The Machine Mrs. Cleaver Built - The Democratic Party’s Leftward Drift Has Nothing to Do With Ideas.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Machine Mrs. Cleaver Built
The Democratic Party’s Leftward Drift Has Nothing to Do With Ideas. It Never Did.

The Last Wire

Mrs. Cleaver is Back.

The first essay asked how slogans become moral certainty.

The second followed Mrs. Cleaver from the quiet routines of ordinary life to the protest line.

This final installment asks the question beneath them both:

Who built the machinery that got her there?

Political movements don't survive on speeches alone. They endure because millions of ordinary people organize meetings, run nonprofits, recruit volunteers, staff phone banks, knock on doors, and transform conviction into political power.

This essay examines that hidden architecture.

Not the psychology.

The machinery.

Read Mrs. Cleaver Builds a Machine — How Civic Labor Became the Engine of Progressive Power at The Last Wire

#TheLastWire #Politics #PoliticalAnalysis #CivicEngagement #ProgressivePolitics #DemocraticParty #Longform

[Luis Gonzalez]

@Cyber Liberty

As promised. I’ve named names.

[DefiantMassRINO]

So, commies are good at infiltrating systems and institutions to corrupt them in furtherance of their organization, that is a front for an ideology that is convenient to the moment?

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, commies are good at infiltrating systems and institutions to corrupt them in furtherance of their organization, that is a front for an ideology that is convenient to the moment?

You obviously didn’t read the article.

[roamer_1]

Work on the website - It is very awkward to read if you increase font. the fixed-width center block makes for uncomfortable reading, five or six words at a time... I had a hard time paying attention.

And while the writing is good - The work is good - I will take exception to the word 'drift' What 'drift'? If you are talking about automotive 'drifting', with a few hundred horses invested into a car made to turn corners... well, OK then! But otherwise, it ain't no drift. It's a hard left turn all the way back past Theo Roosevelt's New Deal... And to continue the automotive theme, they tore off the rear-view mirror and never looked back.

So what is the conclusion then? Should the Right bow to the 'kinder, gentler crowd in order to capture more women? That was rhetorical. But it's kinda the thing. The whole Right is based upon Conservative principles - Principles based in the history of 'what works', and those guardrails (See, still on that automotive shtick) may rightly keep us on the straight and narrow, but they also remove all chance of changing direction. It's the right direction, mind you. but the right way is always hard, and the road to hell is 6 lanes wide.

That's hard to beat.

[DefiantMassRINO]

It astute political organization and execution that exploits the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of a poltical process with low voter turnout to their advantage.

Further, that organization is leveraging Libs' "politics of feelings" to circumvent opoositional logical debate and discussion.

They target low-turnout primaries because those require the fewest number of voters to win.  A small oranization can amplify its influence and its visibility by winning those less competitive races.

The DSA is taking the same route the NAZI's did ... working within the process, but exploiting weaknesses therein, to take the next step towards taking all power for themselves.

The ideology is irrelevant.  It's the organization that is strategically concentrating their efforts and resources on the electoral districts, processes, and offices that provide outsized returns on investments.

Brings me back to the days of the old Irish political machines in Boston.  It was not the candidate that mattered or made the difference; it was the invisible machinery of political organization behind the candidate that won the day.

Dems are vulnerable to losses at the hands of small, well-organized political machines because they have taken their electorate for granted and allowed their own political machinery to rust from years or decades without competition.

It is the Dems' propensity to avoid competitve primaries that has allowed the Establishment Primary Machinery to evaporate, thus making them more vulnerable to political insurgencies within their ranks.

Many of the "grass roots" supporters work in organizations that are majority funded by the public sector.  The DSA is using the organizations and personnel that benefit the most from the Administrative State to take control of the Administrative State.

Key to defeating the efforts of the DSA is to reduce Government subsidization of public sector entities that feed the DSA's rise.

Many of these public sector entities are predominanty female because those jobs are lower-paying and women still get paid less than men.  Their socio-economic circumstances align their interests with the nominal interests of the DSA.

The DSA's end goal is not ideoloigical; it is Machiavellian attainment of power by any means.  With each office they win, they put themselves in better position to squelch internal opposition first, and external opposition later.

They are using civil disengagemnt of the populous to achieve mob rule.

It's Animal Farm.  All animals will be equal until they are not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The conclusion is stated in the piece and obvious.

It’s not commies infiltrating the system, why would I write that dribble? Everyone else does.

“The System”?

What “system”?

Who built it?

Who runs it?

Who “mans” it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

It astute political organization and execution that exploits the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of a poltical process with low voter turnout to their advantage.

Further, that organization is leveraging Libs' "politics of feelings" to circumvent opoositional logical debate and discussion.

They target low-turnout primaries because those require the fewest number of voters to win.  A small oranization can amplify its influence and its visibility by winning those less competitive races.

The DSA is taking the same route the NAZI's did ... working within the process, but exploiting weaknesses therein, to take the next step towards taking all power for themselves.

The ideology is irrelevant.  It's the organization that is strategically concentrating their efforts and resources on the electoral districts, processes, and offices that provide outsized returns on investments.

Brings me back to the days of the old Irish political machines in Boston.  It was not the candidate that mattered or made the difference; it was the invisible machinery of political organization behind the candidate that won the day.

Dems are vulnerable to losses at the hands of small, well-organized political machines because they have taken their electorate for granted and allowed their own political machinery to rust from years or decades without competition.

It is the Dems' propensity to avoid competitve primaries that has allowed the Establishment Primary Machinery to evaporate, thus making them more vulnerable to political insurgencies within their ranks.

Many of the "grass roots" supporters work in organizations that are majority funded by the public sector.  The DSA is using the organizations and personnel that benefit the most from the Administrative State to take control of the Administrative State.

Key to defeating the efforts of the DSA is to reduce Government subsidization of public sector entities that feed the DSA's rise.

Many of these public sector entities are predominanty female because those jobs are lower-paying and women still get paid less than men.  Their socio-economic circumstances align their interests with the nominal interests of the DSA.

The DSA's end goal is not ideoloigical; it is Machiavellian attainment of power by any means.  With each office they win, they put themselves in better position to squelch internal opposition first, and external opposition later.

They are using civil disengagemnt of the populous to achieve mob rule.

It's Animal Farm.  All animals will be equal until they are not.

It’s a great response. As you always offer.

I will
Ask you, as a favor, to please read the article I wrote on your responses.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The conclusion is stated in the piece and obvious.

It’s not commies infiltrating the system, why would I write that dribble? Everyone else does.

“The System”?

What “system”? - There is no "System".  It is a euphemistic plural pronoun for incumbent office holders whom challenger candidates may not want to call out by name.

Who built it? - Incumbent government/party officials.

Who runs it? - Incumbent goverment/party officials.

Who “mans” it? - Those appointed by incumbent government/party officials.

A Dem challenger cannot directly call-out a Dem incumbent without experiencing blow-back from the incumbent Dem Establishment whose purpose is to keep all Dem incumbents in office.

The DSA has identified and targeted low voter turnout areas because those are the vectors of the "System" most vulnerable to attack.

A history of non-competitive primaries has allowed the incumbent Dem Establishment primary infrastructure to atrophy.  There is little to no incumbent Dem primary Infrastrcuture in place because the Party chose to deploy those resources towards campaigns it values more.

Uncontested Dem Primaries with low voter turnout are the Soft Underbelly of the Dem Party most susceptible to defeat by the DSA or other insurgent political interests.

A anti-Israeli Indian Mulsim communist from Uganda does not want the totality of the pro-Israeli Dem incumbent establishment to deploy all its resources against him, if he can help it.  So, he campaigns against the "System" - a dog whistle for Dem incumbents.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The conclusion is stated in the piece and obvious.

It’s not commies infiltrating the system, why would I write that dribble? Everyone else does.

“The System”?

What “system”? - There is no "System".  It is a euphemistic plural pronoun for incumbent office holders whom challenger candidates may not want to call out by name.

Who built it? - Incumbent government/party officials.

Who runs it? - Incumbent goverment/party officials.

Who “mans” it? - Those appointed by incumbent government/party officials.

A Dem challenger cannot directly call-out a Dem incumbent without experiencing blow-back from the incumbent Dem Establishment whose purpose is to keep all Dem incumbents in office.

The DSA has identified and targeted low voter turnout areas because those are the vectors of the "System" most vulnerable to attack.

A history of non-competitive primaries has allowed the incumbent Dem Establishment primary infrastructure to atrophy.  There is little to no incumbent Dem primary Infrastrcuture in place because the Party chose to deploy those resources towards campaigns it values more.

Uncontested Dem Primaries with low voter turnout are the Soft Underbelly of the Dem Party most susceptible to defeat by the DSA or other insurgent political interests.

A anti-Israeli Indian Mulsim communist from Uganda does not want the totality of the pro-Israeli Dem incumbent establishment to deploy all its resources against him, if he can help it.  So, he campaigns against the "System" - a dog whistle for Dem incumbents.

I will not debate here what you won’t bother to read there.