DLC, Neocons and neolibs

[alvarezadams]

OK - let's debate it for once and for all.

Do a few token liberal stances on tangential issues justify surrendering to neoconservative foreign policies and neoliberal economic ones that are inimical to the very basis of a purportedly progressive party?

But first - is there anyone out there that disputes that the DLC is staunchly neoconservative in foreign policy and neoliberal in economic policies?

Before responding one would do well to remember that the GOP used to have a moderate or an even liberal wing. These were cut away through the very same soundbite-thinktank machine that would do the same to the DNC. How many times have you encountered paleoconservatives on public boards that have been angered by the coup d'etat that has turned the quasi-isolationist, non-nationbuilding, fiscally-responsible and small-government GOP into the very opposite?

DON'T LET THE SAME FOLKS TAKE OVER THE OPPOSITION TOO!

So some questions to be asked and answered:

1. Do you approve of neoconservative foreign policies?
2. Do you approve of neoliberal economic policies (globalization, NAFTA, etc)?
3. Is it worth it to elect a neocon just because he is "pro-choice" (as if his paymasters can give a crap about abortion)?
4. Is it worth it to elect virtual GOPers so that the "real" GOP loses power?

[skipos]

1. If this really was a debate "for once and for all" I'd do it

but it won't be. DLC threads today, tomorrow, the next day, the next.
If you don't like the DLC, work actively to get one of your candidates nominated. That's what they are doing in CT.

[Totally Committed]

3. I see that as simplistic and unrealistic...

it's sort of like saying "Step on the one roach you see, and the ones in the walls will all go away on their own."

Definitely work to get truly progressive Democrats elected, but also resist the temptation to elect a DINO whenever possible.

Many congrats and kudos to all of you in CT for what you are doing to send Joe packing. Lamont is step #1 to a better Democratic Party! Thank you for your hard work and dedication to this process.

TC

[skipos]

4. ok

My solution, support progressive dems as much as possible, is "unrealistic."
Your solution, support progressive dems as much as possible but also resist the temptation to elect a DINO whenever possible, is better? Uh, ok.

Usually DINOS are running against republicans who are much, much, much worse. In states that elected Bush by huge margins, the choice is between democrats like Nelson, or republicans like Frist. North Dakota isn't going to elect Feingold-eque senators anytime soon.

I can admit that I am much more progressive that your average democrat. Can you? Most DUers are more progressive that your average democrats. Maybe that's why a senator like Nelson has higher approval ratings than Feingold. Or why Feinstein's approval ratings are similar or better than Boxers.

At the end of the day I support who I like in primaries, but if democrats choose someone who isn't as progressive as I like, I accept the fact that I am in the minority.

Who are you going to blame if Lieberman (IMO one of the lamest dem senators) is renominated by the democrats of CT? The DLC? If anyone deserves blame, it is the democrats of CT. They had the opportunity to choose a more progressive candidate in Lamont, and passed on that opportunity.

[Totally Committed]

7. I guess I should have been clearer.

"My solution, support progressive dems as much as possible, is "unrealistic."
Your solution, support progressive dems as much as possible but also resist the temptation to elect a DINO whenever possible, is better? Uh, ok."

I should have said "Unrealistic, unless accompanied by a real effort to recruit and run many more true progressives in the near future." Sometimes, when writing a response, my mind sees a+b=c, and assumes everyone can just read my mind, I guess. I apologize for making it sound so simplistic.

"I can admit that I am much more progressive that your average democrat. Can you? Most DUers are more progressive that your average democrats. Maybe that's why a senator like Nelson has higher approval ratings than Feingold. Or why Feinstein's approval ratings are similar or better than Boxers."

I, too, am far more progressive than today's average Democrat. I admit that. But, do the Senators you menton enjoy their approval ratings because the people in their states really approve of their records or because of this assertion: "Usually DINOS are running against republicans who are much, much, much worse. In states that elected Bush by huge margins, the choice is between democrats like Nelson, or republicans like Frist. North Dakota isn't going to elect Feingold-eque senators anytime soon. Is it because true progressives are few and far between, and rarely run in the states you mention, or is it because the Democrats in those states really DO prefer DINOs? I'm not sure. Could be a chicken-or-the-egg thing, but I'm willing to admit there are probably places where DINOs do better.

I used to believe this as well: "At the end of the day I support who I like in primaries, but if democrats choose someone who isn't as progressive as I like, I accept the fact that I am in the minority.", but am no longer willing to go along with it. It has only gotten us DINOs representing states that are safely blue in every way (read: CT). Nope, I will never again vote for "the lesser of two evils", if the Democrats continue to be so stupid (or cynical) as to think that's the only choice they need to give us to win an election. I wouldn't enable an alcoholic, and I have stopped enabling the Democrats.

"Who are you going to blame if Lieberman (IMO one of the lamest dem senators) is renominated by the democrats of CT? The DLC? If anyone deserves blame, it is the democrats of CT. They had the opportunity to choose a more progressive candidate in Lamont, and passed on that opportunity."

Blame? Hmmmmmm..... I'll have to think about that, because I do blame the DLC for the "vote for anyone with a D after his or her name" thought process of many Dems today, but I think in the case you present begs also for accountability by the Dems of CT.

I wish it were all as black and white as that, but the DLC has muddied the waters so badly, it's hard to know which shade of gray should be our true limit. I rely on my own feelings and opinions to decide that and so should other Dems. If you and I are truly in the minority (a point I am not willing yet to concede), then it might be time for us to look elsewhere for our representation.

TC

[skipos]

11. alright

"I used to believe this as well: "At the end of the day I support who I like in primaries, but if democrats choose someone who isn't as progressive as I like, I accept the fact that I am in the minority.", but am no longer willing to go along with it. It has only gotten us DINOs representing states that are safely blue in every way (read: CT). Nope, I will never again vote for "the lesser of two evils", if the Democrats continue to be so stupid (or cynical) as to think that's the only choice they need to give us to win an election. I wouldn't enable an alcoholic, and I have stopped enabling the Democrats."

I am different, it is against my morals to allow republicans to win. The fact that they control all branches of governement has hurt America greatly, and I couldn't live with myself if I let it continue without trying. As long as there is a difference between two candidates, I will vote for the better candidate. I guess you will come back and state the meme that was started by Nader in 2000: there is no difference between dems and reps. It was just as much a lie then as it is now. How many DLC candidates voted against the minimum wage increase? Oh, thats right, NONE. It was defeated by republicans and republicans alone.

So you would sit out of the Nelson Ricketts race in NE, and if every dem was like you, Ricketts (who is a frightening candidate) would win and we'd be one seat further away from majority. One seat further away from getting more dems on committees, getting dems to head committees. You are comfortable with that. I am not. And fortunately, most dems are not like you.

[Totally Committed]

12. "... it is against my morals to allow republicans to win."

My guess is I'm a LOT older than you. I happen to have come, of late, to the opinion that electing a DINO is the same as electing a Republican because they vote with the Republicans and support their cynical, pro-corprate agenda over the little guy more often than not.

I DON'T agree with Nader that there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. A TRUE progressive Democrat and a Republican are about as different as night and day. With a DINO, however, there is still a difference, but not enough to ensure a true representation of every voter, especially the poor, minorities, and women.

TC

(edited for spelling)

[skipos]

13. We can agree to disagree

"With a DINO, however, there is still a difference, but not enough to ensure a true representation of every voter, especially the poor, minorities, and women."

NO democrat voted against the minimum wage boost. Most of the DINOs that DUers don't like (like Lieberman) are pro-choice.

You don't want to enable DINOs with your vote, but have no problem enabling republicans as a result. I will always vote for the better candidate. Having a senate majority and leadership positions that come with it don't mean much to you. They mean a lot to me. Kerry, Gore and Clinton were all DLC DINOs and you think electing DINOs "is the same as electing a republican." I think Clinton, Gore and Kerry are all much better than the best republican. This discussion isn't going to go anywhere, so lets just stop.

[Totally Committed]

14. Okay... agree to disagree, but

one last thing: Lieberman claims the Pro-Choice mantle while voting with the Bushies repeatedly to stack the Supreme Court with RW justices who will, no doubt, take down Roe v. Wade one case and one vote at a time.

It is those votes, not his position on a single issue that concern me. He takes a position he needs to take to get elected in his state (CT), then votes against the interests of the women who voted for him. A DINO cannot be trusted to vote Democratic once elected.

Peace. And, agree to disagree.

TC

[alvarezadams]

8. I disagree

"Usually DINOS are running against republicans who are much, much, much worse."

How so? This is the question that always pops up and that DLC supporters on DU never address: as the two most important policy areas (economics and foreign policy) of the DLC are the same as the GOP's, what do a few token progressive stances really mean? "Much, much worse" seems like a very big exaggeration - and a way of playing right into the hands of the anti-progressives.

"Who are you going to blame if Lieberman (IMO one of the lamest dem senators) is renominated by the democrats of CT? The DLC? If anyone deserves blame, it is the democrats of CT. They had the opportunity to choose a more progressive candidate in Lamont, and passed on that opportunity. "

With all due respect, isn't this a bit disingenuous? As many posters and pundits have noted, most voters simply aren't interested enough to be well-informed. The DLC has the cash and the machine to spread its spin and push its candidates - if it is victorious it might also be blamed on progressive Dems that didn't do their job in unmasking the likes of Lieberman.

[skipos]

9. "With all due respect, isn't this a bit disingenuous? "

That was funny. I usually hear that line on talk shows, never heard it myself.

But anyway, if "most voters simply aren't interested enough to be well-informed" as you say, I find it strange that you still blame the DLC and not the voters. If the voters don't want to get informed, I blame them.

[alvarezadams]

15. Explanation

"I find it strange that you still blame the DLC and not the voters. If the voters don't want to get informed, I blame them."

The DLC is very much part of the indoctrination/misinformation machine. By using Straussian manipulations they make it very difficult for the electorate to see the forests for the trees.

I, for one, hold politicians responsible for their manipulations. They SHOULD be responsible enough to indeed use rhetoric, but the rhetoric of truth.

[Totally Committed]

2. Great post, as usual!

So some questions to be asked and answered:

1. Do you approve of neoconservative foreign policies?
2. Do you approve of neoliberal economic policies (globalization, NAFTA, etc)?
3. Is it worth it to elect a neocon just because he is "pro-choice" (as if his paymasters can give a crap about abortion)?
4. Is it worth it to elect virtual GOPers so that the "real" GOP loses power?

Answers:

1. Absolutely not.
2. Again, no way.
3. Nuh-uh. I look at the "full package" now.
4. No, but sadly thatseems to be the current thought process with a lot of Democrats, even some here.

The DLC IS staunchly neoconservative in foreign policy and neoliberal in economic policies. Their rabid pro-corporate position places them cynically on the wrong side of social issues AND trade issues. It totally negates the reperesentitve form of governemnt, as it does not "represent" those who elect them, rather, the corporations who pay for their elections.

...one would do well to remember that the GOP used to have a moderate or an even liberal wing. These were cut away through the very same soundbite-thinktank machine that would do the same to the DNC. How many times have you encountered paleoconservatives on public boards that have been angered by the coup d'etat that has turned the quasi-isolationist, non-nationbuilding, fiscally-responsible and small-government GOP into the very opposite?

The GOP DID, INDEED have a moderate AND an even liberal wing. These WERE DEFINITELY cut away through the very same soundbite-thinktank machine that would do the same to the DNC. I remember when this was so, and I remember when "the take-over" took effect. That Party went from a party with a different financial outlook/ pro-smaller government philosophy to a perpetual war on enemies and the poor Party in a time period that seemed over-night. They forced de-regulation of Corporations that enabled huge conglomerates to be formed. Then began the out-sourcing. Poor people floated on logs for a week in NOLA without help from the neo-cons "smaller government", but corporations and the rich only get richer through tax cuts and corporate welfare policies.

I echo this sentiment: DON'T LET THE SAME FOLKS TAKE OVER THE OPPOSITION TOO! And, the DLC IS the same folks. RESIST THEM and THEIR CANDIDATES, or the Democratic Party as it used to be will disappear forever.

TC

[itzamirakul]

5. I'm glad that I found this thread because I was just getting ready

to post a few questions that I might as well ask here, first.



1. I need to understand the ideology of the New Democrats.
2. Is this different from being a Neoliberal (New Liberal)
3. How do the above differ from the DLC?
4. Are there any members of the basic Democratic Party remaining ANYWHERE? What about in the DNC?Do they have a special name now, too?

These terms are popping up now and no matter how well-informed I try to stay, I haven't read any explanations or descriptions of the above. I am mainly interested in keeping abreast of where I best fit ideologically within the Democratic Party.


How do each of the above differ from:
5. NeoCons
6. Conservatives
7. Anything else in the GOP

Thanks

[alvarezadams]

6. Some anwsers

"2. Is this different from being a Neoliberal (New Liberal)"

Neoliberalism is an economic ideology based on the Austrian School/Mt Pellerin Society. It is the basis of Reaganomics, Thatcherism and trickle-down.

" How do the above differ from the DLC?"

The DLC is a group within the DNC that embraces both neoconservatism (its founder and a few members have actually signed PNAC letters and the group habitually supports the misadministration's foreign policies such as the invasion of Iraq). It has also embraced neoliberal economics through its "third way". It is funded by the same extremists that fund PNAC, AEI, etc: the Olins, Bradleys, et al.

You might be helped by merely looking up the terms in Wikipedia, PRWatch or another online source.

[itzamirakul]

10. Thanks, I appreciate your quick points that help me grasp the

Neoliberal concept.

It was just a couple of days ago that I first read the term, "New Democrats" and for some reason I just knew in my gut that this was another way of saying that the Neocons were coming back into Democratic Party the same way they left us following the changes of the 60s.

If I had to identify myself right now, I would proudly claim the title "Liberal" if that means believing that the Federal Government has the obligation to make sure that all of its citizens have equal rights. "Liberal" is not a dirty word to me as it seems to be to some others.

In fact, I feel that I could easily be counted in with those whom some refer to as the "Far Left" because I am up to HERE with the namby pamby attitudes and behavior of our current Democratic leadership. I yearn to see some real "fighting Democrats" out there, going tooth and nail with their Republican counterparts.

I needed to know what those terms stood for so that I would not inadvertantly identify with some group whose ideas are in total opposition to what I believe. In particular, I don't want to support the DLC or its policies in any manner.

IMO, we have to remember that everyone in our Party may not do the in-depth reading and research that some of our more dedicated members do, so sometimes we have to go back and remind folks of what the different arms of our Party believe in. When new terminology appears, it is not insulting to remind folks of what it means. I'm an old school teacher, so I am used to repeating information just in case someone might not have understood it or even heard it the first time around.

Again, thanks and I will take your suggestion to check some other online sources. :)