The main takeaway from the recent Labour Party leak should be that party politics is mostly a means of controlling the masses, and many politicians don’t have allegiance to their own party, but instead only care about their own careers to the point where they will actually sabotage their own party in an election.

This leads me to question the current state of the Democratic Party.  They chose to nominate one of the most unelectable candidates possible, and they basically have no platform besides “we’re not Trump.” It’s not hard to see that this is not a winning strategy.

It may seem unbelievable to some people that a party could want to lose, but hear me out.  When the Democrats are in power they are expected by their base to enact progressive policies.  Obama made promises like implementing universal healthcare, pulling out of the Middle East and closing Guantanamo Bay.  But of course Obama was a corrupt corporatist who ended up enacting the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s healthcare plan.   It’s clear that he never actually believed in what he espoused.  This must necessarily be the case with any Democratic administration.

America’s two political parties are largely paid by the same corporations, and they reliably vote in service of said corporations.  This means both parties agree on most issues.  But they have to go to great lengths to try to differentiate themselves.  This is a lot easier if you are the opposition party, and you’re not expected to enact any meaningful legislation. You have no high expectations to live up to.

For the past three years the Democrats have been silently helping Trump implement his agenda.  They helped increase military spending, fund the border wall, cut taxes, give away trillions to corporations for Corona virus relief, increase the Orwellian surveillance system, cut food stamps and more.

At the same time, they were loudly proclaiming Trump to be a Manchurian candidate for Putin, tried to impeach him, constantly called him stupid and a liar, and tore up his State of the Union address in a publicity stunt.  Notice that none of these actions had any effect on policy.  It’s not accurate to say that the Democrats have opposed Trump in any meaningful way.  But unless you’re a political junky, you probably wouldn’t know this; the mainstream media paints a picture of two polar-opposite organizations engaged in a fierce battle for the soul of the country.  The optics are not bad for the Democrats.  They gave the illusion of being an effective “resistance” without resisting anything policy-wise.  Their ride-or-die fans are mostly satisfied, and they didn’t have to brake any promises.  They even managed to maintain an atmosphere of jingoistic fervor that would have appalled Americans before 2001.

Now they may be put in a situation where people expect them to do good things.  Where would they even start? They don’t believe in anything.  Do you see how it would be easier for them to remain in the background?

Don’t get me wrong, Biden probably wants to be president (if his mind is still capable of desire), but the career party apparatchiks don’t give a shit either way, and I would be very surprised if the party’s congressional leadership (Pelosi and Schumer) are excited to take an active roll in the county’s governance.

I’ve said before that their messaging is all wrong.  If they really wanted to beat Trump, they could do it easily.  Here is what I would do:

Pelosi and the house should pass legislation called “The Drain the Swamp Act” in which politicians would be forbidden to take corporate money.  Trump would of course oppose it because he is a corrupt fraud just like Obama.  Then the house could pass the “Make America Great Again Act” which would contain a number of infrastructure and modernization projects and job programs.  Trump would also appose this because of the whole being a fraud thing. They could also criticize him for not building the wall, even though it’s been funded.

These acts would prove that Trump never cared about what he claimed to care about, and his campaign slogans for 2020 would be exposed as shallow platitudes.

Then, as independents and swing voters are scratching their heads, hit them with a series of campaign ads.  The first one could open with Trump on the 2016 campaign trail saying, “Say it with me folks…radical Islamic terrorism.” Then cut to the unredacted part of the 9/11 commission report, showing that members of the Saudi royal family funded 9/11.  Then cut to a montage of various meetings of Trump and crown prince MBS around the world acting like best friends.  Then cut to the interview where Trump is asked point blank what he thinks about the Saudi regime torturing and dismembering a Washington Post columnist, and him saying, “Look, we do a lot of business with them.”

The next ad could start with sad music over a montage of starving children in Yemen, then videos of US-made bombs blowing up school buses and weddings in Yemen.  Then the narrator would come on and say something like, “more that one-hundred thousand Yemini children have starved to death under Saudi Arabia’s blockade.  The house and senate passed bipartisan legislation to end America’s arming of Saudi Arabia, but Trump vetoed it.” Then more pictures of bombs and starving children followed by a close-up shot of Trump’s ugly face and the narrator saying, “Let’s end the Madness.” Then Joe Biden, or whoever gets the nomination, would come on and approve the message.

You see?  Beating Trump would be like taking candy from a baby.   I promise I’m not smarter than every single Democratic strategist combined.  If I could come up with that strategy in a couple minutes in my house in Cambodia, the Democratic Party with their team of strategists and their massive, multi-million dollar propaganda arm could do much better.  But they won’t.  They won’t even try.  And that says more about the party than a hundred of their vapid speeches ever could.