This formula applies to the modern day Democratic party and its representatives in a number of ways. The first is to examine the class that this party now represents in the legislative arena. Contrary to the narrative the Democratic party peddles about itself, since the neoliberal turn of the 1980’s, the party has reconfigured itself in this new political climate to represent the progessive Big Bourgeoisie. This class is the “progressive” forces of a millionaire and billionaire class that is racially diverse and gender mixed that has emerged since the anti-racist and feminist policies of liberation passed in the 1960’s. Typically these Big Bourgeoisie are over-represented in industries like tech, as opposed to the regressive majority white male Big Bourgeoisie found in industries like oil and finance. Since the neoliberal turn and the election of Clinton, the Democratic party has represented first and foremost the interests of this particular class of individuals. A quick outline of the legislative policy agenda of Democrats since the 1980’s will suffice to represent this point.

The Democratic party is ostensibly the party of the poor and oppressed, yet under Clinton passed regressive legislation in the form of an overly punitive crime bill that introduced concepts like the three strikes law, where offenders caught with a negligible amount of weed could be jailed for life, and an aggressively named “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act” that slashed welfare programs for the impoverished, combatted the mythical “welfare queens” of Clinton’s ire, and created a budget surplus in the name of “fiscal responsibility” who's benefits went directly into the hands of the aforementioned progressive Big Bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, Clinton was able to push through a repeal of the much hated Glass-Steagall Act, which set up a firewall between investment banks and consumer banks after the Great Depression. This repeal resulted in massive profits for the financial industry and directly preconfigured the 2008 financial crisis, but provided massive windfall to the Big Bourgeoisie, both progressive and regressive aspects. Barack Obama largely continued this line, passing a massive bailout that went directly into banks’ pockets, oversaw the expansion of quantitative easing to prop up the stock market and drive it to ever increasing profits as it became more and more disconnected from the experience of the average American worker, and passed healthcare reform that did not include a public option but did include a regressive tax that punished the poor for not having healthcare, pushing them to take out policies with the healthcare companies that made up a large part of the Democratic donor base. Likewise, his decision to not regulate the tech industry at all, and allowing companies like Facebook and Twitter to make a profit off the social labour of its users while Google realized its profits from selling the data created and owned by its users to advertisers, resulted in soaring tech profits and valuations that directly increased the net worth of the progressive Big Bourgeoisie. The combination of all these policies is directly beneficial to the wellbeing of the progressive Big Bourgeoisie, with little benefit to those outside that particular class.

That said, the social policies of the Democrats since the neoliberal turn have indeed brought liberation to individuals outside of the Big Bourgeoisie. From Clinton’s championing of abortion and feminist policies in the workplace to Obama’s progressive racial policies and eventual embrace of gay marriage, the Democratic party has indeed pushed forward social issues that have benefit a large part of the United States. However, these social policies are pushed within the context of the liberation of the progressive Big Bourgeoisie. This portion of the bourgeoisie is distinguished from the rest by its composition of individuals beyond the typical white male. Women, LGBT folks, and people of color are all members of this progressive Big Bourgeoisie, and therefore the conditions of their liberation are indeed the progressive social policies pursued by these Democratic lawmakers. Notice that abortion is made legal and championed, but access to those abortions is not materially expanded. Same with affirmative action racial policies, gender reassignment surgeries, and maternity leave: these policies are all made possible, but only if one has the means to access them. The Democratic party, because it represents the rich, generalizes the particular conditions of that class’s liberation as the universal conditions of liberation for all. Hence “Medicare, for all those who want it.” Anything outside the option of liberation is ignored, because the Democrats only represent those who can seize that option with their wealth.