did.  Democrats took no action to prevent future presidents from either being pardoned by their hand-picked successors or to require presidential pardons to specify what acts are covered.  If the Electoral College picks Biden in 2020, this could allow Trump to resign on 1/18/21, have Pence sworn in on 1/19/21, and then have Pres. Pence give Trump a blanket pardon.

The Wikipedia item on Pres. Carter's policies describes him as a fiscal conservative, says his first economic proposal centered on tax cuts, and it says "he was more concerned with avoiding inflation and balancing the budget than addressing unemployment."  In response to inflation, "Carter enacted an austerity program by executive order," and a recession followed.  Wikipedia also tells us Carter deregulated the airline and beer industries.  Carter signed the Depository aInstitutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which deregulated the Savings and Loans industry which "arguably had unintended consequences that helped lead to the collapse and subsequent bailout of that financial sector."

The book Winner-Take-All Politics was written by Jacob Hacker (Yale University Stanley B. Resor Professor; Director, Institution for Social and Policy Studies.)  It was a finalist for the 2011 Hillman Prize for Book Journalism.  It explains that a common mainstream narrative says that the rightward shift in Washington began with Nixon.  However, Nixon actually signed into law various progressive legislation in a number of policy areas.  The shift really began under Carter.  The book says, when Carter took office:

With the Republican veto threat gone, the opportunities for liberals to control the political agenda greatly expanded. Within his party, Carter was regarded as a moderate, but he had staked out liberal positions on a range of major economic issues, including health care, taxes, and labor relations. Equally significant, the new Democratic president could work with massive majorities in both the House and the Senate.

...]But]

1977 and 1978 marked the rapid demise of the liberal era and the emergence of something radically different. Tax reform: defeated. A new consumer protection agency: defeated. Election Day voter registration: scuttled before reaching the floor of the House. Health-care reform: defeated. A proposal to tie the minimum wage to the average manufacturing wage to prevent its future erosion: defeated. An overhaul of outdated labor relations laws: successfully filibustered in the Senate, despite the presence of sixty-one Democrats and a Republican minority containing some genuine supporters of organized labor...

...Congress passed a tax bill whose signature provision was a deep cut in the capital gains tax — a change that would largely benefit the wealthy. This followed hard on the heels of a decision to sharply raise payroll taxes, the most regressive federal levy. ...

At the same time, Congress and the president embarked on a major shift in economic policy, embracing the argument that excessive regulation had become a serious curb on growth.

These weren't solely acts of Pres. Carter.  During the Carter years, Democrats held 58 to 61% of the Senate and 64 to 67% of the House.  These Democrats basically started the process which is usually attributed to Reagan.

Also, in the late 1970's, I lived in Albany, NY.  It was a Democratic Party machine town (like Chicago was.)  The party used mischief to maintain party control of the city government.

I've known people who worked for New York State and Connecticut schools under Democratic governors / mayors between the mid-1970's and the 2000's.  They experienced these Democrats holding down pay raises below the inflation rate, and (at least in New York) workers had pension benefits reduced for those hired after certain dates.  Various anti-worker policies made some New York workers so angry with Democratic governors that some voted for a Republican in 1994.  That didn't improve their situation, but that's what people do if they think the only choices are the "two parties."

In 1983, Reagan ordered an invasion of Grenada, claiming the possibility that harm might happen to a small number of US citizens there.  The UN General Assembly voted 108 to 9 saying it was a violation of international law and a Security Council resolution on that was vetoed by the US.  Seven Democratic Congressmen did propose impeachment, but other Democrats weren't interested.  

A Democrat-controlled House passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act.   Wikipedia says it cut the 1987 top income tax rate "from 50% to 38.5%."  The 1988 top tax rate was cut to 33% and the schedule was reduced to only 3 tax brackets.  The Act favored the more affluent by letting them deduct mortgage and home equity interest, but "interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt was no longer deductible."  Also, the IRA "deduction was severely restricted."  It increases the limit on itemized deduction for medical expenses from 5% to 7.5% of adjusted gross income - in effect, raising taxes on seniors, the disabled and others with serious health matters.

Also in 1986, the International Court of Justice ("World Court") ruled that the US had violated international law by putting explosive mines in Nicaraguan harbors and supporting the Contras' warfare.  In 1987, Democrats held 59% of House seats and 55% in the Senate, yet the House did not even send articles of impeachment against Reagan to the Senate.

During the 1980's, I participated in DIA, a civil rights group for people with disabilities.  I saw the following 3 examples about Democrats in relation to DIA:

1) DIA held campaign season candidate meetings.  DIA members tended to be fond of state legislator David Patterson, a legally-blind African-American.  He had a disability.  DIA could identify with issues of racial minorities.  And he could do the talk.  But over the years, enthusiasm dimmed as he climbed the political ladder, but did little about his campaign promises.

2) A new Democratic mayor created the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD) - and appointed a DIA member to head MOPD.  From then on, DIA and MOPD often were at odds.  An important part of MOPD's head's job seemed to be giving excuses for little action.

3) One disabled person's uncle was Stanley Simon, a Democratic politician who was Bronx Borough President - until he was sent to prison for corruption.

In 1988, white supremacist David Duke ran in the Democratic presidential primaries.   Wikipedia says he didn't go far in the primary, except "winning the little-known New Hampshire vice presidential primary."  In 2016, when Duke endorsed Trump , Democrats harshly criticized Trump for this.  If Duke personally expressing support for a candidate means the candidate is bad, what does it mean if a party lets him run in their presidential primary?

Pres. George H. W. Bush launched the invasion of Panama in 1989.  Wikipedia tells us:

The justifications for invading given by the U.S. were, according to these source, factually baseless, and moreover, even if they had been true they would have provided inadequate support for the invasion under international law...

The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution strongly deploring the 1989 U.S. armed invasion of Panama. The resolution determined that the U.S. invasion was a 'flagrant violation of international law.' A similar resolution proposed in the United Nations Security Council was supported by the majority of the Security Council but was vetoed by the US, France and the UK.

Independent experts and observers have concluded that the US invasion of Panama also exceeded the authority of the president under the US Constitution because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to declare war solely to the Congress, not to the president. According to observers, the US invasion also violated the War Powers Resolution, a federal law designed to limit presidential action without Congressional authorization, because the president failed to consult with Congress regarding the invasion of Panama prior to the invasion.

Again, during the rest of the Bush years, Democrats had 55 to 56% of the Senate and 60 to 61% of the House.  But the House did not even send articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Wikipedia says Pres. Clinton's "approach entailed modernization of the federal government, making it more enterprise-friendly while dispensing greater authority to state and local governments."  It says his policies included "fiscal discipline," cutting the deficit, free trade agreements, increasing taxes on 1/4 of Social Security beneficiaries, increasing the gas tax, cutting taxes on small businesses and capital gains, giving more state control over welfare programs and making public assistance harder to get, and deregulating banking.  I knew a social worker employed at an agency for people with disabilities.  She held a grudge against Clinton because she saw how his restrictions on public assistance impacted her DISABLED clients.  His banking deregulation occurred after seeing the Savings and Loans collapse, and you saw what his banking deregulation led to in 2008.

Clinton's NAFTA faced strong opposition from labor and environmentalists.  Clinton sent VP Al Gore to get these groups to accept NAFTA.  Gore got NAFTA passed.  Later, when state / local governments wanted environmental / climate projects, they'd contract work to local businesses to get their backing.  Big business used NAFTA to stop those projects by saying the local contracts violated NAFTA.  (See Naomi Klein's book This Changes Everything.   Free download here .)

The ACLU says of the 1994 crime bill signed by Pres. Clinton, "[it] shaped Democratic Party politics for years to come. Under the leadership of Bill Clinton, Democrats wanted to wrest control of crime issues from Republicans, so the two parties began a bidding war to increase penalties for crime..."  And "The federal crime bill did not trigger mass incarceration, but it certainly encouraged mass incarceration to grow even further."

In 2003, Pres. Bush pushed to invade Iraq, claiming it had "weapons of mass destruction."  This wasn't true. Bush invaded .  Wikipedia explains why it was a violation of international law .  About 40% of House Democrats and 58% of Senate Democrats voted for this unjustified war.  When even Bush admitted that Iraq had no such weapons, Bush didn't even apologize for invading, overthrowing its government, killing its leader and occupying Iraq for years.  He made excuses and continued the occupation.  Democrats may have spoken a few words of criticism, but they didn't act to punish Bush or to prevent future presidents from doing this again.  Rather, Obama campaigned implying he'd end the Iraq and Afghan wars, but once in office let them continue for years - spending vast sums on unjust wars - while working people suffered through the Great Recession.

Reuters reported on 4/21/2015, "Amnesty International on Tuesday accused President Barack Obama’s administration of granting 'de facto amnesty' to people involved in a CIA program that detained and tortured militants captured after the Sept. 11 attacks..."  In 2014, The Brennan Center wrote, "This year President Barack Obama rejected two excellent opportunities to close the door on the shameful use of torture and cruelty by the United States. First, his administration has resisted attempts by Senate investigators to release a coherent version of their report on torture by the Central Intelligence Agency. Such refusals have led to speculation that they have sought to delay matters so that Republicans can block its release after they take control of the chamber in January. Second, the Obama State Department said last week that the Convention Against Torture requires it to prevent torture only in places that the U.S. 'controls as a governmental authority.'”

At the same time, Obama went after people leaking information about NSA spying on Americans, drone attacks on U.S. citizens abroad, etc.  See article from The Guardian

In 2007, Scientific American published an article with an analysis of a number of studies of medical care in the US and Canada.  Canada did better on patient mortality.  And, "of the studies surveyed, some showed slightly better outcomes for the Canadian system and some showed slightly better outcomes for the U.S."  Meanwhile, "per capita spending on health care is 89 percent higher in the U.S. than in Canada."  Nevertheless, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2009, they set forth to maintain America's expensive private system.  Most developed nations had already adopted national health care.  Different rating systems vary on which country's health care system is the best, but various national health care systems are rated better than the US. In 2020, US News magazine rated Canada's health system #1 and the US system #15.  Obamacare works within a system that allows big business to chip away at it.  After seeing Obamacare repeatedly weakened by courts, the Democratic establishment still refuses to shift away from that expensive framework, or move as far "left" as the Canadian system.

Meanwhile, the Democrats did NOT fix the limits on medical deductions from their 1986 law.  They could confront Republicans, saying, "You claim to favor lower taxes.  Reducing the limits on medical deductions could reduce taxes on senior citizens, disabled people and other sick Americans.  If anyone deserves tax cuts, it's these people!"  But Democrats do no such thing.

Obama's response to the Great Recession focused more on helping the rich.  Yes, unemployment benefits were extended and such.  But some of the "consumer-oriented" programs were really indirect corporate aid.  For instance, consumers could get government help buying cars to help US auto makers.  Consumers could NOT get that money for groceries or rent - it wasn't to help them, just certain corporations.  Under Obama's policies, Forbes says it took about 4 years for the stock market to return to its pre-recession high.  Government statistics show it took from Nov. 2007 to Nov. 2016 (9 years) for the unemployment rate to return to the pre-recession level.

Obama favored more free trade deals to help multinational corporations.  In addition to the impact on labor, this threatens the climate.  Fossil fuels are used to power transport ships taking goods halfway around the world.  Fossil fuels are used to build and maintain those ships.  Fossil fuels are used to build unnecessary factories in low-wage nations, and closing existing factories which are nearer consumers.  The new factories are often in nations with less environmental regulation, so they contribute more to climate change.

Wikipedia says: In 2011, Obama and allies used a UN resolution calling for an end to "the current attacks against civilians" in an internal conflict in Libya to justify overthrowing Libya's government.  "American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, while the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force undertook sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles."  This continued until the Libyan government fell.  In 2016, a British parliament inquiry concluded, "the early threat to civilians had been overstated and that the significant Islamist element in the rebel forces had not been recognised... By summer 2011 the initial limited intervention to protect Libyan civilians had become a policy of regime change. However that new policy did not include proper support for a new government, leading to a political and economic collapse in Libya and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."  This situation led to a crisis of refugees fleeing Libya.

Police brutality was an issue long before it was caught on video.  It's been almost 30 years since the Rodney King beating was filmed in 1991.  It's been a number of years that cell phone videos ( 1 2 3 ) of police killings and brutality against unarmed African-Americans have been commonplace.  But penalties against those police continue to be rare.  And yet, those killings often take place in Democratic cities and states.  Democratic cities and states talk about police reforms, but little happens.  The 9/2/20, L.A. Times email said of the failure of reforms this year in California, "Among the bills that failed without a vote were proposals to give citizens access to more police personnel records and to curtail the use of tear gas and rubber bullets at protests."  While Democrats criticize rioting, they don't stop the killings by police which incite riots.  And they will call out the very same police (and National Guard) against the rioters.  Some Democrats are saying riots lead to more votes for Republicans.  If they genuinely believe that, it's one more reason why they should enact police reform to prevent the killings that lead to riots.  But they choose to blame the victims, while not preventing further deaths.

In 2018, both Democratic NY governor Cuomo and NYC mayor De Blasio offered billions in tax breaks / handouts to Amazon.  When broad public opposition to this resulted in Amazon withdrawing from NYC, Democratic NJ governor Murphy and Chicago mayor Emanuel each expressed interest in making a deal with Amazon.  Meanwhile, in 2018, Amazon made $11.2 billion in profits and paid no federal income tax.

Regarding Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg's replacement:  The Constitution rigs the presidency (Electoral College) and the Senate (2 Senators per state.)  Then those rigged parts are assigned to nominate and confirm the only area with life-long positions - judges.  (This isn't typical in other nations.)  US law doesn't precludes Senators from inventing a "No Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year" rule, then the very same Senators inventing the opposite rule - "Fast track election year nominations."  When Republicans invented No Election Year Nominations, Democrats had WON the popular vote for both the president and the Senate.  When Republicans invented the Fast Track Nominations rule, the Republicans had LOST the popular vote for both president and Senate.  (In the 2014, 2016 and 2018 elections which filled today's Senate, Democratic candidates got 122 million votes, Republicans only got 98 million.)  That's totally legal in this rigged system.  Democrats only work inside the rigged system because the rigged system maintains what they actually represent.  House Speaker Pelosi told the media she still had "arrows" to respond to GOP plans to push through their nominee, but she produced none.  It seems her intent was to tell the public, "Don't build a mass movement to fight this, just sit on your hands and hope the Democrats will do something within the rigged system." The only thing Joe Biden said he would do, if elected, was set up a BIPARTISAN commission to study the question. In other words, "Everybody go back to sleep and let the rigged system stay as is."  Working outside the rigged system doesn't have to mean illegal or violent actions.  They could have organized boycotts of corporations funding the GOP, organized strikes, or simply told Americans this is a rigged system that will only change when millions of people take action.  But Democrats are wed to the rigged system not extending majority rule - even when the rigging is biased against them.

Wikipedia shows Biden having a mixture of voting record / positions.  On the conservative side, he supported the Hyde Amendment, the 1986 tax law, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (with harsher sentences for crack than powder cocaine), Don't Ask Don't Tell, NAFTA and other free trade deals, the 1994 crime law (for which he suggested the death penalty for more offenses), Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 welfare restriction law, No Child Left Behind, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, financial-corporation-backed bankruptcy legislation (he fought parts that would benefit military members, and those with medical debt and student debt.)  In 1981, he voted to end federal funding for abortion for victims of rape and incest.  Biden's conservative stands can't be explained away by his Catholicism.  Until his preparations for the 2020 campaign, he supported capital punishment (in contradiction to Catholic doctrine) and supported restricting abortion (consistent with Catholicism.)  But in 2019, he flipped on both of those issues, still being inconsistent with Catholicism on one of the two.  So, he's inconsistent with Catholicism, inconsistent over time, and able to flip on multiple issues just in time for making campaign promises.  Yes, on some issues he changes his promises from conservative to liberal, but this has repeatedly happened long after his votes have already caused death, imprisonment, discrimination, loss of jobs and other harm to large numbers of people.

The Democrats' record of siding with the affluent against regular working people is responsible for the party's loss of support among blue collar workers and others.  The book Winner-Take-All Politics (see link above) tells us, "These studies have zeroed in on a verdict at odds with the conventional diagnosis of cultural backlash. While evangelicals moved away from the Democrats on cultural grounds, that is not true among the white working class as a whole. Instead, Democrats lost ground among white working-class voters not in spite of economic issues, but because of them."  In 2016, we saw some working people who previously voted for Obama (therefore, presumably not racists) switching to Trump.  Trump is definitely not the answer, but they responded to the Democrats betraying them.  Given a choice between feeding at the money trough of the rich or getting more votes by doing what the majority wants, they pick the rich.  It's almost 44 years since the Carter policies.  If Democrats wanted to find a way to avoid the influence of the rich, you'd at very least see them making more of an effort to do it now.

Consider matters of majority rule.

In 2000 and 2016 , the Electoral College gave the presidency to the loser of the popular vote.  Both times, the presidency was taken from the Democrats.  The party and its establishment figures have little to say about this.  If asked, they'd tell you the requirements for Constitutional amendment make it impractical at this time.  Yes, the Constitution makes it hard to enact majority rule.  But isn't that more reason to object and more reason to start the process sooner than later?  The fact is, the Democratic Party isn't really interested in full majority rule.

Our election system is rigged in other ways.  For instance, each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population.  Look at the Senate "popular vote."  Add up all the votes for each state's GOP Senate candidates.  Add up all the Democratic candidate votes.  The 2014 , 2016 and 2018 elections together filled the current [2020] Senate seats.  The "popular vote" for this Senate shows Democrats getting 122.8 million votes and Republicans getting only 98 million votes.  Democrats got almost 25 million more votes, but this rigged system gave the Senate "majority" to the Republicans.  The Democratic Party, as an organization, has little to say about this.

Our rigged system allows each state to not only make it's own voting laws for state and local offices, but also for the national Congress and President.  It allows gerrymandering.  And providing less resources to certain voting sites to cause long lines / discourage voters.  Etc.

Over the years, I've been at a variety of protest rallies.  Some included 1 or 2 Democratic politicians as speakers.  There may have even been a small number of times that a neighborhood or town Democratic Party organization had a contingent in a march.  But I don't recall any speaker sent to represent the national or state Democratic apparatus.  I haven't seen the Democratic Party organize a protest march / rally or be one of the central organizers.  I don't recall large national or state party organization contingents.  I've received online issue "petitions" from Democratic candidates / campaigns during campaign season, but virtually never outside campaign season.  And if you sign these "petitions," you're always sent to an election fund-raising page.  Democrats may say they work in legislatures rather than protest events.  When legislation is "going nowhere," why not join the movement to build public support for it?  The reality: Democrats work INSIDE a rigged system.  They're not interested in working outside a rigged framework.

From 2011 to 2018, in the NY legislature's senate, a group who were elected as Democrats (Independent Democratic Conference) caucused separately and cooperated with NY senate Republicans.  Part of this time, IDC's alliance with a Republican senate minority gave the GOP "majority" control.  In 2017, liberal groups pressured Democrats to take action.  IDC's separate caucuses ended.  In 2018, 6 of the 8 IDC members lost primary elections.  The Democratic Party doesn't even expel those who act on behalf of opponent parties - they're allowed in Democratic primaries.  If Democrats don't expect party loyalty from its elected officials, what loyalty can you expect from them?  When Republicans win elections, Democrats sometimes blame people who voted for third parties.  Citizen voters don't know who will win or lose as a result of their individual vote.  The IDC knew they were giving the control of the senate to the GOP, but Democrats didn't consider that as serious as an individual third party vote.

Consider Larry Bartels' book Unequal Democracy (Princeton University Press, winner of 2 awards from the American Political Science Association.)  He asks why Democrats don't get more votes.  His findings include that NO significant statistical correlation exists between the policy preferences of the least affluent 1/3 of the US population and Democratic policies.  Even the preferences of those in the lower 1/3 who both vote and contact their elected officials on issues are reflected far less in Democratic policies than the preferences of the affluent.  And then Democrats complain not enough of them vote.

In 2020, Americans considering the Republican and Democratic candidates had to choose between Trump and the above Democratic history.  Yes, you may hear somewhat different campaign promises.  But look at how the Democratic establishment behaves.  Once Biden was set to be the nominee, the question was who's his running mate?  Biden promised to pick a woman of color.  The Democrats wanted a VP who had breasts and skin with a certain amount of melanin.  The criteria was NOT the Democratic politician with the best voting record on the rights of women and minorities.  Instead, it was for someone with anatomical features that would act as campaign promises.

The truth about the Democrats is also shown every 4 years when they make a "party platform."  The party requires neither their presidential candidate nor any other candidate to even make campaign promises about any items in the platform.  So, the Democratic platform can't even be depended on as much as a campaign promise can.  The only real function of the party platform is to make liberals feel less uncomfortable about the real world Democratic Party.

That's the kind of party that will take half-steps on the climate crisis.  With climate scientists warning us the point of no return could come as early as 2030, half-steps won't make it.  They'll start negotiations on health care with a few modifications to Obamacare and then compromise down from that - while the right-wing continues to erode Obamacare's foundations.  After the government has thrown so many billions at the rich for the Great Recession, 2017 tax cuts, pandemic programs, etc., many Democrats will tell us that "as much as we'd like to enact programs to help working people, we just can't afford it."

In the above, I did NOT ask why the Democrats haven't given everyone mansions, or why they don't tax the top income bracket at 91% (as under Eisenhower,) or why they haven't given us a health care system better AND cheaper than Canada's - to say nothing of asking why they don't support a new, more egalitarian society.  The Democrats can't even do the right thing in terms of honesty, majority rule, unjust wars, the climate crisis, health care, etc.

The question isn't whether the Democrats will lead us to utopia.  The Democrats will fight against something like Canada's health care system.  It will fight against a pandemic or economic crisis relief program that puts essential workers first rather than the idle rich.  It will fight against fully meeting the changes climate scientists say are necessary by 2030.

If you don't belong to the Church of Lesser Evil, if your goal as a parent isn't for your child to live a lesser evil, you shouldn't limit our political system to lesser evils.  The Republicans may be the "fast train to hell" and the Democrats may be the "slow train to hell."  But it's still going to "hell."  People have been trying to make the Democratic Party a better party as long as I've been alive, and this is the best they've been able to make of it in all those decadee.  It's time for an alternative.

Democrats often claim the Republican candidate is a great danger and it's crucial to vote for the Democrat in this election.  Even if one were to grant that one should vote for the lesser evil in that particular election, it does not mean there isn't a need to build a non-evil political movement.  If you vote the lesser evil, but don't build a non-evil alternative, you will get a lot more of what I've described here.