Delaware's Long-Standing Conservative Organization
VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1
INSIGHTS
Distributed quarterly by mail and email, the Conservative Caucus of Delaware's newsletter contains relevant information and insights from noted leaders, authoritative stakeholders and like-minded members who demonstrate their passion for the truths we hold dear by putting pen to paper!
Delaware's Apathy Echoes Soviet-Era Civic Numbness
Political apathy does not emerge overnight; it is cultivated. It grows in the empty spaces where transparency should live and in the shadows created when power remains unchallenged for too long. While Delaware is not the Soviet Union, and no fair comparison would suggest such equivalence, there is an uncomfortable parallel worth examining: the psychology and patterns of public disengagement. The Soviet Union maintained control in part because its citizens, worn down by hopelessness and conditioned by a belief that nothing they did mattered, stopped expecting accountability. Today, Delaware faces its own version of civic numbness, and it is enabling a governing structure that has drifted toward soft authoritarianism.
When the Public Stops Paying Attention, Power Consolidates
In the Soviet Union, totalitarian power thrived because the public believed resistance was useless. The system was opaque, self-protecting, and dismissive of public input. Once people accepted that the government would do whatever it wanted, regardless of public opinion, participation collapsed. Delaware is obviously a democracy, but it is a state where single-party dominance has lasted for decades, and the governing class behaves with similar immunity to consequence.
The General Assembly is rarely seriously challenged. Major decisions, from Edgemoor Port Expansion to land use to environmental policy, occur with minimal public scrutiny. Budgets pass quietly. Controversial legislation is pushed through late at night or during compressed sessions. And many Delawareans, not out of fear, but out of frustration, have stopped watching. Apathy becomes a lubricant for concentrated power. When citizens disengage, governing bodies become bolder in sidelining dissent and shaping policy without public oversight. A system does not need to be totalitarian to mimic certain habits of one.
Opacity and Unaccountability:
The Fertile Ground for Apathy
One of the defining features of Soviet governance was its secrecy. Citizens knew little about how decisions were made, and most information came pre-filtered through a state-controlled lens. Delaware’s government has created a modern, democratic version of that opacity. Reports arrive late. Committees meet during working hours when citizens cannot attend. Agencies refuse public records or delay them endlessly. Investigations, such as those involving the Diamond State Port Corporation, financial mismanagement, environmental violations, or questionable public-private partnerships, barely register in the mainstream news.
The result? Delawareans sense that something is wrong, that something is being hidden, but not enough people know the details. And because they cannot see the machinery of government clearly, they lose faith in influencing it. This is precisely the psychological landscape in which the Soviet system thrived: a population that feels it lacks both information and power.
The Illusion of Participation
In the Soviet Union, citizens technically “voted,” attended meetings, and filled seats at public events. But these rituals were hollow. Participation was symbolic, not meaningful. Delaware risks drifting toward a similar performative model. Yes, elections are held. Yes, hearings exist. Yes, public comment is technically allowed. But
how often does public input change an
outcome? Decisions feel pre-determined. Deals feel negotiated behind closed doors. Community concerns, whether about schools, ports, crime, housing, or environmental impacts, are politely acknowledged and then ignored. When participation becomes symbolic, citizens sense they are being humored, not heard. And when people believe their voice doesn’t matter, they do what Soviet citizens did: they retreat into private life and avoid the political arena entirely. This civic withdrawal is not accidental; it benefits those in power.
Political Theater Masquerading as Engagement
Modern authoritarianism rarely announces itself openly. Instead, it hides behind gestures, meetings without substance, votes without consequence, and public events designed to project responsiveness while avoiding accountability.
In Delaware, this pattern is increasingly visible. Sen. Ray Seigfried (D. 5th) and Rep. Eric Morrison (D. 27th) regularly point to town halls as evidence of public engagement. Yet these events function less as forums for education or genuine dialogue and more as opportunities to “show face.” They are tightly managed, limited in scope, and structured to avoid hard questions. Information flows in one direction. The public is present, but participation is shallow. Like the staged civic rituals of the Soviet era, these gatherings create the appearance of responsiveness without the substance of it. This same performative governance was evident when the New Castle County Council voted 7–6 against conducting a separate, formal audit of the controversial property reassessment by Tyler Technologies. The narrow margin was portrayed as evidence of serious consideration, even courage. In reality, it accomplished nothing. The vote allowed council members to claim they “tried” while ensuring no real accountability followed. This was political gesturing at its finest: close enough to look meaningful but ultimately preserving the status quo.
The Diamond State Port Corporation (DSPC) has taken this strategy even further. The DSPC held what it labeled a “community meeting” regarding the Edgemoor Port Expansion, but failed to properly advertise it to the broader public. Instead, the room was filled with International Longshoremen’s Association members and supporters. Predictably, no hard questions were asked. No critical voices were allowed to ask the hard questions. The event functioned not as a community forum, but as a carefully staged pep rally for a project that is flawed. This is not engagement. It is choreography.
When public institutions control who is invited, what questions are allowed, and how information is presented, participation becomes symbolic. Citizens are reduced to props. The outcome is preordained, and the process exists only to legitimize it after the fact. Perhaps most telling is the response from Delaware’s Secretary of State, who dismissed public concern by claiming there is too much “disinformation” circulating. That assertion directly contradicts the findings of the Delaware State Auditor, who has repeatedly pointed to the DSPC’s lack of transparency as a core problem. When officials blame citizens for being misinformed while withholding information themselves, they invert accountability entirely.
This tactic mirrors the Soviet playbook
The cumulative effect of these actions is devastating to civic confidence. Delawareans are not disengaging because they are lazy. They are disengaging because they recognize performative governance when they see it. They know when meetings are staged, votes are symbolic, and outcomes are decided in advance. And when citizens conclude that participation is merely decorative, they stop participating altogether. That is how apathy becomes entrenched, not through force, but through futility.
Fear in Delaware Is Not Physical, It’s Psychological
Soviet citizens feared punishment or state retaliation. Delawareans fear something different: futility.
People say things like:
-
“They’re going to do whatever they want.”
-
“My vote doesn’t matter.”
-
“It’s all rigged for insiders.”
-
“Nothing ever changes in Dover.”
This is not fear of a knock on the door at midnight. It is fear that the system is unresponsive and that political involvement is a waste of time. But apathy born of futility can be just as damaging to a democracy as apathy born of repression. When people feel hopeless, they step back. When they step back, the governing class steps forward and fills the space with its own priorities.
The Consequence: A Self-Reinforcing Cycle of Disengagement
Here is where Delaware’s situation most closely resembles the psychology of the Soviet experience: the cycle of apathy reinforcing power, and power reinforcing apathy. As people disengage, leaders face less scrutiny. As scrutiny decreases, leaders act with greater confidence and fewer restraints. As actions grow bolder, the public feels even more powerless. And as the sense of powerlessness deepens, civic participation drops further. This is the same cycle that allowed the Soviet system to maintain control for decades, even as corruption soared and public trust evaporated. The system survived because the people stopped believing reform was possible. Delaware cannot afford that mindset.
Breaking the Cycle: Delawareans Must Reclaim Their Authority
Apathy is not inevitable. It is a choice, often an unconscious one, but a choice nonetheless. And the only force stronger than entrenched political power is an engaged, informed electorate.
Delawareans must:
-
Demand transparency from every agency, board, and commission.
-
Question every rushed decision, every back-room deal, every rubber-stamped contract.
-
Show up at hearings, town halls, and public meetings, even when the system tries to make participation inconvenient.
-
Replace resignation with expectation, and expectation with action.
The Soviet Union collapsed when its citizens finally reached a breaking point and demanded accountability. Delaware does not need revolution, but it desperately needs awakening. Because the greatest danger to any democracy is not the people in power, it is the people who have stopped paying attention. ■
Send us an email to learn more, members receive the printed quarterly newsletter; subscribers and visitors to the website receive one or two selected articles from the newsletter. Membership is only $25.00 a year - To Join simply click here! Thank you!