SANDERS INVITED TO VATICAN APRIL 15!!! WILL ADDRESS IDOLOTRY OF MONEY

[RiverNoord]

144. Good for you. Everybody should be good at something.

I'm pretty good at perceiving the biases and agendas underlying BS.

Your agenda is to sell the position that the current leadership of the Democratic National Committee, as well as the composition of the present members of the Democratic Party who hold elected office at the national level, are the Democratic Party.

This would, therefore, mean that any difference of opinion a person may have with the positions of any of these parties, particularly with respect to their preferred candidates for the office of the President of the United States, would really mean that a person who takes action based on this difference of opinion is acting against the Democratic Party.

This is a severely authoritarian perspective on the nature of the Democratic Party and its role in the American political process. If it became generally accepted, it would mean that the only appropriate parties in Party decision-making and the establishment of agendas would be those who already are in positions of power and influence at the national level of the Party.

One of the consequences of the widespread adoption of this perspective would be an abrupt end to the value of the Democratic Party as a mechanism for representative democracy. It's completely predictable because it's a frequent occurrence in history. A power structure that came to power via popular support becomes insulated, eventually acts against the entire system by which it came to power (because if people were able to put them in power, they could do the same thing to someone else and replace them), and cares only about its hold on power and its benefits.

The Democratic Party has existed, in some form, almost as long as the United States itself. It has undergone many major changes over the years, and it will undergo more as American civilization evolves and social and structural changes mandate changes. It is no longer the public face of severe racism and segregation in the South, for example, that it was from the 'Reconstruction' era to the the mid 1960s.

If you are a supporter of a political party and challenge the current holders of power in a political party because of their positions, you aren't 'battling' against the party, you're advocating for change within it. This is a necessary function of a political party which operates in the context of representative democracy. Sometimes the people at the top are the wrong people at a particular time, and must be challenged. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes the people advocating for change are wrong. But that's how things go. If you don't like it, then maybe representative democracy just isn't your thing.