What the Democrats Missed at the Populist Revolution By Thomas Frank

[joelogan]

It is almost a ritual in Washington: The Democrats are handed some stunning defeat—losing Congress, losing the presidency, losing Congress some more—and the powerful Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) holds court, comes to a verdict, and announces that the Democrats in question have lost because they foolishly clung to the party’s old, liberal, thirties identity. They remained friendly with organized labor. They didn’t understand the inevitability of free trade or the magic of the New Economy or the rise of the “wired worker.” They failed to reach out to the “center.” Make that the “vital center,” a favorite DLC term that I’ll bet Arthur Schlesinger Jr. regrets having coined.

...

The DLC seemed to get their way with the Kerry campaign. They got a moderate Democrat who had supported the DLC’s beloved NAFTA; who seemed to be tough on defense issues; who steered clear of “villainizing” corporate America even when such treatment was richly deserved; who dutifully muted the populist voice of his running mate; and who did so much reaching out to the center that he had little vitality left for his base. The CEO was in love. “Much to the chagrin of Republican strategists,” From claimed in a starstruck essay in August, “Kerry and Edwards are New Democrat stalwarts.”
the Kerry campaign’s corpse.

...

The reason for this is simple: GOP leaders know that Democrats have left this huge part of the electorate with nowhere else to go. The challenge for Democrats is to provide them that place. They need to counter the sham populist themes of Republican culture warfare with real populism—and, yes, with “villainization” of this country’s real elite. In 2004, the Democratic ticket enjoyed every advantage the DLC could have hoped for. Its economic proposals were tailored to please investors and entrepreneurs. It waxed moderate-to-right on trade policy. The Democrats even kept pace with the GOP in fund-raising and ad buys.
...
But the Kerry team pulled even with the Republicans on the wrong racetrack. In a political system like ours, there are only two natural ideological positions to choose from: money and numbers. When one party has for a century been known as the organ of business, the other cannot simply decide one day to yell “me too” and hope to succeed. Its only realistic choice is to work to counter the influence of money with the power of the ballot, the power of the people. This means advocating elementary measures of economic fairness, so that voters in deindustrialized swing states can recognize a meaningful difference between the two parties. This means reclaiming the Democrats’ powerful historical identity as the champion of the common American. And this means, most of all, relinquishing the cynical opportunism of the DLC, which has now led to the worst debacle of Al From’s advice-giving lifetime.

from:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/2004race/10354/index.html


Time for the Democratic party to move left, economically? What does that mean?

[sally343434]

1. This is the same criticism many have been making for years

Let's face it. In politics, Nixon was to the left of Clinton. The DLC has brought us a democratic party leadership whose idea of competing is the motto, "We're just like the republicans, only less racist." And ... that's it! It's hardly a winning strategy.

[joelogan]

2. This seems clear to me

No one else here seems to know this, though.

[Cat Atomic]

3. I think alot of people are aware of it.

But it's an almost unmentionable topic on television and in the mainstream press.

When those TV pundits talk about how the Democratic Party needs to "find a new strategy", they invariable list 5-10 ways the Democrats should become more Republican. Same with the DLC. They're half right. The Dems need a new strategy, but it's a populist one. They'll resist that as long as possible though. There isn't much money in real populism.

I'm back to voting Green, myself. I won't hold my nose for another Dem candidate, ever. If there's a good one I'll vote for them, but no more Clinton-esqu, Bush-lite crap.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The DLC "loses" another to their siblings in the RNC.

Better that than losing to those damned lefties like Kucinich, Sharpton, Dean or even Clark.

Their grovel to the right strategy rests solely only Clinton's victories which, in reality, were caused by Ross Perot and the repugs nomination of a "moderate" Bob Dole, which soured their base.

They continue to move the party to the right and many here continue to agree that abandoning the weakest members of our society is the "only way to win" by being "practical" about such things as peace, women's rights, affirmative action, gay rights, welfare, universal health care, the environment, etc.

Welcome to the new "Big Tent" party.

[finecraft]

5. This is what it means to me

All Bush talks about is our "ownership and entrepreneurial society" where everyone will own their own health care, retirement accounts and businesses. I work in economic development and here is the reality: Our new entrepreneurs are people that used to have a job that paid o.k. wages, were covered under a group health care policy their company offered, had social security contributions deducted from their checks, and if they were lucky were enrolled in their company's 401K or private pension plan. When the company they worked for went out of business or moved their operations overseas, these people were now unemployed. After looking for employment for 6 months or more and not finding any, these people need to do something, so they decide to put an ad in the paper and offer a laundry service that they run from their homes. Or they will open a lawn care business. Or they will open a baby-sitting service or home daycare. Sometimes they will do all three, just to make ends meet. What do we call these people? Well, Bush calls them our "new entrepreneurs"! They now own their own businesses, own their own health care because they now pay full charge for any health care related expenses they incur without benefit of any co-pays or reduced costs because they no longer belong to a health care group, and since a majority of these micro-development "business start-ups" deal in cash transactions only and never file any business tax forms, they have to think about putting away money for their retirement because they no longer pay into the social security system or have a 401K or pension plan. Isn't it grand being one of the "New entrepreneurs"!
Are these people better off owning their own business, health care and retirement? Hell No! Will these people ever hire any new employees? Highly doubtful. This is the reality of Bush's new entrepreneurs and these are the people we need to speak to.

[meow2u3]

6. We need to return to our working-class, populist roots

and express a message that we're the party that stands up to the boss--not for the boss!

[DemCam]

7. First we need to define how the "working class' has changed .

I haven't researched this, but it certainly looks like the "working class" has lost their jobs to outsourcing...hence the weakening of the unions.

The unions now seem to be government employees, teachers, construction workers like IBEW, etc. Admittedly, I don't live in a heavy industrial state...but isn't that what Michael Moore has been talking about for years?

The "working class" seems to be the working poor these days...and so many of them are Dittoheads.

[Eric J in MN]

9. DemCam - did you vote on an electronic voting machine?

I read about people choosing Kerry in New Mexico and getting Bush on the confirmation screen.

What was your voting experience?

[Blue Wally]

10. United Auto Workers

The UAW is still strong in what is left of the US auto industry. They still have great wages, pensions, and healthcare (including dental and pharmacy). Of course DUers won't support them because they like buying foreign made cars.

[finecraft]

11. You're right, the working class is the working poor

They feel betrayed because they lost the good jobs they had, through no fault of their own. It's corporate greed. How can we compete when the Chinese will work for less than $2.00 per day? Corporations have no loyalty, other than to their bottom lines. But how does the right portray this? They say the corporations have to seek a more "friendly" business atmosphere because they are being "punished" by our government, for the unfair tax burdens they have and the heavy regulations our government imposes on them. So who becomes the bad guy to those that have lost their jobs? That's right...the evil government, not the greedy corporations. And what does the right stand for? Less government. It's sickening.

[Eric J in MN]

8. It means we should do more about outsourcing than

repealing a tax-break.

We should end govt. contracts to outsourcing companies.

More progressive taxation, as well.