Why Does the DLC Annoy You?

[devarsi]

Is it because of policy, or politics? In other words, do you feel that they are too centrist/conservative, or do you just resent the way they have kissed GW's A55?

Just curious...

[ulysses]

1. policy and politics

Al From kisses Bush's ass both as a matter of political gain and a matter of principle advancement.

[w4rma]

2. Here's my major problem with the DLC

The DLC is pandering to the largest corporations in the country and is not looking at small buisnesses. The effects of this are seen in that it is becoming harder and harder to start up a successful buisness in this country while the huge entrenched buisnesses cannot do anything bad enough to go out of buisness (note Enron is still in buisness).

I do not see the DLC as supporting of buisness in general. I see the DLC as supportive of the specific mega-corps that are donating to the DLC (and also seem to be big donors to the Republican Party).

Also, I think that the DLC has been actively preventing the Democratic Party from taking positions that they need to take to get the small donations that Dean is receiving right now. I don't *think* that it is sabatoge, I think that it is just that they support these specific mega-corps first and the Democratic Party second.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. The DLC with their economic policies

have contributed to the concentration of wealth by supporting an entirely market driven version of America.This removes power from the people and makes it far less likely that government or any other government in which we interfere will likely become a true democracy but a plutocracy. Since that is closer to fascism than democracy, the DLC should NOT wear the name DEMOCRATIC since they simply play lipservice to a set of platforms on which the party has survived.

[Eloriel]

18. Yes, and let's put this into perspective

There've been some excellent answers in this thread. I'm sorta just picking yours to bounce my remark off -- could've been attached to several others as well.

In this country, there are 3 major power centers: The People (everyday, common citizens), The Wealthy and Corporations, and Government.

Repugs have always stood up for the Wealthy and Corporations, at a disadvantage to The People, by definition in a capitalist society.

Democrats have in the past mostly stood for The People -- labor, minorities, the poor and disadvantaged, the environment, etc.

A good bit of the "difference" between the two parties are differences about how and where to use Government's power to moderate between these other two powers. Usually, when Repugs complain about "too much government power" or intrusion, they're really complaining about too much regulation of corporations for their taste, or too much power streaming to The People.

When more power accrues to the common people, it makes The Wealthy and Corporations very nervous because it reduces their ability to exploit workers, natural resources, etc. The natural urge of (most of) the Wealthy and Corporations is to seize more power and profit, and reduce everyone else's power (government and The People).

What we've got now is a too-perfect melding of Corporate interests with our government which many of us consider to be fascism. In today's America, government works most of all for the Wealthy and for Corporations.

My problem (root problem) with the Democratic Party is that it has forgotten this simply equation, forgotten and in fact betrayed its roots in standing up for and enhancing the power of The People. The worst (if not all) of this started with the DLC's influence in the Democratic Party, and especially the grab for corporate political donations. The Dem Party has sold its soul. There is NO one to represent The People any more, no one to ensure that we are not steamrolled by Corporate Power. NO one to stop the transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the rich. NO one to ease the growing, absolutely obscene disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor in this country.

Terry McAuliffe was chosen (by Bill Clinton) as DNC head over Maynard Jackson precisely because of his skill at raising money -- from corporations. Jackson wanted us to get back to the grassroots. He was assuaged (bought off) with promises of a new department that he woulld head for voter outreach. Anyone ever hear a peep out of him before he died recently? I didn't think so.

I'll repeat: the Democratic Party has sold its soul, and betrayed its charter. It no longer sees itself as the champion of the people, or The People as its benefactors or beneficiaries. Any and all pandering and capitulation to corporations and corporate interests make them merely, as many have pointed out before me, a lighter shade of Repug.

Eloriel

[devarsi]

4. DLC = Corporate Whores?

Is that the message I'm getting?

Then, is it not that the Dem party isn't liberal enough, its just that it isn't populist enough?

Are populism and liberalism not, at heart, the same thing?

[sandnsea]

5. Yeah.... and here's a doozy of an article

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. snip

the DLC maintains that with the telecommunications and computer revolution, the "rising learning class" of individualist new-economy workers will resist populism, reject Big Government, spurn unions, and abandon the social contracts of the New Deal and the Great Society. These upper-middle-class, new-economy voters, while still conservative on economic and fiscal issues, are more liberal on social policy. snip


Key to the DLC's political strategy is its belief that American workers are no longer attracted by the Democrats' support for the New Deal and the Great Society because they are entering the upper-middle class in droves. "You can't have class warfare without classes," says Peter Ross Range, the editor of Blueprint. "All these guys have boats in their backyards." snip

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Entering the middle class?

Or slipping out of it?

The latter, I think.

[boilerbabe]

8. If there's a boat in my backyard, it's got a hole in it!

I am so glad that people like you are posting on this site!! It seems that there are very few differences between Dems and Repugs these days.It's the "Wannabees" that are appealed to with that kind of policy. And they all fell for it, hook, line, sinker. Don't they realize that they will never be the top 1%?
I have been a homeowner for only a couple of years, but aside from the fact that it eats up almost my entire paycheck, it would be ok if the taxes, etc were spent on social programs rather than Bush & co's personal agendae. Because I do remember being out of work, on the edge of having no roof,and the only thing that kept me afloat was the cashed-in 401k from my previous job and my parents bailing me out. Now what about those who have no safety net (which would be most of this country's population)?
3 years ago, i went to Guyana to help start up a new paper mill for my company, and when people there asked me what I was making, I had a hard time comparing my salary to their $1.20 an hour. Is this what the global economy has to offer??
Anyway...I am all for the "New Deal" and would love to see it extend to my friends in the countries that we have exploited due to NAFTA.
XXXOOO

[Friar]

13. American Prospect

sucks. Damned fascist propaganda...grr...grumble...etc.

[JHB]

14. That "rising, learning class" they speak of...

...exactly who would compose that?

Highly paid IT professionals whose jobs are now being outsourced to India? Oops!

[rman]

12. populism..

is an often misused term. populism is to apeal to predudices of people.

are you suggesting corporate whores are liberal? that's like saying republicans are liberal.

[devarsi]

15. Smart Prejudices and Dumb Prejudices

Well, some prejudices are warranted, others are not.

It would not be valid to hold a prejudice (positive or negative) regarding a person simply based on their race.

It would not be logical, however, to see corporations allowed to rape the environment, abuse workers, flaunt laws, and avoid taxes, and then NOT feel some betrayal at those who would put corporate interests above individual rights.

NO, I'm not suggesting all corporate whores are liberal, though some may appear to be. Where on Earth did you get that idea?

[Forkboy]

6. Both

hey,you asked :evilgrin:

[boilerbabe]

9. All of the above

Seems that the Dems and Repugs are one and the same these days

[whoYaCallinAlib]

10. I think the DLC members are theTRUE compassionate conservatives.

Of course they are more conservative than the left wing of the party and without doubt are compassionate to the needs of the less fortunate in America. The question is, are they too conservative for the democratic party? I don't think so. I see them pulling the party to the right, while the left wing pulls to the left, and what we get is a very nice balance.

[Friar]

11. they're gutless

other than that, they suck.

[Dob Bole]

16. I like the DLC!

I like all Democrats (almost.)

*ducks to avoid flamethrowers*

[goobergunch]

17. Policy

1) Pro-war
2) Pro-corporatization
3) Pro-values brainwashing (I heard this on their ad at their convention on C-SPAN today)

That's about it really, but that encompasses a lot.