Elite-Driven Succession

American Democrats have chosen elective monarchy as a ruling methodology.

Last night at a pre-election rally in New York City, a chant of “DSA! DSA! DSA!” (for the Democratic Socialists of America) rang out – notably absent were chants of “USA! USA! USA!”

All the Democrat leadership of New York joined in the chants.

Some on our side have proposed that Mamdani winning would be sauce for the gander and New York would learn its lesson – but it won’t because unless NYC is burned to the ground by roving squads of militant Muslims, Democrats will redefine everything to claim success.

That’s why we still have Bernie, AOC, and the entire anti-American “squad”, a group of people who actively work against capitalism and the American Constitution.

The leadership is the problem for Democrats – and for the rest of America - because the vacuum of reasonable adults in that party has abdicated their leadership to the radicals, the pro-Islamists, the imported anti-Americans, the stupid, and the clinically insane. The failure to constrain the radical impulses in the Democrat Party has established the base for their future – and in some ways, ours too.

Which made me think of the question: What would it look like if Democrats were able to take complete power?

When I look at how political leaders are chosen these days, I struggle with how to describe it. The closest I can come on the Democrat side is the elite-driven succession of elective monarchy. How they got Kackling Kamala is a pretty good example of what could be in store for America if Democrats return to power.

Kamala Harris’s ascent to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2024 after Joe Biden’s withdrawal on July 21 parallels the machinations of William “Boss” Tweed and his Tammany Hall machine in 19th-century New York City. Both reflect an “elective monarchy,” where nominal elections mask elite control, prioritizing party continuity over voter choice.

Harris’s uncontested selection unfolded swiftly and without primary competition. Post-Biden’s endorsement, she amassed endorsements from over 3,900 delegates - many still pledged to Biden - in mere days, securing presumptive status by July 22 and official nomination via virtual roll call on August 5. Rivals like Governors Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom stepped aside, deterred by tight DNC deadlines and Harris’s control of Biden’s $91 million campaign funds under federal rules.

Critics called it a “coronation,” noting 14 million primary votes for Biden were sidelined, echoing complaints of undemocratic “insiderism.” While the process allegedly assured Democratic unity amid Biden’s post-debate struggles, the process was akin to a monarch’s heir apparent being positioned for the throne.

Tammany Hall, under Tweed’s control in the 1860s, was New York’s Democratic powerhouse, blending immigrant aid with corruption. As “Grand Sachem,” Tweed dictated nominations, elections, and patronage, rigging ballots, bribing officials, and inflating contracts - like a $13 million courthouse that cost $3 million - to siphon millions. His “Tweed Ring” of allies ensured loyalty through jobs for voters and kickbacks for cronies. Tweed’s power was “elective” in name only; he famously said, “The ballots made no result; the counters made the result.” His machine anointed successors like John Kelly, bypassing public input.

The elective monarchy concept, seen in systems like the Holy Roman Empire or Venice’s doge elections, describes rule where elites “elect” a leader from a pre-vetted pool, feigning consent while entrenching power. Tammany embodied this: Tweed’s cabal picked candidates in backrooms, akin to papal conclaves, subverting republican ideals. Harris’s path mirrors it - DNC elites, via delegate endorsements and procedural barriers, “elected” her in a crisis, avoiding broader primaries to anoint Biden’s heir.

Differences exist but the outcome is the same.

Tweed’s era relied on fraud and violence; Harris’s on legal maneuvering and fundraising ($310 million in July 2024 alone). Tammany exploited immigrants for votes, while 2024 Democrats rallied base enthusiasm. Tweed fell to exposés by Thomas Nast and The New York Times; Harris faced light criticism but no legal fallout, her nomination arguably driving historic turnout as the first woman of color atop a major ticket.

Both cases expose democracy’s susceptibility to elite control. Harris’s elevation, like Tweed’s rigged reigns, shows how parties can act as elective monarchies - formal votes masking oligarchic decisions. Such parallels highlight risks to voter trust, underscoring the need for reforms to ensure genuine democratic contestation.

The Democrat Party is not what it was when I was growing up. My family always voted for Democrats – but these were conservative Democrats. These days, it is easier to find the complete skeleton of a new dinosaur than a conservative Democrat. Today’s Democrats are the party of true Nazism (national socialism) and Islamic theocracy – and they see no conflicts because they both share the same goals.