The DLC sowing division within the Democratic ranks???

[IrateCitizen]

This article gives, I believe, an excellent analysis of the empty arguments given by Messrs From and Reed. From the location of their latest editorial (the Wall Street Journal, a notoriously conservative outlet) to the empty historical platitudes within (citing FDR, Truman, JFK as examples of their policies of privatization and economic neoliberalism), Mr. Borosage deconstructs their aversion to anything resembling progressivism or populism -- and in the process shows them for the snake oil salesmen that many of us believe they are.

Enjoy!!!

DLC Division

Robert Borosage is Co-Director of the Campaign For America's Future, and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.


The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has made its way by sowing division in the Democratic party. So it comes as no surprise that on July 2, its founder Al From and new president Bruce Reed ventured yet again into the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal to warn its readers of the perils of a liberal Democratic presidential nominee. Given its location and its platitudes, the article should be viewed more as a fundraising pitch to the DLC’s corporate sponsors than a serious political analysis.

From and Reed argue that Democrats can win only if they "seize the vital center, not veer left." By definition, a winner of an election has forged a coalition that represents the center, if that is defined as the group with the most votes. The question, of course, is what is the content of that "center" -- that is the contested terrain.

From and Reed then set up their proverbial straw men. They contrast a candidate that lives up to the best Democratic traditions: "Jackson's belief in equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none; Roosevelt's passion for reform; Truman's tough-minded internationalism; Kennedy's civic obligation; Mr. Clinton's insistence that opportunity and responsibility go hand in hand. A Democrat in that tradition who is not afraid to use U.S. power in dangerous times; who wants to reform government, not just expand it; and who offers a plan to grow the economy and increase middle-class incomes, not the middle-class tax burden can beat Mr. Bush." They then presume that a liberal Democrat would fail to meet these standards -- that he or she would, for instance, fail to overcome doubts about security and would want to "expand government, not reform it."

What candidate wouldn’t sign up for the first option? Certainly every Democratic candidate in the race -- from Joe Lieberman to Al Sharpton -- would. Equal opportunity, reform, tough minded internationalism, civic obligation, opportunity and responsibility -- all Democratic politicians pay tribute to those values. So what’s the point?

What From and Reed are doing is assuring corporate sponsors that they will continue the good fight against advocates of expansive government, fair trade, social liberalism and, shudder, anti-war sentiments inside the Democratic Party. It is a sign of their muddle that they seek to send that signal in an article emptied of content.

READ THE REST HERE

[unfrigginreal]

1. Damn shame you can't find a better target on a day like today! nt

[ima_sinnic]

2. excellent analysis!

The DLC is becoming completely irrelevant and out of touch.

[CWebster]

3. Somewhere in there,

They lost the entire point and purpose of the Democratic party.

Like Clinton's claim after the 2002 elections--"the party needs new ideas, it doesn't need to move Left". What's that supposed to mean? Thanks Bill, the Right does a good enough job on it's own of smearing the Left. Then there was his support for the war, and everybody toddled along behind, along with Tony Blair, and now their own position is weakened by triangulating with the Junta. Now he is making noises about the "McMedia"--well, thanks again, Bill, for your New Democrat(!)policy on deregulating the industry with the telecommunications act.

And yet, people still salute him in the same way folks don't like to see stains on the boy, who would be king, George.

As long as they have the Clintons to put a presentable political face on it all...

[IrateCitizen]

7. Like the thread yesterday regarding his "speaking out" on McMedia

A few posters weighed in with comments along the lines of, "The Big Dog gets it right again! I love the Big Dog!"

Ummmmm... do these people have ANY memory whatsoever? There's a big difference between rhetoric and action. That was always my biggest gripe with Clinton. He was fantastic on the rhetorical side -- but when it came to action, his talk was much bolder than his walk.

[jos]

9. Agree with both of you

Too many on DU fall for Clinton's bullshit. He's not the "big dog." He is, and always has been, a corporate "lap dog."

[unfrigginreal]

10. Let's Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face

You got something against the Big Dog...then you're WARPED! Only the best President in YOUR and my lifetime! Jeesh!!! I thought that we'd have to worry about the right wing!

[IrateCitizen]

11. I'm warped? Thanks for the persuasive argument. You've convinced me.

:eyes:

FACT: Bill Clinton was a booster of the 1996 Telecommunications Bill, the bill that helped a few radio titans take over the dials in every major market. It also helped spur the recent vote by the FCC in favor of deregulation.

FACT: At the time that Clinton boosted the bill, the DNC (led by corporate bag-man Terry McAuliffe) was raking in big donations from the telecommunications industry.

Now, if the irony is lost on you for Clinton speaking out against media deregulation NOW, considering his past support of it and the effects it had, I really don't know what to say. It's just that some of us here like to look beyond the grand rhetoric of the "Big Dog" and instead look at what he actually went to the mat for. And, unfortunately, a good deal of it leaves much to be desired.

Bill Clinton was a consummate politician -- probably the most charismatic leader we've had since JFK. But he was far from infallible, and many of the policies that he actually supported (welfare "reform", NAFTA, escalation of the drug war, etc.) will cause damage for years to come.

Next time, you need to come with a little more to support your argument than telling someone they're "warped". That kind of baseless rhetoric might work in GDF, but thing move a little bit slower and more thoughtfully in Editorials. ;-)

[jos]

12. Amen!

But I think you're wasting your breath on these Clinton zombies. They're still spellbound by the charisma, and can't see the damage he did to the progressive agenda and the Democratic party.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Clinton is also responsible for Plan Colombia

Big Dog gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity, but he could have been a great President had he stood on principle on more than one occasion instead of cavorting with his corporate friends.

The Left has always been ambivalent about Clinton, as it is about Hillary's political ambitions. I am ambivalent too, but as I did with Big Dog, I would have little trouble supporting Hillary for higher office.

Big Dog had flaws, many in fact, but we sure loved him!

[Eloriel]

17. Actually, JFK was the best president in MY lifetime

Clinton had his moments and did some great work. And for a long time after Bush took office, I really wanted him back, bad. (Actually, I wanted my country back!)

But he wasn't the most progressive President we've ever had. And he did some damage, too.

Eloriel

[DrGonzoLives]

4. Right on

Although I fail to see why the left and the center have to be two separate entities. I think a lot of the economic issues that the Democrats will (hopefully) be running on can appeal to everyone, especially if the economy goes into the shitter a little more.

[IrateCitizen]

5. They DON'T have to be separate entities, Doc.

That is the problem with the DLC. Somehow, they have come to the conclusion that "LEFT=BAD" while "MUSHY-MUDDLED CENTER=GOOD".

There are two innate flaws in their approach, IMHO. One is that the left and center can and should cooperate toward common goals. The left needs the center and the center needs the left, because their only other option right now is the right wing, and the right doesn't really give a shit about the center, except in words alone.

The second flaw is that the center needs to be mushy in order to win. God forbid you actually take a principled stand against your opponent! Such a strategy isn't "centrist" -- it's "doomed". There is no reason that centrists and moderates cannot have a little bit of fire and conviction with their approach, because that fire and conviction is what sells to people. Just look at how the RW has won elections with their crackpot ideas. They may be crackpot ideas, but they're convinced of them -- and people respond. For an example closer to home, look at Howard Dean. He's a total centrist, but he's getting both the left and moderates fired up with his message, because he's passionate about it -- and makes them feel as if they are a valuable part of the process again.

Messrs From and Reed want nothing to do with empowering people. All they care about is their corporate sponsors -- as evidenced by the message and LOCATION of their latest editorial.

[DrGonzoLives]

8. I agree

and like I hinted at, I think the economy can be that thing that unites them, as well as the emerging stories in MAINSTREAM MEDIA that Bush lied about WMD's and is putting a lid on 9/11 investigations. It would be really, really easy to say that "That priviliged son-of-a-bitch sent our kids to die for no reason!"

One wonders; if the goal is to raise money for campaigns, what is the point in torpedoing those campaigns before they get off the ground?

[Dhalgren]

6. The DLC blows.

The best way a DEmocratic candidate can make him/herself electable is to run away from the DLC.

[KG]

13. it's becoming increasing clear that the DLC

has been a disaster for the dem party.

[IrateCitizen]

14. As wrongheaded as I think they are CURRENTLY...

... the DID serve a purpose once.

The Democratic Party of the late 1970's and 1980's was a party adrift. Much of the well-intentioned liberalism of the 1960's had grown stale. The party had become complacent and removed in many ways -- lending credence to the "ivory tower intellectual" critique of liberalism by movement conservatives.

The DLC, in its outset, was about injecting new ideas into the party and forging new alliances. Whether these ideas and alliances were good or bad was not the issue then -- the main issue was that they were forcing the debate of these ideas and alliances. Such a move could only help to strengthen the party and its message, in the long run.

The main problem with the DLC, IMHO, was Bill Clinton. I really think that the view by DLC stalwarts like Al From and Bruce Reed that the Clinton years somehow validated their approach as the correct one is one of the biggest political miscalculations in history -- one that is doing grave harm to the Democratic Party. This is not a direct knock against Clinton, but rather the summation of several forces that came together at the same time.

The main force behind the success of the Clinton Presidency was not the "New Democrat" approach of the DLC, but rather three things. First was a technologically-driven speculative stock boom that was a major factor in bringing the economy out of recession (even if much of the recovery was based on speculation, and unsustainable in the long run). The Clinton administration embraced this speculative bubble, giving priority to keeping Wall St. investors and traders happy -- even if it was at the expense of the long-term health of the working and middle class, as we are now seeing (even if it is accelerated by the disastrous Bush administration economic policies).

Second was the electoral politics at play. Bill Clinton received far less votes in 1992 than Al Gore did in 2000. The primary reason he won, IMO, was the involvement of Ross Perot in the election. Perot took many votes from GHW Bush that would have not found their way to Clinton in a two-way race. If Perot had not been in the race, I don't think it is nearly as likely that Clinton would have won. Then, in 1996, it must be acknowledged that Bob Dole was just a HORRIBLE Presidential candidate. For all of those on our side who rail about the ineffective candidacies of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis -- I would actually put Dole ahead of all of them in sheer ineptitude at a Presidential level. And Perot was back that year as well, sucking off almost 10% of the popular vote, much of which would have been more likely to swing to the Republicans than the Democrats.

Third was Clinton's charisma. The guy could sell ice to an eskimo, for crying out loud. His charm and persuasiveness was perhaps his greatest asset, and key to his popularity as a President. It is especially evident on these boards, as many of our fellow posters seem to revere the "Big Dog" as being as infallible as our opponents on the right admire "Saint Ronnie".

The main problem with the DLC now is that they have become an organization more interested in holding onto their own political power than to further the party as a whole or promote any kind of broad principle. Their only driving principle, these days, is the accumulation of electoral power at the expense of grassroots empowerment. They have misinterpreted the success of Bill Clinton, much of which was based on the reasons I cited above, as a mandate to their approach as the only viable one.

If they were interested in bringing an honest dialogue to the table (much as Progressive Majority and the Progressive Caucus seem to be), then I would not view them as a problem. But their outright hostility and dismissiveness to anything resembling grassroots empowerment or populism is destructive to the party as a whole, and therefore must be countered at every opportunity.

As a "party of the people", we should be seeking ways of getting people MORE involved in politics, not shutting them out to pursue corporate contributors, as the DLC now seems to advise. Milquetoast, muddle-headed centrism is not a viable strategy toward defeating an organized, ruthless right-wing assault, IMHO.

[KG]

15. yes, it's becoming increasingly clear that

clinton was a disaster for the democratic party.

and the nader whiners can scream their fool heads off all they want, but clintons affair w/ lewinski cost al gore a walk-off victory in 2k.

[jos]

16. Exactly

No blow jobs. No Bush.

[Eloriel]

18. Excellent analysis

And naturally I agree 100%. ;-)

Eloriel

[hayu_lol]

19. After 3 years of grassroots activism, the DLC finally had to come up ...

for air. When they did, they found that their only friends in the party are themselves. For 3 years, instead of offering leadership to a party adrift, they had cocktail parties and convinced themselves that they were all that counted. And now, they are alone and feeling the pressure.
The DLC couldnt lead a thirsty horse to water...and wouldnt have the slightest idea of how to get that horse to drink. Thanks From and Reed...now resign and join others on the ashbins of history.
The grassroots can now lead ourselves via the internet. We dont need the DLC.

[Tinoire]

20. My sentiments exactly! n/t

[scottxyz]

21. I totally agree

n/t

[PATRICK]

23. DLC not monolithic

In fact, the outcome of their tailbiting pique is that the LEADERSHIP(From and Reed) and their beltway clique surrounding Lieberman are causing dissension in DLC ranks- as evidenced by a letter to Tom Paine.com. Whittling away at themselves they are bleeding over the other party ranks in an embarassing, attention getting fashion.

Their "leaders" seem to be the only ones that don't get the ludicrous, destructive untimeliness of turf wars. Their careers are likely over whether they make a peep or not since the party direction will veer from their mantle under the winner(if we get one) or raging grass roots betrayed by the Washington elite..

There has been some great confusion as to WHO epitomizes or represents the DLC. It is not the Federalist Society after all, and to work under the bland big blanket they have all stripes of Dems that can never be "tamed" or disguised for long. Nor is it the DNC except in some unfortunate strategy choices and wearing the same fashionable blinders. Nor has it united or dominated the party, seeming on the big scene more content to whine and do damage to the party than to vocalize support for a candidate. That would "alarm" the swing voters who presumably don't hear the loudly broadcast admonitions to "activists" to deactivate. And I am glad to hear echos of a point I made long ago about Cllinton being his own success story- not a formula one model for the DLC philoosophy. STRONG professional leadership, charism and heart and soul fighters are what win elections- unless you lie, cheat, and steal. Redefining the issues is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Go right ahead. Don't expect us to hold the lifeboats.

So thankfully we can limit our anger at the anointed ones who ill serve a society with some good ideas and new successess, new ideas, new contacts. Get them booted out enthusiastically. Some state parties need overhauling. It will NOT be all Dean progressives and raging peaceniks who will McGovernize the party but Democrats of all types who want a party that is real and wins. Whatever they fear they are looking the wrong way- and they are grown few indeed.

This is not the only national organization ill led, or hijacked, that no longer speak for the masses that once lay back and trusted them to represent their interests. With horror we see failure after after failure of goony, loony, self-centered, querulous, muted impotence at the top. It is time for everyone to participate and exercise oversight, accountability- and democracy and become more of an America than we ever were.

[Ardee]

24. Gotta kick this thread

if only to keep it high on the board while the DLC allies here marshal their responses.........actually I believe they are ignoring it hoping it just goes aways quietly........

If something is not done to change the current leadership of the DLC and the party itself, or at least alter its direction, we are doomed to another four years of Bush, even, imo, if his name turns out to be Dean or Lieberman or Gephardt. (Il duck and cover now)

[KG]

26. they won't show. RD

too busy hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing over ralph in GD.

[rbnyc]

25. kick

:kick: