DLC Losing Influence Within the Democratic Party

[Frodo]

it looks as if Democrats are finally beginning to be Democrats again, and not just exiled Rockefeller Republicans......

Going Nowhere
The DLC Sputters to a Halt

by Ari Berman

In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." The DLC frequently puts out these lists as a way to publicly solidify its identification with the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC. The puzzling addition caused The Black Commentator magazine to wonder, a month after the DLC list came out, whether Obama had been "corrupted" by the centrist group. Obama's reply to the Commentator was indicative of how the DLC plays the "New Democrat" card.

"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.

Today, the same is true for many politicians. After dominating the party in the 1990s, the DLC is struggling to maintain its identity and influence in a party beset by losses and determined to oppose George W. Bush. Prominent New Democrats no longer refer to themselves as such. The New Democratic movement of pro-free market moderates, which helped catapult Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992, has splintered, transformed by a reinvigoration of grassroots energy. A host of new donors, groups and tactics has forged a new direction for Democrats inside and outside the party, bringing together vital parts of the old centrist establishment and the traditional Democratic base. The ideological independence of the DLC, which pushed the party to the right, has come to be viewed as a threat rather than a virtue, forcing the DLC to adapt accordingly. Corporate fundraisers and DC connections--the lifeblood of the DLC--matter less and less: Witness the ascent of MoveOn.org and Howard Dean's election as chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). "It's not that the DLC changed," says Kenneth Baer, who wrote a history of the organization. "It's that the world changed around the DLC."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321&s=berman

[dazzleman]

Frodo, do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It seems to me that the Democrats are moving in the direction of satisfying their base and nobody else.  Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that their base is not enough to win an election outside of addle-brained states like New York and Massachusetts.

[opebo]

Frodo, do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

I for one think this is a great thing.  Under the DLC's influence the Democratic Party has gone rapidly downhill.  We need to stand for something - good old fashioned Liberalism: individual rights, social freedoms, and redistribution.  The Republicans used to attempt to emulate Democrats in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and it didn't work for them.  You have to stand for something to have the potential to win.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well I see this would be very bad sign and just adds weight to my fears that the Democratic Party is on the fast track to becoming a permanent minority party, while the Right is allowed to tighten its grip on America. It's only a matter of time before the great progressive legacies of FDR and LBJ are undone

The Democrats need to unite liberals and moderates (and reach out to moderate conservatives) and the DLC is a vehicle for doing that - by selecting a presidential candidate from the DLC wing of the party

Liberals need to get their heads out of the clouds and face facts! A liberal Democrat versus a conservative Republican (i.e. a polarised election) virtually guarantees a GOP victory. Sadly, it would seem that some liberals relish the oppurnity to oppose rather than govern!

From what I've read (and seen) of the DLC is that they talk common sense, and I think that's what the Democratic Party needs above all else at the moment

Dave

[opebo]

Liberals need to get their heads out of the clouds and face facts! A liberal Democrat versus a conservative Republican (i.e. a polarised election) virtually guarantees a GOP victory. Sadly, it would seem that some liberals relish the oppurnity to oppose rather than govern!

Absolutely!  I'd rather have a major opposition party that shared my liberalism than a winning party that was just a second Religious Party.  In the first, at least my viewpoint is being represented in national politics, in teh latter, there is no major party putting forth my viewpoint.

[Democratic Hawk]

Liberals need to get their heads out of the clouds and face facts! A liberal Democrat versus a conservative Republican (i.e. a polarised election) virtually guarantees a GOP victory. Sadly, it would seem that some liberals relish the oppurnity to oppose rather than govern!

Absolutely!  I'd rather have a major opposition party that shared my liberalism than a winning party that was just a second Religious Party.  In the first, at least my viewpoint is being represented in national politics, in teh latter, there is no major party putting forth my viewpoint.

Well, personally, I'd like to see the Democratic Party in control of the presidency, Senate and House and what I'm advocating is simple pragmatics and that does not necessarily mean abandoning principles. I believe in social justice, economic fairness, universal healthcare, etc

I just think there is something inherently wrong when the 26 of the 28 states with the lowest average per capita incomes voted against their economic interests in 2004. Democrats are going wrong somewhere and I can only perceive that they are out of touch with mainstream values

I'm a Christian but by no means a Fundamentalist since that movement emerged in part as a reaction against the social gospel - hence I have as much disdain for the 'Talibangelicals' as secularists like yourself

My argument is that when you have a polarised election between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, it's advantage GOP! It's a simple as that. Therefore, I tend to advocate the case for moderate Democrats, who can bridge the ideological divide and govern in the interests of the majority by transcending either liberalism or conservatism

Do you really want to see perpetual governance from the reactionary Right? And, frankly, if the Democratic Party moves further left, that's exactly what your gonna get because in opposition they'll achieve little other than block certain aspects of the GOP agenda. What about governing and seeking to implement their own agenda? I know, what I'd prefer

Dave

[ian]

Liberals need to get their heads out of the clouds and face facts! A liberal Democrat versus a conservative Republican (i.e. a polarised election) virtually guarantees a GOP victory. Sadly, it would seem that some liberals relish the oppurnity to oppose rather than govern!
My argument is that when you have a polarised election between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, it's advantage GOP! It's a simple as that. Therefore, I tend to advocate the case for moderate Democrats, who can bridge the ideological divide and govern in the interests of the majority by transcending either liberalism or conservatism
Dave

While I support Opebo's thinking about a second "talibangelicals" party--great word, by the way--it's much more important to win elections as a more moderate Democratic party than to lose as a totally secular Democratic party, as much as I hate to say it...

[TomC]

Special interest group. While I might agree with their philosophy, no group should have that much influence on the party.

[Keystone Phil]

The DLC scored some major points with Bob Casey, a centrist Democrat, announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. However, I must say that on the national level, the DLC is losing influence and have become a joke. Hillary Clinton a DLC member? Give me a break. I guess almost anyone can join now.

[Frodo]

Frodo, do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It seems to me that the Democrats are moving in the direction of satisfying their base and nobody else.  Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that their base is not enough to win an election outside of addle-brained states like New York and Massachusetts.

tell me, Dazzleman, do you see any Republican equivalent of the DLC holding as strong a grip on the Republican Party?  do you see Republicans at the national, state, or local level running away from the label of 'conservative'?  since Republicans are not going about trying to be pale imitations of the Democratic Party in an attempt to market themselves as being 'electable', i see no reason why Democrats should not do the same.   Democrats should not be ashamed of being Democrats, the champions of the common folk.   i want to see my party move away from the Georgetown corporatist DLC elite and rediscover its populist roots, while championing social justice for despised minorities like homosexuals because it is right and just.  until the Democratic Party stands up and actually fights for what it believes in, it should never deserve to win anything. 

so, yes, i do see it as a good thing.  i see it as the Democratic Party discovering for the first time its true calling -and NOT as the shill of corporations.   

[dazzleman]

Frodo, do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It seems to me that the Democrats are moving in the direction of satisfying their base and nobody else.  Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that their base is not enough to win an election outside of addle-brained states like New York and Massachusetts.

tell me, Dazzleman, do you see any Republican equivalent of the DLC holding as strong a grip on the Republican Party?  do you see Republicans at the national, state, or local level running away from the label of 'conservative'?  since Republicans are not going about trying to be pale imitations of the Democratic Party in an attempt to market themselves as being 'electable', i see no reason why Democrats should not do the same.   Democrats should not be ashamed of being Democrats, the champions of the common folk.   i want to see my party move away from the Georgetown corporatist DLC elite and rediscover its populist roots, while championing social justice for despised minorities like homosexuals because it is right and just.  until the Democratic Party stands up and actually fights for what it believes in, it should never deserve to win anything. 

so, yes, i do see it as a good thing.  i see it as the Democratic Party discovering for the first time its true calling -and NOT as the shill of corporations.   

Well, what you are failing to recognize is that right now, the Republicans are winning and the Democrats losing.  Each party has its lunatic fringe, but at this point in time, more people seem to find the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party threatening than that of the Republican party.

Politicians run away from the liberal label because for the most part, liberal policies have failed.  There is not the same perception of failure attached to conservative policies as there is to liberal policies, and hence not so much of a need to run away from the conservative label.

[Smash255]

Frodo, do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

It seems to me that the Democrats are moving in the direction of satisfying their base and nobody else.  Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that their base is not enough to win an election outside of addle-brained states like New York and Massachusetts.

tell me, Dazzleman, do you see any Republican equivalent of the DLC holding as strong a grip on the Republican Party?  do you see Republicans at the national, state, or local level running away from the label of 'conservative'?  since Republicans are not going about trying to be pale imitations of the Democratic Party in an attempt to market themselves as being 'electable', i see no reason why Democrats should not do the same.   Democrats should not be ashamed of being Democrats, the champions of the common folk.   i want to see my party move away from the Georgetown corporatist DLC elite and rediscover its populist roots, while championing social justice for despised minorities like homosexuals because it is right and just.  until the Democratic Party stands up and actually fights for what it believes in, it should never deserve to win anything. 

so, yes, i do see it as a good thing.  i see it as the Democratic Party discovering for the first time its true calling -and NOT as the shill of corporations.   

Well, what you are failing to recognize is that right now, the Republicans are winning and the Democrats losing.  Each party has its lunatic fringe, but at this point in time, more people seem to find the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party threatening than that of the Republican party.

Politicians run away from the liberal label because for the most part, liberal policies have failed.  There is not the same perception of failure attached to conservative policies as there is to liberal policies, and hence not so much of a need to run away from the conservative label.

Its not that liberal policies has failed.  It has more to do with the Republicans being successful at labeling "liberal" as a dirty word.  The Dems running away from the word instead of fighting the labeling hurt them as well

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The DLC spends all of their time criticizing liberals. If they actually wanted Democrats to win, they'd STFU about liberals and criticize the right-wing crooks running this country. Screw the DLC, the Democratic party was much stronger before they existed.

[electcollfan]

I think at this point in time the Democrats need to appeal to the center and moderates of the party. That means nominating Warner or Bayh to run and not Hillary.
Right now, I can't see a very liberal Democrat (like Hillary) winning any more states than John Kerry did.
The Dems are in the minority on the electoral college and until they start opening up to the center the GOP will be the majority party.

[opebo]

 for the most part, liberal policies have failed.

What few liberal policies that have been tried have been huge successes - Social Security, Student Loans, the GI bill, government home loans through 'Fannie Mae' and 'Freddie Mac', minimum wage laws, Unionization, OSHA, the FDA, progressive taxation, AFDC, and Food Stamps (I'm sure I missed a few).  All of these policies have been enormous successes from the perspective of the 90+% of the population that are not members of the owning class. 

It is absurd to claim that 'liberal policies have failed', when they are responsible for the creation of the middle class.  The only people who have any reason to complain about American liberalism are the Owners.   

[Nym90]

I think that what the Democrats have to realize is two things.

First, they need to moderate their message. On issue after issue, the Democratic position is perceived to be more extreme than it actually is. The Democrats often play into the hands of the Republicans by allowing themselves to be painted as too extreme, when in reality their position is not that far out of the mainstream at all.

Second, being moderate does not mean that you don't stand for anything. There is a big difference between being an imitation of the GOP, which obviously won't work (I agree that, when given a choice between fake conservatives and real conservatives, most people will vote for real conservatives), and actually standing up for moderate ideals. Bill Clinton is the perfect example; overall, he was mostly moderate, but he still had strong convictions, and that's why he was able to avoid the "liberal" tag pretty successfully and still be perceived as a strong leader who cared about people.

So, remember that image matters more than substance (and right now the image of the Democrats is more extreme than their actual positions), and that moderates can still have strong convictions and stand for somethiing. So I'm in between the two different camps of the party on this issue of what the Democrats have to do to win; they both have good ideas, but take them too far. Overall I'd say we have to move slightly to the middle, but most importantly, reframe the issues in a way that's more favorable to us. We've allowed the Republicans to define the debate and frame the issues, with the Democrats only being reactive and not proactive; that's a sure recipe for defeat. Whichever party controls the terms of the debate usually wins.

[dazzleman]

I think that what the Democrats have to realize is two things.

First, they need to moderate their message. On issue after issue, the Democratic position is perceived to be more extreme than it actually is. The Democrats often play into the hands of the Republicans by allowing themselves to be painted as too extreme, when in reality their position is not that far out of the mainstream at all.

Second, being moderate does not mean that you don't stand for anything. There is a big difference between being an imitation of the GOP, which obviously won't work (I agree that, when given a choice between fake conservatives and real conservatives, most people will vote for real conservatives), and actually standing up for moderate ideals. Bill Clinton is the perfect example; overall, he was mostly moderate, but he still had strong convictions, and that's why he was able to avoid the "liberal" tag pretty successfully and still be perceived as a strong leader who cared about people.

So, remember that image matters more than substance (and right now the image of the Democrats is more extreme than their actual positions), and that moderates can still have strong convictions and stand for somethiing. So I'm in between the two different camps of the party on this issue of what the Democrats have to do to win; they both have good ideas, but take them too far. Overall I'd say we have to move slightly to the middle, but most importantly, reframe the issues in a way that's more favorable to us. We've allowed the Republicans to define the debate and frame the issues, with the Democrats only being reactive and not proactive; that's a sure recipe for defeat. Whichever party controls the terms of the debate usually wins.

Very true, especially your last statement.  It remains to be seen whether the Democratic "base" will allow any degree of moderation or common sense to creep into the party's overall positions, or whether they will insist upon the party drinking their kool-aid, even to extinction.

[opebo]

I think that what the Democrats have to realize is two things.

First, they need to moderate their message. On issue after issue, the Democratic position is perceived to be more extreme than it actually is. The Democrats often play into the hands of the Republicans by allowing themselves to be painted as too extreme, when in reality their position is not that far out of the mainstream at all.

Second, being moderate does not mean that you don't stand for anything. There is a big difference between being an imitation of the GOP, which obviously won't work (I agree that, when given a choice between fake conservatives and real conservatives, most people will vote for real conservatives), and actually standing up for moderate ideals. Bill Clinton is the perfect example; overall, he was mostly moderate, but he still had strong convictions, and that's why he was able to avoid the "liberal" tag pretty successfully and still be perceived as a strong leader who cared about people.

So, remember that image matters more than substance (and right now the image of the Democrats is more extreme than their actual positions), and that moderates can still have strong convictions and stand for somethiing. So I'm in between the two different camps of the party on this issue of what the Democrats have to do to win; they both have good ideas, but take them too far. Overall I'd say we have to move slightly to the middle, but most importantly, reframe the issues in a way that's more favorable to us. We've allowed the Republicans to define the debate and frame the issues, with the Democrats only being reactive and not proactive; that's a sure recipe for defeat. Whichever party controls the terms of the debate usually wins.

Very true, especially your last statement.  It remains to be seen whether the Democratic "base" will allow any degree of moderation or common sense to creep into the party's overall positions, or whether they will insist upon the party drinking their kool-aid, even to extinction.

The Democrats are the moderate party, being 'center-right' economically and at most 'center-left' socially.  The GOP is extreme right on both fronts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think that what the Democrats have to realize is two things.

First, they need to moderate their message. On issue after issue, the Democratic position is perceived to be more extreme than it actually is. The Democrats often play into the hands of the Republicans by allowing themselves to be painted as too extreme, when in reality their position is not that far out of the mainstream at all.

Second, being moderate does not mean that you don't stand for anything. There is a big difference between being an imitation of the GOP, which obviously won't work (I agree that, when given a choice between fake conservatives and real conservatives, most people will vote for real conservatives), and actually standing up for moderate ideals. Bill Clinton is the perfect example; overall, he was mostly moderate, but he still had strong convictions, and that's why he was able to avoid the "liberal" tag pretty successfully and still be perceived as a strong leader who cared about people.

So, remember that image matters more than substance (and right now the image of the Democrats is more extreme than their actual positions), and that moderates can still have strong convictions and stand for somethiing. So I'm in between the two different camps of the party on this issue of what the Democrats have to do to win; they both have good ideas, but take them too far. Overall I'd say we have to move slightly to the middle, but most importantly, reframe the issues in a way that's more favorable to us. We've allowed the Republicans to define the debate and frame the issues, with the Democrats only being reactive and not proactive; that's a sure recipe for defeat. Whichever party controls the terms of the debate usually wins.

The Democrats don't have to moderate their image. What they do have to do is make it clear that they stand for something, they have a vision for America, and have a spine. It's easier to do that if you're not some wishy-washy liberal, although I do admit that the more conservative Reid is doing a better job than the less conservative Daschle.
 

[WalterMitty]

 for the most part, liberal policies have failed.

What few liberal policies that have been tried have been huge successes - Social Security, Student Loans, the GI bill, government home loans through 'Fannie Mae' and 'Freddie Mac', minimum wage laws, Unionization, OSHA, the FDA, progressive taxation, AFDC, and Food Stamps (I'm sure I missed a few).  All of these policies have been enormous successes from the perspective of the 90+% of the population that are not members of the owning class. 

It is absurd to claim that 'liberal policies have failed', when they are responsible for the creation of the middle class.  The only people who have any reason to complain about American liberalism are the Owners.   

oh jeez.  the democrats really have you whipped dont they opebo?

since you care soooo much for the working class, please donate your trust fund to help all of those poor souls oppressed by the 'owners'.  maybe ted kennedy would do the same?

[AuH2O]

I don't think the blogging boom is going to help Democrats as much as they think ($$$), because of the trade off. You have a bunch of idiots on sites like DKos that now have some influence-- not too much positive influence, but the ability to put a hurt on members of their own party if they try hard enough.

[cwelsch]

You might as well call this thread "Democrats To Stop Pretending They Care About Middle Class."

Of course, overall this is overblown.  If the Democrats start ranting about NAFTA and trying to raise taxes then they can expect to join Buchanan and Nader at the far-fringe sidelines of the game.

[Serenity Now]

oh jeez.  the democrats really have you whipped dont they opebo?

since you care soooo much for the working class, please donate your trust fund to help all of those poor souls oppressed by the 'owners'.  maybe ted kennedy would do the same?

Surely you can work out that that's such a stupid thing to say? Even as patronising rhetoric...

[dazzleman]

 for the most part, liberal policies have failed.

What few liberal policies that have been tried have been huge successes - Social Security, Student Loans, the GI bill, government home loans through 'Fannie Mae' and 'Freddie Mac', minimum wage laws, Unionization, OSHA, the FDA, progressive taxation, AFDC, and Food Stamps (I'm sure I missed a few).  All of these policies have been enormous successes from the perspective of the 90+% of the population that are not members of the owning class. 

It is absurd to claim that 'liberal policies have failed', when they are responsible for the creation of the middle class.  The only people who have any reason to complain about American liberalism are the Owners.   

AFDC???  What the f'k are you smoking?   AFDC increased the rates of poverty and child abuse, and led to the collapse of the black family.  If that's a success, I'd hate to see failure.

The successes that you are talking about are more limited early "New Deal" type liberalism.  The failures I talk about are more "Great Society" later liberalism, which crossed the line from helping those who were trying to help themselves (which characterizes the earlier, successful programs) to doing for people what they ought to be doing for themselves.

AFDC is an example of an earlier liberal program (it originated in the 1930s) which became distorted beyond its original purpose and became incredibly destructive.  Most of the Great Society programs were quite destructive, while the New Deal/Fair Type programs, like the GI Bill, were quite often big successes.  As I said, there is a big difference between giving people a hand up, to help themselves, and a handout so that they can avoid doing what they need to do for themselves, and fall into a pattern of life-long dependency.  You have shown no ability to distinguish between the two.

[opebo]

 for the most part, liberal policies have failed.

What few liberal policies that have been tried have been huge successes - Social Security, Student Loans, the GI bill, government home loans through 'Fannie Mae' and 'Freddie Mac', minimum wage laws, Unionization, OSHA, the FDA, progressive taxation, AFDC, and Food Stamps (I'm sure I missed a few).  All of these policies have been enormous successes from the perspective of the 90+% of the population that are not members of the owning class. 

It is absurd to claim that 'liberal policies have failed', when they are responsible for the creation of the middle class.  The only people who have any reason to complain about American liberalism are the Owners.   

AFDC???  What the f'k are you smoking?   AFDC increased the rates of poverty and child abuse, and led to the collapse of the black family.  If that's a success, I'd hate to see failure.

Nonsense, the collapse of the black family was caused by lack of jobs and declining wages brought about by the collapse of manufacturing and the demise of unionization.  In other words the political consensus that had created the middle class disappeared, and with it the middle class, just at blacks were beginning to participate.  AFDC just prevented outright starvation. 

Another way of looking at it is in terms of income - you can't have well functioning nuclear families unless you have jobs for 'breadwinners' that pay at least $25 to $35 per hour.