The California Democratic Party is facing a crossroads of sorts.
They have taken over nearly every aspect of California Governance.
They do not have the two-thirds legislative supermajority to tax and spend as they please, or to propose constitutional amendments.
Of course, total dominance of the state remains once again with their grasp, considering this high stakes Election 2016.
Democrats are even sitting pretty to have total dominance over the US Senate race after June 7th, since poll after poll has shown Kamala Harris in first place, followed by Loretta Sanchez. Granted, most polls also have at least 35% of polled respondents unsure whom they are going to vote for.
Still, a Republican US Senate candidate slipping into the Top Two to challenge Kamala Harris is looking more and more remote every day.
Notwithstanding their incredible preeminence in the state, the progressive left-wing ideology which has hijacked the state party is facing unprecedented internal challenges.
The fight between Bernie Sanders, a true-believing socialist/communist/fascist, and Hillary Clinton the Establishmentarian has exposed the moral vacuity of the whole party, as well as its love affair with power and money for the few at the expense of the rest.
Where are the jobs for working and middle class Americans? Where is the representation which works for the best of all Californians? What about the proper expansion of life, liberty, and opportunity which everyone is seeking?
If anyone wants to see what happens to a state controlled by the Democratic Party for decades, consider Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Cronyism, unionism, taxation, immoral govenrnment interventionism have created a government beset with debt, where businesses and families cannot move out fast enough. Labor unions dictate their demands to local and state government authorities. The destruction of the family and national sovreignty have transformed the first state to break away from the Crown of England into a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, corrupt politicians, and mafia elements replacing balanced moral leadership.
Do we really want to turn California into a big blue sinkhole of depression and loss?
So, what can we learn about the Democratic Party and their goals? What are they accomplishing? How do the leaders face their challenges? What goals do they have, what resources do they have to advance their agenda?
What did California Democratic Party Secretary Daraka Larimore share at the Convention?
What can we learn from him?
"In November, young people are going to be voting for the first time in their lives."
The Democratic Party has understood the keen need to reach out to young voters.
Anyone paying close attention to his convention address will notice the "Nurses4Bernie" lanyard.
Presumably, party leaders are not supposed to openly endorse candidates, for fear of alienating the base or activist members. Not Daraka.
Perhaps more leaders in the Republican Party should be open about their political preferences.
The Larimore-Hall talks about his first time voting: in 1994, and he was working for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Brown.
Notice again the power of branding. The Democratic Party works hard to connect with young voters as soon as possible. Bernie Sanders' campaign has networking events throughout the state of California, including registration parties. Incredible!
Of course, Daraka plays the Prop 187 card. The initiative was very controversial then. Pete Wilson relied on that measure in order to help out his campaign that year. In my view, there is nothing wrong with that direction, Illegal immigration was hurting the state of California then, and it's hurting the state even more now. He also mentioned affirmative action.
Interesting. Today, illegal immigration has gotten out of hand. Affirmative action, however, is a thing of the past. To this day, Republicans run on their opposition to college admissions based on race.
Daraka continued:
"That year, the Republicans had the wind at their backs. Proposition 187 was incredibly popular. It passed in almost every county in the state."
Yes, indeed it did. Republicans were also a popular alternative because the Democratic Party was mired in corruption. Check-kiting in Washington, plus an aggressive push for single-payer healthcare alienated conservative Democrats.
Voters across the country were furious with Bill Clinton and his liberal Democratic Congress. This down-ticker ire hurt Democrats all across the country, including California.
Larimore-Hall then imagined the panel of experts on the Brown Campaign:
"There is no way we can win this election if we do not compromise. If we don't change, if we don't adopt the Republican rhetoric about undocumented workers and their neighbors."
"Politics is not a sprint. It's a relay. We pass on to the next generation not only our victories, but our defeats."
Very telling point. Republicans have been thinking about winning elections. Do they win the culture? Do they consider the long-term impact of pursuing certain policies?
"We pass on our triumphs and our compromises."
Indeed we do. Pro-family forces have caved to the homosexual lobby too many times. First on civil unions, then homosexual adoptions, then marriage, and now the culture wars have invaded our intimacy privacy areas (the bathroom) and foundations of our culture (public education).
It's time to say "Enough!" and fight for our values, not compromise on them! Democrats have understood this movement.
"Thank God the Democratic Party had the vision to understand that the people most affected by Prop 187 couldn't even vote. They couldn't make political contributions. They were, in a very narrow sense, totally unhelpful for us to win an elections."
Notice that the Democrats were not thinking just about winning the next election. One has to wonder what was Pete Wilson's Plan B if--and finally when--a federal judge overthrew Prop 187? Did he plan on fighting that arrogant ruling? Did he intend to ensure that public benefits never went to illegals?
Or was the measure simply a political trope to ensure his reelection? Republicans need to fight for their values, and prepare a Plan B to ensure and enforce their vision should their first line of attack win in the short run, then suddenly lose.
"That God that the Democratic Party had the vision to do the stupid thing then."
Notice once again that the Democratic Party stuck to its agenda, however corrosive, corrupt, or destructive. Republicans need to adopt their stronghold mentality, rather than adapt and give in.
Larimore-Hall then mentioned Lyndon Baines Johnson, who signed off on the Civil Rights Act, predicting that Democrats would lose the South for a generation.
What LBJ failed to realize, however, is that a sterner vision of life and reality hold true in the South, beyond electoral turnout. Southern blacks are actually moving to the Republican Party in larger numbers because of Barack Obama's brazen disregard for liberty and biology.
"Politics is not a sprint."
California Republicans need to allow this truth to sink in. The policy victories which Republicans want to encourage will require more than flash-in-the-pan wins here and there. A movement to build up grassroots organizations, to encourage working parents and students to right for their rights and win, all of this is essential to lasting cultural as well as political victories.
"Of course, losing elections has consequences. When Republicans win, they damage the environment."
Now Dakara launches into "personalize, polarize, demonize".
For the record, Republicans do NOT damage the environment. Ironically enough, a Republican President signed into law the Environmental Protection Agency, one of the Democratic Party's favorite agencies!
"They take away the rights of women. They limit the right to vote. We know this. We have a moral obligation to win every time we can."
I wonder when Republican leaders will use the exact same invective against Democrats, because it actually applies to them. Democrats limit women's rights: to a good job, a good education, to expansion of opportunities for herself or her family. How about a woman's right to freedom of speech? Democrats have limited the rights of many to vote, precisely by permitting voter fraud.
"We also have a moral obligation to win right."
Oh the irony! Democrats are resorting to illegal actions and executive orders to impose a vision of the world which wars against reality, which the majority of Americans do NOT want.
"And look. It's not just about being able to make a speech years later and say we were on the right side of history."
That phrase "right side of history" dominates the secretary's speech. These appeals to the inevitable march of History is a Hegelian/Marxist concept, and ideology which implies to opponents that there is no point in fighting, because the march of oppressive government, the destruction of the family, the dissolution of nation states is inevitable.
Blacks in the South may have felt that Jim Crow was an inevitable part of life. Then the Southern Baptist Christian League fought back. And then there was Rosa Parks, who refused to move to the back of the bus. To her contemporaries, she was on the wrong side of history.
"This is also politics. Look at the Republican Party of California. It was so smart of them in the 90's to become the party of exclusion."
How is the Republican Party the party of exclusion? And what is being excluded? Some things needs to be excluded, like corruption, criminality, lawlessness.
"The impact that young voters have already had on this election is nothing short of inspiring and incredible."
Galvanize the young people! Get them to think the way you want them to think, and praise them when they do what you want. That's human nature! Democrats have understood that rallying voters and making an impact goes beyond rational argument.
"The party of hatred. The party of xenophobia."
Lies. Lies. Lies. Republicans are counter-acting these lies with more strength and effective outreach. The "race card" is so played out, it's turning into a joke, a punch-line for punching back at inane liberals.
"They rely on special elections to have a chance of being relevant in politic.."
For now, there is some truth to this assertion. Republicans need to put together a ground game where they win, whether during a Presidential, an off-year, or a special election. Then again, they should pay close attention to the victories of David Hadley and Catharine Baker, two Republicans in deep blue areas who have won and on pace to hold their seats this election year.
"You can win the sprint and lose the race if you don't look forward, if you don't look ahead. If you don't understand that people who can't help you today, or are too young to vote, or are not yet citizens are going to be the voters of tomorrow."
Vision. How true and how important, too.
"And that's why in this election, in 2016, when young voters are speaking so loudly, that they want boldness from their politicians, that they want clean elections."
Here, the Democratic Party begins to fail. They are working hard to cheat, to get illegal aliens to vote. They are looking for ways to edge out honest candidates with stuffed ballot boxes. This narrative is not getting enough attention. Disenfranchisement is becoming the norm in some inner cities.
"They want the same thing that Democrats have built for generations. They want the opportunity and the chance to enter and to stay in the Middle Class."
Yet in California, those Democratic policies are chasing young men and women out of prosperity and into poverty. Where are the opportunities for all Americans?
"To do that, we have to be as bold, as visionary as we were in the 1940's, as we were in the 1960's. Shame on us if we tell young voters that free college is too expensive or too much of a heavy lift"
Notice how the Democratic Party is looking ... backwards. Liberty is progressive. Less government and more individual opportunity is innovative, visionary, courageous. In truth, shame on Democrats for refusing to face reality, or for encouraging theft and redistribution of wealth. These arguments are morally vacuous.
"My challenge to the politicians and the elected officials of good people, of all people I respect and admire and look up to and am happy to work with.
"Keep an eye out for what today's Prop 187. It will be an inconvenience. It will be thing that your consultants say we can't touch.
"If we make the mistake today that Republicans made in the 1990's, we will not be the party of the future, but the party of the past.
"Maybe it's climate change.Maybe it's economic inequality, maybe it's clean elections,"
"If we make it wrong, we will lose for generations."
Final Reflection
Are Republicans willing to fight for issues which seem like loser issues initially?
On what issues are the consultant class telling us not to say anything? That we cannot fight on and win?
1. Marriage
2. Life
3. Second Amendment
4. Energy exploration and expansion
5. Immigration (enforcement, not amnesty)
Why are Republicans running away from issues where they currently stand on the right side of the facts, of the law, and of our moral universe?
Notice that Daraka Larimore-Hall speaks about good and evil in terms of numbers. How many people think that this or that issue is right or wrong?
Republicans can face issues from a perspective of helping people to see that this or that issue is correct. They have a responsibility not just of making the case, but showing that they care.
Now, regarding those three issues ...
1.Climate change -- the scientific consensus is not as concentrated as once believed. In fact, the pure bunkum has been exposed as alarmism and nothing more.
When it comes to clean elections, Democrats are a rank failure. Even now, partisan Democrats have watched party leaders suppress the will of convention delegates. The superdelegate process is essential corrupt, too.
How many more elections are going to be stolen before people start realizing that their franchise does not count? Democratic primary voters are getting tired of it.
As for economic inequality, let's never ignore the fact that Democrats have expanded the amount of poverty. Democrats have been in charge of California governance for the past twenty years, and with what to show for it?
What is the long-term vision for California Republicans? How can we capitalize on issues which Democrats are inherently unable to take on?
