For a political party to be relevant, they must have a constituency. The notion of a constituency is one whereby a group is, in essence, represented by another person or group; as if to say, that the representative of the constituency will act in the wishes and expressed best interests of the constituency. In the case of the Democratic party, a clear conflict of interest between the representatives and the constituency exist to demonstrate that the two are, in fact, disconnected and that the constituency is not, in fact, represented.
The tenets of this argument are:
- · The Democratic Party as we know it today seeks political power from segments of society that are in the lower socioeconomic, minority ethnicities, unionized workers, to name a few.
- · These groups are like all other people in the world and wish to succeed in the efforts of their labor, put food on their table, and see their children grow up healthy and successful.
- · The concerns of the lower socioeconomic, minority ethnicities, and unionized workers are to ensure that they get a fair shake in the political direction of the country.
- · Democratic political officials fail to don the same blue collars or economic and social challenges as those who vote for them.
- · Economic science concludes that all people act in their self-motivated self-maximizing interest and that therefore, would logically and reasonably desire to protect the fruits of their success. Theoretically, those who realize such success will gravitate toward the Republican Party that ideologically seeks to represent the political interests of those who have economic success.
So to draw lines between these points, the politicians who are awarded political power from the Democratic constituency find themselves the beneficiary of great reward, being high salaries, gold health insurance, lucrative future careers in lobbying…the list goes on; as if to suggest that they remember (in a twisted way) who brought them to the dance, the down trodden. As those in the Democratic constituency find themselves realizing the American Dream and succeeding, naturally, they will gravitate toward politics that represent their interests and this notion threatens the ability of the Democratic politician to prevail in election contests against these other parties (Republican Party?). Politicians in the Democratic Party, therefore, have no logical interest in the success of their constituency; suggestively, the continued success of the Democratic politician is predicated on the notion that their constituency continues to “need” them and the only way to do this is to ensure the constituency remains “in need”. This is a conflict of interest which suggests that the success of the Democratic politician is inversely correlated to the success of the Democratic constituency; a notion that stands in contrast to the relationship between other parties (Republican Party?) and their constituency. This is not to say that the Republican Party is “right”, but perhaps to say that the Democratic Party is wrong.
Examples: Where would Jessie Jackson be today without Racism? I tell you, without relevance, at least so far as racism is concerned. He would have to get another gig. Maybe he does more to gripe about it than he does to actually fix anything. What for unions that receive the equity interests of companies like GM? Do the new shareholders (UAW) then act in the best interest of the Company and strive to maximize shareholder wealth or in the best interests of their union laborers who seek to be the beneficiary of more of the Company’s profits?
I make my point.