top of page

Do Democratic Leaders Really Think Republicans Are Fascists?

Former Vice President Joe Biden (left) and National Constitution Center Executive Committee Chairman Doug DeVos (right) present George W. Bush and Laura Bush the 2018 Liberty Medal at The National Constitution Center on November 11, 2018, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Getty Images)

By Thomas Neuburger

"Mitch McConnell is a rational Republican."

—Joe Biden, May 2022

"I think our country needs a strong Republican Party. That's very important." —Nancy Pelosi, February 2021

"In my view, we need a Republican Party that's united."

—Joe Biden, November 2011

What do you make of the quotes above and many others like them? Are you perplexed? Is this just PR, spin, the appearance of loving the enemy for appearances sake? Or do quotes like these represent beliefs?

And what do you make of the image at the top and images like them? Here Vice-President Joe Biden is awards George W. Bush — and Laura Bush, for some unexplanable reason — the Liberty Medal in 2018, "an annual award ... to recognize leadership in the pursuit of freedom."

George W. Bush, invader and butcher of Iraq, is the U.S. president most identified with war crimes and torture in the modern era. Some freedom.

Why Are These Statements Ignored?

I think the Democratic Party–supporting public ignores these comments, perhaps because the Democratic Party has positioned itself as the only alternative to Republicans, which its ecosystem purports to hate.

A brief list:

Joe Biden: "What we’re seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the — I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism." (2022)

Howard Dean: "The Republicans Are Now a Neo-Fascist Party" (2021)

Dana Milbank: "To call a person who endorses violence against the duly elected government a 'Republican' is Orwellian. More accurate words exist for such a person. One of them is 'fascist.'" (2022)

MSNBC: "The GOP was sowing seeds of fascism and violence long before Trump" (2021)

Salon: "Republicans have dropped the mask — they openly support fascism." (2022)

The list of comments like these goes on, and much further back than the election of Donald Trump.

Are Republicans Fascists Who Want a One-Party State? Of Course They Are.

Which leads to two brief points and a question. First,The "Republicans are fascists" theme is universal among Party propagandists.

And second, the "Republicans are fascists" theme is almost certainly correct. As History professor Kevin Matthews noted in 2020: "All inter-war fascist movements took part in elections with one goal in mind: to destroy democracy and create a one-party state."

That's probably been true since Richard Nixon's time in office, when former Attorney General George Mitchell told the Watergate committee that (paraphrasing) the Democratic Party alternative to Richard Nixon was so dangerous to the nation that illegal action was required to prevent it. When asked if they would have committed murder to elect Nixon president, he replied, to the best of my memory, "Senator, you ask a difficult question."

The "Democrats are traitors" theme goes way back in hardline conservative Republicanism, when in fact it was hardline conservative Richard Nixon who was the actual traitor to his country.

Thus the question: If Democratic leaders think Republicans are fascists, why don't they act like it?

'The Dirty Secret'

The complicity of Democratic leaders with Republicans is puzzling. They confirm Republican judges and Republican Supreme Court justices when they had the power to oppose them, notably Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

About Alito, 19 Democrats voted to end debate, which allowed the nomination to reach the floor, and four Democrats voted for the nomination itself, putting it over the 50-vote threshold. Worse, Barack Obama later announced his regret at joining the filibuster, wishing he would have voted with the 19 Democrats who brought the nomination to the floor.

In September 2017, the Democratic Congress gave Trump more Pentagon money than he asked for, after calling him, in effect, illegitimate:

One could offer a number of reasons for these disconnects. The most obvious one, the Occam's Razor reason, is also the most shocking: Despite their rhetoric, Democratic leaders have no problem with Republican victories. They have no problem with Republicans taking power.

Here's former Democratic strategist Peter Daou to explain why this is true. He calls it "the dirty secret." (The source Twitter thread is here. I've lightly edited it for clarity.)

THE DIRTY SECRET 🧵 [1] As a former adviser in the belly of the establishment, I can tell you that Democratic leaders prefer a Republican Congress. Allow me to explain... #ElectionDay #Election2022

[2] Dem party leaders have one overarching job: Uphold the current system -- which keeps them funded and reelected. That involves enriching and protecting their big donors. But they have to maintain the appearance of "fighting" the GOP to appease their voters.

[3] What better way for corporate Dems to maintain the appearance of fighting for the people (while actually preserving the status quo) than for the GOP to hold more power?

That way, Dem leaders can blame Republicans for gridlock, while keeping their donor class happy.

[4] Thus, you get quotes like this, where establishment Dems constantly call for a STRONGER Republican Party.

[5] Have you ever asked yourself why the same Dem leaders run the party decade after decade? Why they maintain power even as the GOP becomes more powerful and entrenched? Why they rehabilitate the very GOP figures they once claimed were a "threat to democracy"?

[6] And please note: This thread refers to Dem LEADERS. There are certainly good people who run as Democrats, and lots of voters who sincerely believe voting blue can help stave off the GOP's fascism. But I'm talking about the party leadership that works to preserve the status quo.

Believing Impossible Things

The assertion above seems impossible to believe, yet it's always possible to believe impossible things.

I believed, for example, that Bernie Sanders could win the nomination after his 2020 Nevada primary win. I should have known that Obama would end all that.

And Democratic voters believe their leaders will work to protect them from the "neo-fascist party" danger, when they obviously, repeatedly won't.

So I can believe, till Occam's Razor says no, that "Democratic leaders prefer a Republican Congress." All the evidence supports it.

8 comentários

So what is the nature of a fake opposition party? What are it's weaknesses? You still have to worry about maintaining the con with voters. There are cracks showing. Maloney was sent packing because voters are starting to pay a kind of attention they haven't been. They are starting to pay attention because material conditions are getting that dire.

The more people being killed by the obstruction of solutions, the more vindictiveness becomes a virtue. The people responsible already believe that, celebrate it.

I don't think the dems can get away with tanking their own pretend agenda by bill-splitting too many more times.

If you lose too many elections, you lose relevance to the people who really matter, the donors;…

08 de dez. de 2022
Respondendo a

if the nazis had won the $enate and flushed the filibuster, your projection would have been very true.

after desantis wins the electoral count in 2024, the money won't have to worry about bribing BOTH parties any more. There will be only the one left. All others will be illegal.


I remember one of the other DWT writers once saying that he started keeping score (started circling the plays on the scorecard) the day the Warren Commission Report came out and how it's all been downhill since then. It rang true. He mentioned that Gerald Ford was involved in both that and pardoning Nixon years later. Both times, both parties shrugged and walked away from their responsibilities.


There's a scene in "Eight Men Out," the John Sayles movie about baseball's "Black Sox" scandal, where 2 sportswriters look at each other with raised eyebrows when it becomes apparent to them that some members of the heavily favored Chicago White Sox aren't playing on the 1919 World Series on the level. Those writers end up circling suspicious plays on their scorecards:

I'm reaching the scorecard-circling point with the donkey now. I don't think that they're deliberately trying to lose elections for monetary reasons, but i do think that they're pursuing strategies that undermine their long-term chances for monetary reasons. I can't say whether they manage to convince themselves that it's all for the greater good in order ke…

06 de dez. de 2022
Respondendo a

I started circling the scorecard in 1982. that seems to be our primary difference. you're getting it now.

bipartisanship, or more correctly, compromise, only makes sense when both sides cherish, protect and defend the constitution and the society it defines. The Rs ceased to be a valid partner some time in the '60s during/after CRA and VRA. the democraps ceased being a useful partner when the DLC sold party policy to the money (1982ish).

so... bipartisanship between two parties, neither of which gives a flying zeptofuck about the constitution and society? same as pouring the gasoline on and lighting the match.

NOT being able to recognize this? typically american.

Thomas did an excellent job of proving all of this.


06 de dez. de 2022

Thomas with the BEST evisceration of the democrap PARTY yet. In fact, this is 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' stuff here. It's what I've been saying about the lying hapless worthless feckless CORRUPT neoliberal FASCIST pussy democrap party... for, literally, decades.

It's the basis for my call to euthanize that entire party, Whig-style, for, literally, decades.

"The complicity of Democratic leaders with Republicans is puzzling."

No it is not. and this fine piece explains why.

"[5] Have you ever asked yourself why the same Dem leaders run the party decade after decade?"

nope. it's clearly because the voters who keep electing democraps are, perhaps full of better intentions, but ABSOLUTELY dumber than shit.

(Have you ever asked yourself...) "Why…


Which is why the fundamental and primary goal of progressives should be to decrease the influence of money in politics. The natural conclusion to be drawn from the Supreme Court's equating corporate money with political speech is that the rich have a Constitutional right to have a greater say in our democracy than the poor do. That an artificial person like a corporation, which can be generated on a whim with enough money, has any right at all to influence US elections is an abomination. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. If you don't have the right to vote, you shouldn't have the right to influence (corrupt) the election. Until we fix campaign financing and lobbying, we'll never achie…

06 de dez. de 2022
Respondendo a

quite so. but in order to fix campaign financing and lobbying and corporate personhood, you first need to:

1) make voters a LOT smarter, so that they will:

2) electorally euthanize the lying hapless worthless feckless corrupt neoliberal fascist pussy democrap party that, as this piece proves, has collaborated with the nazis since no later than 1968.

3) coalesce a truly left, liberal, progressive movement that will forever defeat the rump racist nazi party in national elections... and will affect the needed reforms you've mentioned.

short of these prerequisites, nothing will ever change.

bottom of page