The recent Presidential Caucus in Iowa has revealed a few things which must be considered long and hard, by Millennials as well as by our elders. The caucus was conspicuous for its smell, like that of rotted fish or damp cloth left in a dark corner for too long. This smell was put forth, not by Republicans, but by Democrats. The principal culprits are the Democratic leadership.
The version of events the mainstream media tells us, to cite the Huffington Post, is that Hillary won the election by a narrow margin of a few percentage points. Hillary took 46.7% to Bernie Sanders’ 44.6% (and according to this site, the margin was even smaller.) But only a few days later, the Des Moines Register complained as follows, in an article entitled, “Something smells in the Democratic Party.”
Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.
Indeed, this does reek of autocracy. Clinton’s lead, which could be as narrow as .25% over Sanders, doesn’t sit well with many. An Iowa Democratic Party audit showed errors in as many as 14 precincts. Hillary only won through a series of six coin tosses, to determine the allocation of county votes, and the addition of something called a “delegate equivalent.” The Democratic Caucus isn’t any near being truly democratic. This has caused Leftists to scratch their heads over what happened in Iowa. Even Rolling Stone can’t quite figure out what happened, as shown in their recent article, “WTF Happened at the Iowa Causes, Explained.”
The evident corruption of the Democratic Caucus has become so glaring that a writer at Salon has written, “We’re electing a president, not the senior warden of a Mason’s lodge. All evidence indicates Sanders won the popular vote.”
It’s been a major point of complain by conspiracy theorists and Info Wars followers, that America is ruled by a cabal of corporate fat cats and political elites. Turns out, they might not be entirely off their rockers. This latest incident in the Democratic Party does lend credence to idea that the Democrats, their name notwithstanding, have no interest in democracy, but a great interest in the appearance of democracy. The Democrats, at least at a very high level, appear have little interest in the wishes of the electorate. If they were more interested in their own voter base, they wouldn’t have spent the last two years protecting Hillary from her growing list of misdeeds and scandals.
What makes the Caucus so interesting was how it shows the generational divide among Democratic voters. Voters under 30 voted overwhelmingly for Sanders, those over 65 voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. The greatest issue which drove voters to Sanders was “income inequality.” The newly named “Sticker Kid” shows the near indifference Millennials have towards Clinton. Her narrow victory begs the question as to whether or not Clinton will remain as the Democratic candidate. It’s hard to believe that the party elites will let her falter, she’s been their nominee for years. But what might happen again is that the Democrats may try to shove her down the throats of their own, youthful, electorate.
The divide between older and younger Democrats could just be the common divide between generations. Lest we forget, Clinton and her generation were, in their youth, the New Left. Hillary cut her teeth defending Black Panthers, after studying under Saul Alinsky. Today’s elder Democrats have become comfortable after their ‘long march through the institutions’ of our nation. Millennial youth may prove to be a real headache for their elders.
We could be on the verge of witnessing a new surge within the Democratic Party. The last time this happened was in 1972, when the New Left took over the Democrats. History may repeat. Millenial Democrats may show they’re tired of being forced to vote for corrupt elite candidates like Clinton, and may take up with honest-to-God Leftists like Sanders. Time alone will tell.