This is a fantastic article! I think that, though Bill Clinton was the lynchpin that sealed the Demoratic Party's fate, as you suggest, the seeds of this devolution started earlier and the milquetoast and treacherous Jimmy Carter deserves his fair share of blame. I think his election loss to what at the time was considered an exceptionally reactionary president in Ronald Reagan (ie the Reagan Revolution the "Reagan Democrats" and the heretical Christian Coaliton) echoes the other turning point that was Hillary's loss and Trump's win.
Great article! It really resonates with a few papers I've written like;
The Death of the Democratic Party,
The Obama Era is Over,
& The Progressive Party of America.
The establishment centrists have been in control of the party for too long. We need a populist labor movement takeover of the DNC or a viable 3rd party option to allow leftwing populism to rise up.
I also just wrote two more posts;
Where's America’s Wealth,
& Income Inequality in America.
I think those papers explain the most important issue in America that the DNC should be laser focused on addressing; class warfare.
Great read and insightful too. What role do you think the southern strategy and antipathy towards the CRM played in the re-alignment of the working class? Union organizers like Detroit’s League of Revolutionary Black Workers tried mightily to forge alliances with their white class allies, but they were often rebutted. And we know that Obama’s appeal wasn’t to white working class, who he lost to both McCain and even Romney.
I definitely think the way the unions were socially reactionary played a role but it also gave democrats an excuse to ignore labor. The problem is that when you don’t address people’s economic needs their reactionary impulses on social issues take over. The GOP was able to capture people Dems abandoned with culture war BS because neither party wanted to address their economic needs.
Agree. This makes sense - liberals became a “little Reagan” to the GOPs “big Reagan” and never offered or stood by true material progress for working classes.
By the way, to fully understand this subject, it's crucial that you read about Lewis Powell's 1971 eight-page memo "Attack on American Free Enterprise System." It was the blueprint for everything you lay out in your article. It dilineated the ways corporations could shut out those who, in "the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals,” were hostile to corporate interests. You also should find out about Tony Coelho and what he did to the Democratic Party back in the 70s.
Yeah the Powell memo was huge but I was trying not to turn this into a book. I think what’s important is to understand that the party of the DLC is still the party today with much of the same people running it.
Great work in summarizing a period of time that, if you read it in a novel, you’d throw the book down for being completely unbelievable.
At the time of the Sanders campaign, I worked with a lot of working class guys and every one of them was into Sanders. They all ended up voting for Trump.
I think many liberals were so enamored with “The First Black President” that we failed to see just how bougie “Barry O” really was. He wanted to win the “rat race”, just like every other ambitious college grad that went into investment banking. And today he’s probably spending his Thanksgivings with the Geitners in Martha’s Vineyard.
Phenomenal piece Scarlet! There were bits of history in here that I didn't even know, so I really appreciate the time and effort that you're putting into this series. Your section on the Clinton presidency was more eye-opening than I expected. I knew he was disastrous, but I didn't realize to that full of an extent how bad he truly was. I think the beauty of you doing this series is twofold:
1. You offer up a ton of valuable and notable history that both educates and explains to people how we got to the place we're at, which they can then bring with them into the world and discuss with others (I plan on having a new Clinton discussion with my staunchly establishment liberal dem family members).
2. The comments then provide a wealth of opportunity for folks to chime in and add additional context to strengthen the case and provide additional examples along the timeline. Seeing that back and forth can be so incredibly invaluable to folks who are just getting started in their own personal journeys through radicalization/realization.
Having a series like this that's easily accessible for folks is honestly a wonderfully fantastic idea, and I'm sure will help fuel productive and constructive conversations and debates as a result. Like Dirk Burhans said in the comments, having all of this in one place is super helpful and I'm sure will be for many others as well. Thanks again for all the work that you do Scarlet and I can't wait for the rest of the series and your other pieces!
You know me, my whole thing is making a case that the Democrats can't be reformed. I figured for us to really know our enemy we have to know their history. It's easy to think of Dems as on our side when contrasted against the Republicans, but when you see how many opportunities they had to work for the people, and how many times they chose to do the opposite, it paints a picture of a party that isn't just weak an incompetent, but rather a hostile actor and active impediment to progress.
Yeah absolutely. The more we can look back through our history, the more we can pinpoint where things started to go wrong and where the decision-making and priorities really began to shift. I think a lot of us grew up thinking that Democrats were the "good buys" in a 2-party system where the Republicans are often portrayed as the "bad guys". Once you start to dig through things a bit more and engage with history a bit more honestly and openly, the facade very quickly begins to fade and we start to see just how many of those opportunities were there and notably, how many of those opportunities were purposefully not acted upon. I couldn't agree more that the Democrats have become increasingly more hostile over time and have actively impeded the efforts of everyday working people who strive for a better collective world -- making it even more worthwhile to make this case here and now.
I agree with your criticism of the Democrats, but "Reform" isn't yes or no, it is zero to ten. Those of us on the left can't get a "Ten" but that is who we have to work with. We should not ignore the possibility of swaying the Maga types to the left on economic matters - they are ripe for it.
One must have a multifaceted approach.
The Democrats and Republicans are not two parties - more like four.
The so called "Progressive Caucus" needs to back away from identity politics and the Maga economic nationalist types need to be brought back into the fold. The latter group will need to abandon bigotry and religious nuttery - I'm not optimistic but it could happen.
The other two groups, "Vichy Democrats" and "Gilded Age Republicans" need to go.
There was multi decade bipartisan project to dismantle unions - all the neoliberals - going all the way back to the Mount Pelerin Society which was immediately post WWII. There's a whole lineage of conservative economics think tanks etc growing out of that to this day with quite a bit of influence at the "sponsors of the political process" level. But this activity really picked up steam under Reagan, after the dust settled from the Nixon realignment. Vietnam war in the previous decade blew out the notion of "guns AND butter", so by Reagan's time it was clear that something had to give. And that something was going to be workers, rather than defense contractors. The other essential intra-Democrat thing that happened at the same time as Reagan was Jesse Jackson. Centrist dems were absolutely terrified of him - because he was the real deal, whereas they were uncomfortable with the fact that they inherited a bunch of minorities in their constituency simply because something Nixon did the previous decade. Them trying to stop Jackson is the backstory to the DLC, and from there it's a straight line to Clinton/Blair and bait-and-switch triangulation (ie all-in on IDpol to make up for selling out on econ/distributive issues) and doing a similar neoliberalism to Reagan/Thatcher (eg "TINA"). The 1992 election with Perot opposing NAFTA, and Clinton and Bush both supporting it.... that was the nail in the coffin for Dems' relationship with the White working class. You see echoes of Perot 1992 in Trump 2016, in addition to all the lines he cribbed from Reagan. The Mexican/Latino and Black working class held on to Dems by default due to racism, but even the Mex/Latino is half gone for Dems.
Currently there are no major parties who align on economic/distributional issues with working class interests - while on IDpol, a great many working class are actually "socially conservative" on stuff like gay marriage - again with the wildcard of Repub tendency for racism maintaining partial balance. Thus by default, a majority of US working class, at lest those who vote, turn to the "other" avenue for redressing economic grievances, which is crude nationalism -- eg painting immigration as a "kitchen table" issue. Obama, it should be noted, deported record numbers of undocumented workers.
Dems at national level, more often than not, have been indifferent to this realignment of their constituency, the working class rotated out and the upper/middle rotated in. To this day apparently confident in the narrative lock of being the party of moral virtue as seen by the college-educated (with the story sanitized of econ/distributional issues naturally), and by implication confident that the non-college-educated would continue not to vote nearly as often.
Imagine an alternate timeline: the United States just finished its second Sanders presidential term. The corporate class was dragged, kicking and screaming, into a functional, worker-focused economy. Institutions that were once instruments of capital finally served the people. The working class was centered. The Green New Deal reshaped global trade. The labor movement flourished. Tech companies were reined in. Universal healthcare wasn’t just policy—it was an expectation.
Now come back to reality. The Democratic Party, so terrified of meaningful change, sabotaged that possibility at every turn. Instead of taking on capital, they became its lapdogs. Instead of resisting Trump’s dismantling of governance, they normalized it. Instead of standing up to an open slide into autocracy, they facilitated it.
The problem isn’t just the Democrats' cowardice. The deeper issue is that no U.S. institution is designed to fix this. The U.S. government, as currently constructed, cannot self-correct because the structures that should enable resistance have been compromised beyond repair. Regulatory capture. Corporate bribery. Media complicity. Electoral theater masking systemic decay.
The world cannot wait for the U.S. to save itself. The international community must recognize what’s happening: a collapsing empire, run by oligarchs and opportunists, destabilizing the planet. This requires external intervention. Not war—sanctions. Targeted economic restrictions on the billionaires, financiers, and policymakers responsible for the deliberate destruction of governance. It also requires expanded international whistleblower protections, giving those within these compromised systems a safe way to expose corruption without fear of reprisal.
Without external pressure, this cycle will continue. The suffering will escalate. The left must recognize that the old playbook—hoping the next election, the next candidate, the next political maneuver will turn the tide—is obsolete. The only path forward is one that acknowledges reality: U.S. hegemony is in collapse, and mitigating its harm requires international action.
Yep, they've cut off every opportunity they had for even modest social reforms that could've prevented a person like Trump from capturing people, and despite it all they still haven't learned a thing.
This is a fantastic article! I think that, though Bill Clinton was the lynchpin that sealed the Demoratic Party's fate, as you suggest, the seeds of this devolution started earlier and the milquetoast and treacherous Jimmy Carter deserves his fair share of blame. I think his election loss to what at the time was considered an exceptionally reactionary president in Ronald Reagan (ie the Reagan Revolution the "Reagan Democrats" and the heretical Christian Coaliton) echoes the other turning point that was Hillary's loss and Trump's win.
Great article! It really resonates with a few papers I've written like;
The Death of the Democratic Party,
The Obama Era is Over,
& The Progressive Party of America.
The establishment centrists have been in control of the party for too long. We need a populist labor movement takeover of the DNC or a viable 3rd party option to allow leftwing populism to rise up.
I also just wrote two more posts;
Where's America’s Wealth,
& Income Inequality in America.
I think those papers explain the most important issue in America that the DNC should be laser focused on addressing; class warfare.
Once again, great post!
Great read and insightful too. What role do you think the southern strategy and antipathy towards the CRM played in the re-alignment of the working class? Union organizers like Detroit’s League of Revolutionary Black Workers tried mightily to forge alliances with their white class allies, but they were often rebutted. And we know that Obama’s appeal wasn’t to white working class, who he lost to both McCain and even Romney.
I definitely think the way the unions were socially reactionary played a role but it also gave democrats an excuse to ignore labor. The problem is that when you don’t address people’s economic needs their reactionary impulses on social issues take over. The GOP was able to capture people Dems abandoned with culture war BS because neither party wanted to address their economic needs.
Agree. This makes sense - liberals became a “little Reagan” to the GOPs “big Reagan” and never offered or stood by true material progress for working classes.
Great research & summary and nice to have this all in one place. Thank you.
By the way, to fully understand this subject, it's crucial that you read about Lewis Powell's 1971 eight-page memo "Attack on American Free Enterprise System." It was the blueprint for everything you lay out in your article. It dilineated the ways corporations could shut out those who, in "the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals,” were hostile to corporate interests. You also should find out about Tony Coelho and what he did to the Democratic Party back in the 70s.
Yeah the Powell memo was huge but I was trying not to turn this into a book. I think what’s important is to understand that the party of the DLC is still the party today with much of the same people running it.
Great work in summarizing a period of time that, if you read it in a novel, you’d throw the book down for being completely unbelievable.
At the time of the Sanders campaign, I worked with a lot of working class guys and every one of them was into Sanders. They all ended up voting for Trump.
I think many liberals were so enamored with “The First Black President” that we failed to see just how bougie “Barry O” really was. He wanted to win the “rat race”, just like every other ambitious college grad that went into investment banking. And today he’s probably spending his Thanksgivings with the Geitners in Martha’s Vineyard.
“And my whole crew is loungin’
Celebratin’ everyday, no more public housin’”
Phenomenal piece Scarlet! There were bits of history in here that I didn't even know, so I really appreciate the time and effort that you're putting into this series. Your section on the Clinton presidency was more eye-opening than I expected. I knew he was disastrous, but I didn't realize to that full of an extent how bad he truly was. I think the beauty of you doing this series is twofold:
1. You offer up a ton of valuable and notable history that both educates and explains to people how we got to the place we're at, which they can then bring with them into the world and discuss with others (I plan on having a new Clinton discussion with my staunchly establishment liberal dem family members).
2. The comments then provide a wealth of opportunity for folks to chime in and add additional context to strengthen the case and provide additional examples along the timeline. Seeing that back and forth can be so incredibly invaluable to folks who are just getting started in their own personal journeys through radicalization/realization.
Having a series like this that's easily accessible for folks is honestly a wonderfully fantastic idea, and I'm sure will help fuel productive and constructive conversations and debates as a result. Like Dirk Burhans said in the comments, having all of this in one place is super helpful and I'm sure will be for many others as well. Thanks again for all the work that you do Scarlet and I can't wait for the rest of the series and your other pieces!
You know me, my whole thing is making a case that the Democrats can't be reformed. I figured for us to really know our enemy we have to know their history. It's easy to think of Dems as on our side when contrasted against the Republicans, but when you see how many opportunities they had to work for the people, and how many times they chose to do the opposite, it paints a picture of a party that isn't just weak an incompetent, but rather a hostile actor and active impediment to progress.
Yeah absolutely. The more we can look back through our history, the more we can pinpoint where things started to go wrong and where the decision-making and priorities really began to shift. I think a lot of us grew up thinking that Democrats were the "good buys" in a 2-party system where the Republicans are often portrayed as the "bad guys". Once you start to dig through things a bit more and engage with history a bit more honestly and openly, the facade very quickly begins to fade and we start to see just how many of those opportunities were there and notably, how many of those opportunities were purposefully not acted upon. I couldn't agree more that the Democrats have become increasingly more hostile over time and have actively impeded the efforts of everyday working people who strive for a better collective world -- making it even more worthwhile to make this case here and now.
I agree with your criticism of the Democrats, but "Reform" isn't yes or no, it is zero to ten. Those of us on the left can't get a "Ten" but that is who we have to work with. We should not ignore the possibility of swaying the Maga types to the left on economic matters - they are ripe for it.
One must have a multifaceted approach.
The Democrats and Republicans are not two parties - more like four.
The so called "Progressive Caucus" needs to back away from identity politics and the Maga economic nationalist types need to be brought back into the fold. The latter group will need to abandon bigotry and religious nuttery - I'm not optimistic but it could happen.
The other two groups, "Vichy Democrats" and "Gilded Age Republicans" need to go.
Thanks again for teaching me "Vichy Democrats".
Good article. I look forward to reading the next installment.
There was multi decade bipartisan project to dismantle unions - all the neoliberals - going all the way back to the Mount Pelerin Society which was immediately post WWII. There's a whole lineage of conservative economics think tanks etc growing out of that to this day with quite a bit of influence at the "sponsors of the political process" level. But this activity really picked up steam under Reagan, after the dust settled from the Nixon realignment. Vietnam war in the previous decade blew out the notion of "guns AND butter", so by Reagan's time it was clear that something had to give. And that something was going to be workers, rather than defense contractors. The other essential intra-Democrat thing that happened at the same time as Reagan was Jesse Jackson. Centrist dems were absolutely terrified of him - because he was the real deal, whereas they were uncomfortable with the fact that they inherited a bunch of minorities in their constituency simply because something Nixon did the previous decade. Them trying to stop Jackson is the backstory to the DLC, and from there it's a straight line to Clinton/Blair and bait-and-switch triangulation (ie all-in on IDpol to make up for selling out on econ/distributive issues) and doing a similar neoliberalism to Reagan/Thatcher (eg "TINA"). The 1992 election with Perot opposing NAFTA, and Clinton and Bush both supporting it.... that was the nail in the coffin for Dems' relationship with the White working class. You see echoes of Perot 1992 in Trump 2016, in addition to all the lines he cribbed from Reagan. The Mexican/Latino and Black working class held on to Dems by default due to racism, but even the Mex/Latino is half gone for Dems.
Currently there are no major parties who align on economic/distributional issues with working class interests - while on IDpol, a great many working class are actually "socially conservative" on stuff like gay marriage - again with the wildcard of Repub tendency for racism maintaining partial balance. Thus by default, a majority of US working class, at lest those who vote, turn to the "other" avenue for redressing economic grievances, which is crude nationalism -- eg painting immigration as a "kitchen table" issue. Obama, it should be noted, deported record numbers of undocumented workers.
Dems at national level, more often than not, have been indifferent to this realignment of their constituency, the working class rotated out and the upper/middle rotated in. To this day apparently confident in the narrative lock of being the party of moral virtue as seen by the college-educated (with the story sanitized of econ/distributional issues naturally), and by implication confident that the non-college-educated would continue not to vote nearly as often.
Wonderful piece! Thank you so much for laying all of this out.
👍🏻
Imagine an alternate timeline: the United States just finished its second Sanders presidential term. The corporate class was dragged, kicking and screaming, into a functional, worker-focused economy. Institutions that were once instruments of capital finally served the people. The working class was centered. The Green New Deal reshaped global trade. The labor movement flourished. Tech companies were reined in. Universal healthcare wasn’t just policy—it was an expectation.
Now come back to reality. The Democratic Party, so terrified of meaningful change, sabotaged that possibility at every turn. Instead of taking on capital, they became its lapdogs. Instead of resisting Trump’s dismantling of governance, they normalized it. Instead of standing up to an open slide into autocracy, they facilitated it.
The problem isn’t just the Democrats' cowardice. The deeper issue is that no U.S. institution is designed to fix this. The U.S. government, as currently constructed, cannot self-correct because the structures that should enable resistance have been compromised beyond repair. Regulatory capture. Corporate bribery. Media complicity. Electoral theater masking systemic decay.
The world cannot wait for the U.S. to save itself. The international community must recognize what’s happening: a collapsing empire, run by oligarchs and opportunists, destabilizing the planet. This requires external intervention. Not war—sanctions. Targeted economic restrictions on the billionaires, financiers, and policymakers responsible for the deliberate destruction of governance. It also requires expanded international whistleblower protections, giving those within these compromised systems a safe way to expose corruption without fear of reprisal.
Without external pressure, this cycle will continue. The suffering will escalate. The left must recognize that the old playbook—hoping the next election, the next candidate, the next political maneuver will turn the tide—is obsolete. The only path forward is one that acknowledges reality: U.S. hegemony is in collapse, and mitigating its harm requires international action.
Yep, they've cut off every opportunity they had for even modest social reforms that could've prevented a person like Trump from capturing people, and despite it all they still haven't learned a thing.