Principles of a Modern Progressive Movement

Bernie Sanders at Lecture

“I’m not a liberal, I’m a progressive,” Bernie Sanders told a high school student in 2003 as he spoke to an assembly about the importance of civic engagement. He added, “There’s a difference.” Twelve years later, he was gearing up to run for president of the United States. He told progressive Democrats, “I have never accepted this nonsense about red states and blue states—in every state of the country there are people who are struggling, and they are on our side. Don’t accept that division. We are the vast majority of people.” Progressives say they might not agree on every subject, but they cite many common interests as human beings and Americans. “Most people want big money out of politics,” Sanders said. “Most Americans do believe that healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and want a national healthcare program.” Sanders also said the majority of Americans believe the current minimum wage is not enough.

Progressives, Sanders included, say the American government has, over the decades, failed to represent the American people. Zachary Boren of The Telegraph wrote an article in 2014 in which he claims the U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of American citizens. Instead, says Boren, our country is ruled by the powerful and the wealthy. He believes the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite. Boren cites a peer-reviewed study that is presently being taught at our universities. The study, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, says in part, “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Sanders is concerned. He said, “I am worried that we are moving toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of people are not satisfied with controlling most of the wealth. They want to control the government too.” The concentration of immense political power in the hands of a wealthy few is not new in American history.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK Speech

Martin Luther King, Jr. also wanted to fight inequality. He said, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” He added, “Since the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.” It would seem King’s concern was not limited to blacks. He said, “We need an economic bill of rights. This would guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work. It would also guarantee an income for all who are not able to work. Some people are too young, some are too old, some are physically disabled, and yet in order to live, they need income.” He said America’s obsession with the Vietnam War overshadowed the nation’s numerous domestic problems. King added, “We need to put pressure on Congress to get things done. We will do this with first amendment activity. If Congress is unresponsive, we’ll have to escalate in order to keep the issue alive and before it. This action may take on disruptive dimensions, but not violent in the sense of destroying life or property: it will be militant non-violence.”

King said he was frank enough to admit that if the non-violent campaign he put forth did not generate some progress, people would likely engage in more violent activity, including possible guerrilla warfare in the streets of America. He said, “In any event, we will not have been the ones who will have failed. We will place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. If that power refuses to acknowledge its debt to the poor, it will have failed to live up to its promise to insure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens. If this society fails, I fear that we will learn very shortly that racism is a sickness unto death.”

King quoted Scripture, noting that the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the third and fourth generations. He said, “Nothing could be more applicable to our situation. America is reaping the harvest of hate and shame planted through generations of educational denial, political disenfranchisement and economic exploitation of its black population… We have, through massive non-violent action, an opportunity to avoid a national disaster and create a new spirit of class and racial harmony. We can write another luminous moral chapter in American history. All of us are on trial in this troubled hour, but time still permits us to meet the future with a clear conscience.”

Progressive Principles

The period of U.S. history from the 1890s to the 1920s is usually referred to as the Progressive Era, which was a period of intense social and political reform aimed at making progress toward a better society. Progressive Era reformers sought to harness the power of the federal government to eliminate unethical and unfair business practices, reduce corruption, and counteract the negative social effects of industrialization. During the Progressive Era, protections for workers and consumers were strengthened, and women finally achieved the right to vote.

The worldview of Progressive reformers was based on certain key assumptions. The first was that human nature could be improved through the enlightened application of regulations, incentives, and punishments. The second key assumption was that the power of the federal government could be harnessed to improve the individual and transform society. These two assumptions were not shared by political conservatives, who tended to believe that human nature was unchanging, and that the federal government should remain limited in size and scope. Interestingly, this mirrors the fight we’re seeing today progressives/liberals and conservatives, especially during the mid-term elections.

Today’s Progressive Agenda

What many of us now consider dangerous and stupid ideas of the past, progressives see as useful in the present. Even liberal historians usually label as disastrous two major decisions made by Franklin D. Roosevelt: the forced internment of Japanese-American citizens following Japan’s attack on U.S. Naval Forces at Pearl Harbor; and the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937—better known as FDR’s “court-packing scheme.” In the latter, FDR wanted desperately to put shackles on the U.S. Supreme Court in order to stave off its interference in FDR’s implementation of the New Deal. He was bothered by the thought of “waiting around” until a justice or two died or retired, so he dreamed up the idea of a new (additional) justice for every sitting judge who had reached the age of 70 years, 6 months, and had not yet retired. In theory, he could pack the court by bringing the total number of justices to fifteen.

Progressives also wish to nullify federal laws by carving out spaces exempt from federal protection. Democrats tried it and failed in the South Carolina nullification crisis of 1832-33 when they sought to render void federal tariff laws. Of course, the soon-to-be Confederate States were more serious, and in 1861 Southern Democrats said federal laws no longer applied to them. Accordingly, this idea of nullification helped spark the Civil War. Governor George Wallace is infamous for his blocking entrance to the University of Alabama in defiance of court-ordered integration. Why am I bringing this up now? That’s because 19th century nullification is at work in the nearly 500 cities that have declared themselves “sanctuaries,” saying they will not comply with federal immigration laws. How do you suppose these city governments would react if conservative cities were to declare federally-protected abortion rights, gun laws, or the endangered species act null and void within their city limits?

Help Wanted White Only

Another dark tradition from America’s past was the institutionalization of segregated spaces on the logic that the victims of discrimination did not deserve the protection of their freedoms under the Constitution simply because of the color of their skin. Yet once again the progressive Left has returned to its roots for inspiration and implemented an entire array of discriminatory practices. Special landscapes on campuses where particular races cannot enter are called “safe” rather than “segregated” spaces. Entry is entirely predicated on outward appearance—although how one’s genealogy is assessed ad hoc poses the same challenges as it once did for the racists of the Old South who came up with the ‘one-drop’ rule (i.e., even one drop of African blood means you are black).

The First Amendment

Freedom to Speak Freely

The Left has resurrected an entire host of once discredited ideas from the nation’s past that reveal the new progressive ethos and remind us why those practices were odious in the first place. A new drive to limit free speech is underway, not just on campuses but also on social media. The effort is almost entirely progressive-driven. We’re told that Christians cannot speak in public about Jesus Christ, or say “Merry Christmas” to patrons of their businesses. We cannot place nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. Someone living on a hillside above town who wishes to display a lighted cross for the Christmas Season is forced to take it down. Further, progressives are trying to steal our right to speak out against the dangers of Islamic extremism, claiming it amounts to hate speech.

Hate itself is not a crime. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate crimes, which can also encompass color, or national origin, are overt acts that can include violence against persons or property, violation of civil rights, conspiracy, or certain “true threats,” or acts of intimidation. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim’s race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, protects speech no matter how offensive its content. To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis. We cannot necessarily legislate hate out of our lives, especially in a free democratic republic. Politicians cannot fix this country. Only its citizens can figure out what went wrong and do something about it.

A recent federal court case, Matal vs. Tam (2017), heralded the following opinion:

“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

America is not America if we allow the progressive agenda to gag our opinions. Again, merely offensive or bigoted speech is protected speech. It has to be. What we cannot allow is targeted harassment or threats. Maxine Waters (D., 43rd District of California) has taken to the streets inciting progressives and liberals to seek out and harass any Republican leaders or cabinet members who are shopping or dining in public places. She said, “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Did you get that? They’re not welcome anymore in America where they are free to vote how they see fit, work for whomever they wish, and say what they believe to be true.

Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson

Democrats, both in the North and the South, had been the party of the old plantation. They had fought hard to protect the plantation through the Civil War and had largely successfully blocked Republican Reconstruction. Far from repenting of their long legacy of bigotry and enslavement, the Democrats—especially in the South—were scheming for ways to restore and reinvent the plantation in the twentieth century. Wilson was part of this scheme—a Virginia Democrat who as a young boy had watched in horror as Union armies occupied the South. This had a deep impact on his worldview. American Democracy, in Wilson’s eyes, was not an American creation; rather, it was a racial legacy dating back to the ancient German Teutonic tribes, whom Wilson dubbed the “Aryans.” Wilson credited most achievements in the area of government and social development for democratic self-government, which was essentially an Anglo-Saxon product. Wilson, in short, was an early apostle of the nineteenth century movement to invoke science on behalf of white supremacy.

In 1901, Wilson published an article in the Atlantic Monthly in which he made the case for the segregation laws that the Democratic Party was at the time enacting throughout the South. Free blacks, Wilson argued, were “unpracticed in liberty, unschooled in self-control; never sobered by the discipline of self-support, never established in any habit of prudence… insolent and aggressive; sick of work, covetous of pleasure.” Obviously they needed segregation, Wilson concluded, because otherwise they would be “a danger to themselves as well as to those whom they had once served.”

Wilson was almost single-handedly responsible for the national revival of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that had been defunct since the 1870s. Wilson also segregated the federal government and promoted vicious schemes of forced sterilization of racial minorities. These schemes later surfaced during the reign of Hitler and the Nazis. Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, said that Wilson was “the most racist president of the twentieth century.” He notes the following regarding modern usage of the term fascist:

“In short, ‘fascist’ is a modern word for ‘heretic,’ branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—’racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobe,’ ‘christianist’—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay ‘Politics and the English Language.’ The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable.”

Concluding Remarks

Progressivism is inherently hostile to moderation because, in the eyes of a progressive, progress is an unmitigated good. There cannot be too much of it. Progressivism contributes to the polarization and paralysis of government because it makes compromise, which entails accepting less progress, not merely inadvisable but irrational. Even when progressives choose their targets strategically—Hillary Clinton, for example, called herself “a progressive who likes to get things done”—the implication is that progress is the fundamental goal and that its opponents are antagonistic to social progress. Progressives believe because progress is an unadulterated good, it supersedes the rights of its opponents. This is evident in progressive indifference to the rights of those who oppose progressive policies in areas like sexual liberation, same-sex marriage, and abortion. Who hasn’t heard it said that conservatives are stuck in the past?

Where liberalism seeks to reduce economic injustice, progressivism’s goal is to eradicate it. Daniel Patrick Moynihan recognized this difference between Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which he always supported—as exemplified by his opposition to Clinton-era welfare reform—and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which he sympathetically criticized. The New Deal alleviated poverty by cutting checks, something the government loves to do, although liberals and conservatives typically argue over the size of the checks. The Great Society partook more of a progressive effort to remake society by eradicating poverty’s causes. The result, which most progressives are unwilling to admit, was the diversion of resources from welfare and jobs to “community action” programs that financed political activism.

 

Rebuilding the Plantation

Devil's Tower.JPG

Abraham Lincoln expressed a concern (what some call his “nightmare”) that all of America would become a plantation. Let’s take a few minutes to discuss the concept of plantation politics. Use of the word plantation to describe the relationship between black Americans and their political patrons is an unfortunate staple of contemporary rhetoric. An article in The Nation dated July 24, 2013 states

The conservative plantation theory holds that African Americans support the Democratic party in exchange for welfare benefits and other handouts, that the Democratic party cultivates black welfare dependency in order to keep black voters firmly in their camp, and that the liberal establishment through either incompetence or cynical calculation frustrates the aspirations of black Americans in critical areas such as education, family life, crime, and economic mobility.

THE ORIGIN OF PLANTATION POLITICS

Black professionals in Chicago and Detroit have much to say about the liberal practice of plantation politics, which they claim led to many blacks in our inner cities being very poor and under-educated. Educated, upper-middle-class black professionals use the term plantation politics to describe ways in which they feel some black people hold themselves back socially and economically—as though they feel they are still living and working “down on the plantation.” For example, there is prevailing anti-intellectualism among poor black men, who view higher education and “white-collar” black professionals as being too white. Many black men have a tendency of confining themselves to being uneducated and holding down blue-collar jobs. Granted, the plantation system of the South was involuntary—it was based on forcibly confining slaves. Today, Democrats don’t have anyone penned up, and they aren’t forcing anyone to work. That’s not what this problem is about in the twenty-first century.

Housing Project in Baltimore

Not all inner city blacks purposely decide to remain poor. For many others, their fate is decided in a rigged game—a system of institutionalized racism promoted by the liberal policies of the federal government, who has adopted the role of caretaker or “plantation owner.” This socioeconomic ploy fosters low expectations for personal achievement and locks blacks out of good education, high-paying careers, and so on. Progressives use smoke-and-mirrors to conceal the truth of their agenda. The “party line” body of facts and evidence sets fixed parameters for debate and narrows the scope for big lies. While progressives are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.

The antebellum Democrats regarded the old plantation as a “good thing.” Democratic senator James Chestnut believed his slaves had it so good on his South Carolina plantation that they cost more than the work they produced. Asked if he ever had runaways, he replied, “Never! It’s pretty hard work to keep me from running away from them!” Chestnut’s wife, Mary, was convinced that the plantation had become not merely a prison of the body but also a prison of the mind. It held its slave population in debased psychological confinement even when there was the opportunity to get up and leave. I believe this insight into the mind of a slave helps drive the modern Democratic Party. It’s their “secret weapon.” Democrats realized that long after slavery ended they could create a new type of plantation—one that would degrade and imprison the minds of their inhabitants so that very few would want to leave.

tweed-tmagArticle

The old plantation was rural; today’s Democrats are largely urban. Slavery was not entirely a Southern institution. Today’s Democrats have their base in the North and on the coasts. The plantation was initially sustained through an ideology of states’ rights. Today’s Democrats are the Party of centralized government that opposes states’ rights. The urban machines were themselves based on the slave plantation. Historians correctly credit Martin Van Buren as the man who invented the Northern Democratic machine. Van Buren literally adopted the Democrats’ plantation model to urban conditions. It was easy to adopt this posture with black Americans. Their collective spirit was first crushed (during slavery), then elevated (at the announcement of their emancipation), and now disillusioned (under today’s New Jim Crow). Thankfully, more black Democrats are seeing the Party and its progressive agenda for what it is and they’re jumping ship.

The old plantation was destroyed by the Civil War. Prior to that, the plantation was the model of Democratic governance and Democratic political domination. Democrats had concocted a whole ideology to uphold and defend the plantation. This Democratic apologia for slavery as being a beneficial institution worthy of praise and expansion was radically different from the founders’ shared understanding of slavery as a necessary evil that should be curbed until it could be abolished. The founders hoped that slavery would disappear and they expected it to.  As early as 1782, Thomas Jefferson saw “…a change already perceptible… for a total emancipation.” Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party, which formally became simply the Republican Party.

REBUILDING THE PLANTATION

Progressive Democrats, led by Woodrow Wilson, sought to rebuild a new type of plantation for the twentieth century. They were quite familiar with the old plantation, being just one generation removed from it. Contrary to the history books, which assiduously camouflage this fact, progressives are the ones who invented white nationalism and white supremacy in their modern and most virulent forms for the purpose of keeping poor whites in the grips of the Democratic Party. Progressives, in other words, were America’s original hate group, and their opponents, the conservative Republicans, were the original champions of the notion that “black lives matter.”

Big Government Strong Government

The progressives strongly support a centralized government (the “Big House”), and they rely on racial terrorism and eugenics for controlling the population of their new plantation and maintaining adequate quality control. Through progressivism, Wilson inaugurated the “birth of a nation” that departed significantly from that which was intended by the Founding Fathers—a new birth represented by the ominous symbol of the night-riding Ku Klux Klan, which served as the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. How much of this were you taught in high school history and government classes?

It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who institutionalized progressivism in the operations of government and thus created the foundation for the modern Democratic Party. FDR began by replacing the Democratic urban machines with the labor union movement and local Democratic Party bosses with a national boss—namely himself. FDR also instituted the 100 percent marginal tax rate. Tax and spend? Hmmm. Even his Democratic Congress balked and lowered the top rate to 90 percent, though it crept up to a high of 94 percent during World War II. FDR insisted that Americans who earned enough to live comfortably should not be allowed to keep any more income beyond that point. FDR was the first to seek to implement the Democratic vision of a national plantation.

By the 1930s, we can see in FDR’s version of the plantation the familiar outlines that define the Democratic Party today. Today’s Democrats have the same attachment to the centralized state (the new Big House) and they display a discernible fascist streak when, for example, they use the instruments of the state against their political opponents. But we cannot stop with FDR; the picture is incomplete without showing how Lyndon Johnson again modified the plantation in the 1960s, and how Bill Clinton and Barack Obama further expanded it in recent decades.

OBAMA AND PLANTATION POLITICS

Obama 01

According to Black Republican Blog, in order to acquire and maintain power, President Barack Obama adopted the Democratic Party’s strategy of keeping blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Using the politics of poverty and race-baiting, Obama garnered nearly 96 percent of the black vote that helped propel him to the pinnacle of power. Obama then used that power to accomplish his liberal agenda, which included wrecking our economy and weakening our national defense, leaving us vulnerable to additional terrorist attacks. Prominent blacks have publicly stated that Obama tried to destroy the free enterprise system in America and change America into a socialist nation with growth-killing taxes, the take-over of private businesses through government bailouts, and trillions of dollars in irresponsible deficit spending on wasteful social programs.

While professing to care about the plight of the poor, Obama took numerous actions during his presidency that actually kept blacks impoverished, so he could use black grievances for partisan political gain. Take a look at an excerpt from “Grim Proving Ground for Obama’s Housing Policy” published June 27, 2008 on Boston.com:

The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. But it’s not safe to live here. About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex at 11 out of 100. A score so bad the buildings had to be demolished… a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state and federal subsidies—including several hundred in Obama’s former district—deteriorated so completely that no one could live in them.

In a video posted to YouTube in 2012 titled “Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians,” Jackson said

It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democratic Party. They have insulted us, used us and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies: “Unless we support the Democratic Party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed.” They think we’re stupid and these lies will hold us captive while they violate everything we believe as Christians… shame on us for allowing ourselves to be sold to the highest bidder. We belong to God. Our ancestors were sold against their will centuries ago, but we’re going to be the slave market voluntarily today.

New York Times 01

In an online New York Times article published May 22, 2013, written by Charles M. Blow, the Democratic Plantation Nation theory goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things—welfare, food stamps, cell phones, and the like. This serves to render black families dependent on and beholden to said government programs and the Democratic Party. Here’s an aside: beholden to means “owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help.” Synonyms include indebted, in someone’s debt, or under obligation. In the instant example, indebtedness calls for blacks voting for the Party that keeps giving them free stuff. Hopefully, it is painfully obvious to at least some of you that the Democrats do not have the best interests of blacks in mind—nor Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Muslim-Americans. Rather, it’s about fueling the machine.

According to an online article at motherjones.com, dated September 19, 2010, Mitt Romney made the following comment during a fundraising speech in Florida:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for [Obama] no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

When you think of the black community in America, what initial images come to mind? Do you think problems, poverty and pain? Do you see its people as inferior, uneducated, incapable, dependent? Do you envision its future as hopeless, helpless, and habitual? Progress for the black community as a whole is actually impeded by “it has always been this way” attitudes. Such a mindset creates a condition primed for plantation politics. It seems to me—and I admit I’m speaking as a white male who cannot begin to understand what blacks have been put through in this country—that black consciousness has always been defined by a sense of vulnerability. And so common political appeals to blacks have played on fears that the country is incorrigibly racist and that their only hope is to take their piece of the pie by any means necessary. Can’t say I blame them.

What I will say, however, is that we can best serve the black community by exposing the Democratic Party (the liberals and the progressives) as the plantation owners they’ve set themselves up to be. The ideology of the Republican Party is essentially the same as it was during the time of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln defined slavery as “you work, I eat,” and that is the core philosophy of today’s Democratic Party, no less than the Democratic Party of Lincoln’s day. By contrast, the core philosophy of today’s GOP is identical with that of Lincoln: “I always thought the man who made the corn should eat the corn.”

In his seminal book The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, Kenneth M. Stamp (1956) wrote, “Prior to the civil war southern slavery was America’s most profound and vexatious social problem. More than any other problem, slavery nagged at the public conscience; offering no easy solution, it demanded statesmanship of uncommon vision, wisdom and boldness. This institution deserves close study if only because its impact upon the whole country was disastrous.” Stamp also notes that slavery cannot be attributed to some irresistible force in the economics of the South. The use of slaves in southern agriculture was a deliberate choice—one among many available to plantation owners—made by men who sought greater profits than what they could attain through their own blood, sweat and tears, and who found domestic labor prices to be too high to sustain maximum profitability. Slavery was, of course, a commercial success, and it was still flourishing as late as 1860. In its broad sense, however, slavery must be considered a complete failure.

When white liberals or progressives imply that any politically-aware black American who is not left-Democrat is either suicidal or insane, they are essentially “keeping the Blacks on the liberal plantation.” Blacks who are not left-Democrat are spoken of as having “bolted off the liberal plantation.” A not-so-endearing term for this type of black man is Uncle Tom. An important facet of this paradigm is that the “liberal plantation” is figuratively a “plantation” because it uses Black voters to serve mostly the interests of a white liberal establishment, not the interests of the Black American voters themselves. What this indicates to me is that Democrats care about maintaining the political machine they’ve created, which must include “enslaving” citizens to the Party as a sort-of quid pro quo. They’ve become so desperate that they’re willing to underwrite any policy that ensures dependency of blacks, immigrants, and other minority groups on the federal government. In essence, Washington has become the new Big House of the plantation.