The DLC: Why of course, they're centrists!

[Writer]

I understand that many on DU don't agree with centrist ideas, but I have read a plethora of threads detailing how DLC'ers in Congress have voted on various bills.

All I have to say is, "Yeah, of course they have!" They're centrists from the south and states that lean conservatively. Of course a majority of DLC'ers have voted that way! (Notice they haven't voted in lock-step?)

Why point out the obvious?

[mike_c]

1. the term "centrist" is relative and somewhat deceptive....

It sounds so "reasonable" and "balanced." In fact, today's centrist dems are supporting legislation that's well to the right of Richard Nixon. Ugh. :puke:

[Jade Fox]

3. Thank you. They are Conservative, not Centrist.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Because it's shocking just how anti-labor, pro-corporate, anti-environment

pro-Xtian-moral-values (whatever they are), etc..., the CENTER has become.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The center has moved to the Right

and it is our job to move it to the left

The DLC are Republicans, and they should do us a favor and switch parties... by the way, if the candidate is DLC I won't vote for them, just as I wont vote for a Republican... same diff, different day...

[chaumont58]

7. My problem with DLC is their support for Iraqi war

I agree the DLC senators are more conservative than anything else, but that might be forgivable. 1600 unecessary deaths are not nogitiable. They seem to ignore the lies chimpie used to get powers that be to go along with his mad adventure. An explanation that keeps coming into my mind is that they are elistists that don't give a rat's fuck about the plight of the poor ass soldier. I include the Clintons in that description. I don't see how else they ignore the gold star mothers.
No part of my support will go to a DLCer. Admittedly that would have been called BFD some years back. I have just my vote and meager funds to contribute, but however meager my funds, they won't go to a DLCer, including Hillary.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. When campaign cash means more than those that voted for you believeing

you would protect labor, the environment and consumers (i.e. the BANKRUPTCY BILL which is DRACONIAN) then that's fucked up and those centrists need to go.

WHen policies of Democrats HARM the people they claim to represent then something's wrong.

Furthermore, the DLC has led Dems AWAY from a 50 state strategy so that they could use this cannard that only a conservative Dem that votes Republican can get elected in those states.

[sojourner]

6. This topic is getting old...and it's a waste of time, too. Why not find

an ISSUE...something real and substantive...and start putting your energy into that? I spent my few days doing this same thing, and in the end, what did it accomplish?

When I listened to network news yesterday and I heard how Dems are "split" and Repugs are "uniting", I knew I had to put my efforts into something that will make a difference - like helping get Paul Hackett of Ohio elected. A democratic candidate in a red state. We need to focus on getting folks elected who WILL support what we believe in. No matter where we live, we can have an impact on the next elections. Let's put our time, energy AND money behind something we DO BELIEVE in and let the rest of it (DLC, Hillary, etc.) take care of itself.

[dissent1977]

8. We need to fight the DLC because they ARE Republicans

They might call themselves Democrats, but they have benefitted the Republicans greatly. They support them on most of their key issues, and have caused much of the disunity in the Democratic party. When they come out and say that the Democrats need to work more on issues like banning gay marriage and supporting the war in Iraq they know it is going to cause a massive split in the party and benefit Republicans. If people are voting to ban gay marriage and wage more wars around the world they are going to want to keep the Republicans in the majority, because they know the Democratic Party is not unified behind those issues and the Republicans are. I honestly believe the DLC is made up primarily of Republicans who have infiltrated the Democratic Party in order to help the Republicans succeed in their agenda. Just look at the DLC's enormous "success" in the election arena and you will see they have caused the Democrats to lose a lot of elections, yet they still retain a massive amount of power. They need to be stopped, this issue will not be old until they are.

[sojourner]

34. not disagreeing with your premises, altogether...

but I think we can beat DLC by taking positive steps toward:

1. putting forward AND electing progressive democrats
2. raising the money to make this possible
3. support Howard Dean and the DNC (who haven't yet "gone over")

I don't think the DLC has that much support and we CAN beat them best NOT by debating them but by BEATING them...outnumbering, outfundraising and outelecting them.

[Writer]

35. There's a problem here...

Howard Dean has been speaking some "DLC" lines.

Such as the more moderate stance on abortion and religious issues.

Are you sure Howard Dean is really supporting "progressive" Demoratic ideals?

[wyldwolf]

36. there's an even bigger problem than that

Howard Dean is a centrist - a former DLC member - who's governance of VT was quite conservative in a lot of ways. Idealogically, he is more conservative than John Kerry.

Aside from that, the DNC's probably '08 candidate WILL BE DLC. Bank on it.

The anti-DLC'ers of the far left can cry, pout, stomp their feet, hold their breath until their faces turn blue, threaten not to vote, threaten to leave the party, blah, blah, blah but NOTHING is going to be handed to them. You want the power? Earn it.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Centrism is not an idea

it's a lack of ideas and ideals.

[CTLawGuy]

20. thats very true

good point!


centrists are people who don't really have any ideology. they are more practical.

[SharonAnn]

10. No, they're "corporatists". There's a big difference between the two.

Corporatists are on the side of the corporations.

Centrists look at the issues and will usually decide what provides the greater good. sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative, sometimse moderate. Not corporations vs people, but issues and how they affect the citizens of this country.

[Writer]

11. Generaleesimo

the corporatee-stas are raiding thee compound!

[sadiesworld]

12. The poster makes a perfectly valid point.

Go take a look at some RW boards. Go talk to your conservative friends. Most conservatives opposed the bankruptcy bill and CAFTA. Actually, I can't find ONE person in the non-internet world who favored CAFTA (although I did find a few who were initially shocked to learn it was up for a vote).

The idea that centrism equals corporatism is absurd. But I do find your childish response to the poster to be quite telling.

[Writer]

21. A sense of humor - please n/t

[election_2004]

13. Some people won't accept anyone but the "purists"

I can't say I would have voted for CAFTA or the Bankruptcy Bill if I was a U.S. Senator (because of the problems inherent with the way they were structured by the GOP), but I can understand why some of the moderate Democrats and conservative Democrats voted the way they did.

Yet, when it comes to legislation with PERMANENT consequences (such as FMA or ANWAR), the Democrats who support those pieces of shit legislation seem to get a free pass from DUers.

Hypocritical.

As John McCain said to the GOP Caucuse, members of your party aren't always going to vote the way you want them to. Grow up.

[sadiesworld]

15. Only the "purists" are unhappy with CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill?

:crazy: I have never seen a poll with opposition to our trade policies pegged at anything less than 80%. Why is it that you think the loss of our manufacturing base, the loss of millions of decent paying factory jobs, and skyrocketing trade deficits are issues that only "purists" would be concerned about?

As for the bankruptcy bill, that was an issue that websites on the left and the right were trying to form a coalition around. Only a "purist" would be concerned about usury lending rates, non-dis-chargeable medical debt and protective trusts for the ultra rich???

You've managed to point to the two issues in the past five years with the greatest popular opposition and deem them of interest only to "purists". Quite a feat.

[Zhade]

14. Centrism supports corporate profits over workers' rights?

Centrism supports keeping health care in the private sector rather than universal health care (which a large majority of Americans support)?

Centrism supports illegal invasions and occupations of countries that never attacked us?

Centrism supports using public taxpayer money to support private school vouchers?

Centrism supports things like the PATRIOT Act over strengthening and securing our civil liberties?

Wow, if that's centrism, count me out. if it's not centrism, and I rather think it's not, than the DLC is giving poor centrists a bad name.

[Q]

16. I noticed on the DLC website that they're referring to themselves...

...more and more as 'progressives'. They even came up with the idea for 'progressive patriotism'...where you support any and all wars in order to 'look tough and win elections'.

They used to call themselves centrists...but I guess that didn't go over too well in the PR department. They can't call themselves conservatives...which is what they really are. They are probably what conservative Republicans looked like before the Crazy Ones took over their party.

I've heard this 'regional' excuse over and over again. That is...'centrist' Democrats voting like Republicans in order to keep their seat in certain 'red' states. This begs the question: if they have to vote like Republicans...why not just BECOME ONE and stop bringing the Dem party down?

[bloom]

22. When they call themselves "progressive"

it sounds like they are engaging in the now common Republican Orwellian spin - saying the opposite of what they do.

Yeah - they probably have their marketing departments/focus groups churning this crap out.

Of course the corporatists already have the Republicans - they are going for a sweep.


It's funny how they are "progressive" and anti-the-progressives at the same time.

[bvar22]

17. The DLC is a Corporate Lobby hiding behind the label "CENTRISM"

They have NO grass roots, but are funded solely by Corporate Money.

The DLC's Prime Directive is to INCREASE the INFLUENCE of CORPORATE MONEY in the Democratic Party. Their funding is 100% from Corporate Special Interests. The DLC doesn't care about Social or Cultural Issues.

*The DLC does not Care who does or does not buy a gun

*The DLC does not care who does or does not get married

*The DLC does not care who get or does not get an abortion

*The DLC does not care what Church you go to, which god you pray to, or where the 10 Commandments are displayed

Since the DLC doesn't care about Social or Cultural Issues, their members are FREE to vote however they wish on these issues and still receive their checks from the Corporate lobbyists, and Corporate support for re-election. Some DLC members are Socially Liberal, and vote that way. That makes them appear moderate when examining ONLY their voting records. You would NEVER guess that they are OWNED by Corporate America, AND the DLC propagandists will point to their records and say,"SEE. They aren't so bad".

The DLC and their Corporate Financiers care ONLY about INCREASING the POWER and INFLUENCE of Corporate Money in DC. As a result, ONLY the votes that influence these issues are Representative of their TRUE allegiances and worth examination. Even then, the voting records are misleading. The DLC is NOT stupid, and DOES NOT require that their members vote their interests every single time. The DLC only requires that Pro-Coporate legislation PASSES every single time!. The DLC DOES require that ONLY ENOUGH members vote for THEIR legislation to ensure passage. After that, their vote is meaningless, and members are free to vote to cover their ass and camouflage their true allegiances. This also must be factored in when looking at the voting records.

The DLC will say, "SEE. he isn't so bad. He voted against CAFTA!. What they won't tell you is that his vote was meaningless because the DLC already had the votes they needed to ensure passage of CAFTA in the Senate.

If you go back and examine every legislative issues that INCREASED the POWER of BIG BUSINESS and DECREASED the power of the Working American, you will find a CORE of DLC Senators (I haven't done the House yet) that provided just enough votes to ensure that the Corporate Legislation PASSED. The NAMES of the individual DLC Senators that vote AGAINST the American People also ROTATE so that NO INDIVIDUAL Senator takes ALL the HEAT.

Most of the time, the DLC Senators will be joined by a few non-DLC Senators on particular votes when their Home State has a special interest. Such was the case on CAFTA. The DLC is quick to point to that vote and say,"Well {insert name of non-DLC} voted for it, and He's not DLC."
This also is a distraction. As long as ENOUGH DLC Senators vote ProCorporate to ensure passage, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
Without DLC support in the Senate, CAFTA would have failed.



When was the last time a bill advancing protections for the American Working Class passed? When was the last time such a bill was proposed?
Bill Clinton submitted a HealthCare Plan that would have helped the Working Class. It was the DLC that rose up and defeated their OWN Party's HealthCare Plan.

Can anyone remember a Bill protecting the Working Class even reaching the FLOOR for a vote since the Corporations bought their way into the Democratic Party?

[Capn Sunshine]

18. Well put

I joined the DLC at its inception because the general view was that large pools of capital( Like Corporations) can be responsible in their application and use that power to generate positive social change via political pressure.

That's a long ride from what the DLC puts forth every year from inside the beltway.

[Raksha]

23. Wonderful analysis of the workings of the DLC, bvar22.

I think the CAFTA vote was a real eye-opener for a lot of people. Now we're beginning to get a clear picture of exactly how the DLC plays its role for the benefit of corporate America--and to the detriment of everyone else. We're starting to see not only what's being done to us, but HOW its being done. Excellent post!

[Zorra]

19. They are "fascist lite" corporate lobbyists that got elected to do favors

for corporations.

They serve business interests and business interests only. n/t

[wyldwolf]

24. Fear, writer! It's fear

The eternal slacking 2%ers fear they'll actually have to work to win political influence!

Notice how the anti-DLC hysteria has reached epic proportions here - even by DU standards?

I mean, just earlier this year people on DU were declaring The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004. Whatever, Nothingburger, De Nada, Yawn, Zen Zen...

But something seems to have happened on the way to the fringe left's "McGovern's Revenge" party and it has the 2%'ers really fired up! The DLC's relevance and influence in 2005 has been severely understated. And all it took was one little meeting of the DLC to get the neoleft McGovernites pouring out of their anthill. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore... again!

The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004? Why, Five of the top seven Democratic choices for the nominee in 2008 are DLC. Rounding out the top seven is one guy often "accused" by the left of being DLC and another guy often accused by the left of being a Republican (and who got one of his major campaign 2004 platforms from the DLC.)

Not to mention another DLCer not on the public's radar yet but getting globs or press as a potential Presidential candidate.

How could one "little" meeting, attended by more than 300 state and local elected officials from more than forty states, create such a brouhaha on far left?

Was it Hillary Clinton, who squarely accused Republicans of trying to return the country to the policies and political practices of the 19th century, calling for party unity? How dare she!

Was it Evan Bayh, generally considered a national security hawk, offering a blistering critique of the administration's handling of the war on terror, concluding: "That's not strength, that's incompetence."? How so very Republican of him to even speak about terrorism just a few weeks after the London bombings!

Maybe it was Mark Warner who scorned the Bush administration for choosing to intervene in the medical decisions of the Schiavo family while choosing to do nothing about the 45 million Americans without health insurance.

No, it wasn't really any of that. It's the fact that once again, the DLC is out-organizing the far left of the party and already fielding candidates for local, state, and national races.

Didn't the far left's darling organization, moveon.org, take the party "back" in 2004? Here's what they said, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

The far left bought it and now owns it, so why are they so scared of a little DLC meeting attended by just 300 or so people from more than forty states?

Wait, moveon.org recanted that claim a few months after they made it by saying, "We’re not the party... we are going to take positions on issues... before we acknowledge any sort of notion of Democratic fealty."

Why did the recant it? It came on the heels of a story detailing how they were working AGAINST a Democratic candidate who dared defy them.

Much like the many threads on DU admonishing people to NOT support Democrats who haven't lived up to their purity standards.

So perhaps the far left is seeing their struggle with the DLC (the latest incarnation of "the establishment" and "the man") as some grand epic battle. They're dramatic like that, ya know!

In this corner, we have the DLC! Winners of two Presidential elections (four if you count Gore and Kerry), a "few" local and state elections, and currently fielding practically every Democratic presidential contender in '08.

In THIS corner, the 2%'ers with moveon.org! Responsible for raising millions of dollars and winners of... ummm... well, they won... no... hmmmm....

To quote an article in Rolling Stone:

They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq... A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down...

Moveon is guided by a tiny, tightknit group of leaders. There are only ten of them, still deeply committed to the Internet start-up ethos of working out of their homes and apartments in better-dead-than-red bastions such as Berkeley, California, Manhattan and Washington, D.C. For a political organization that likes to rail against 'the consulting class of professional election losers,' MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group's leadership and you won't hear much about the agony of defeat...

But some insiders worry that putting left-wing idealists in charge of speaking to the center seems about as likely to work as chewing gum with your feet. 'There's a built-in tension between the views of people who are part of MoveOn and contribute to it, and the people they're trying to reach,' says Ed Kilgore of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. (Understatement, Ed!)

If speaking to the center was MoveOn's goal, 'they failed miserably,' says Greg Strimple, a media consultant who advised the Senate campaigns of three GOP moderates. 'None of their ads had an impact on the center electorate that needed to be swung.' If the group's leadership saw anything broken with its advertising during the campaign, though, it shows no signs of fixing it. In a rush to get its new Social Security ad on the air, MoveOn didn't even test it.

The ad, which depicts senior citizens performing manual labor, was not only paid for by MoveOn members but was also created by them. This kind of closed feedback loop is indicative of a larger problem: the group's almost hermetic left-wing insularity. 'We don't get around much,' acknowledges Boyd. 'We tend to all stay in front of our keyboards and do the work.'

. . .

So who is MoveOn? Consider this: Howard Dean finished first in the MoveOn primary. Number Two wasn't John Kerry or John Edwards -- it was Dennis Kucinich. Listing the issues that resonate most with their membership, Boyd and Blades cite the environment, the Iraq War, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform and corporate reform. Somewhere after freedom, opportunity and responsibility comes 'the overlay of security concerns that everybody shares.' Terrorism as a specific concern is notably absent. As are jobs. As is health care. As is education.

There's nothing inherently good or bad in any of this. It's just that MoveOn's values aren't middle-American values. They're the values of an educated, steadily employed middle and upper-middle class with time to dedicate to politics -- and disposable income to leverage when they're agitated. That's fine, as long as the group sticks to mobilizing fellow travelers on the left. But the risks are greater when it presumes to speak for the entire party.

So the 2%'ers will just continue to "stay in front of (their) keyboards and do the work." They'll put Google's servers in overdrive trying to find one more little piece of evidence that will make everyone see the light about the DLC. They'll continue to rant and rave about evil corporations as they sip their Starbucks coffee.

And they'll ignore the campaign signs from local Democrats who don't give a rat's ass about DLC-this and DLC-that but only want to kick some GOP butt.

The anthill has been stepped on and the little worker ants are mad as hell. Watch them stream out....

[Writer]

25. This is good. This is VERY good.

Now I must say that I like and appreciate the most liberal of Democrats. They are a vital part of the party and we need them.

But I must say... this is good. Very very good!

:thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

28. Another great one!

Problem is that they, like Nader, lay dormant as far as having any influence until it comes time to vote. They'll do almost none of the work, and then come around to do the fucking-up.

[wyldwolf]

30. true that... and here is a history of it

1946 - "progressives" splintered from the party and ran Henry Wallace against moderate Harry Truman. Wallace got 2% of the popular vote.

1972 - "Progressive" McGovern lost in an electoral landslide.

1980 - "Progressive" Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy brought his fight to the convention, did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions brought on by Kennedy contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

2000 - "Progressive" Ralph Nader gets 2.7% of the popular vote, tips Florida to Bush.

There could be many reasons for this but they would all ultimately boil down to one:

"Progressives" either lack the knowledge or desire to run an effective campaign and would rather the seats or office just be given to them.

[LoZoccolo]

33. Your command of history is impressive, which also goes back to work.

The two-percenters also tend to gloss over or ignore the past, just don't do their homework, or try to fit their historical proof into places where people don't know or remember the details enough to know it doesn't fit (as with the 1994 elections we hear about so much that it became useful to put a link in your signature).

[Q]

37. I enjoy reading your posts...

...that attempt to convince us that the DLC's corporate agenda has more support than the 'liberal' working class agenda. While it's true that the DLC and the RWingers have convinced many Americans to vote against their own interests...it's telling that you continue to tout the same old tired line that progressives only represent 'two percent' of the population.

Have you noticed that the 'left wing idealists' don't necessarily WANT to be 'in charge'? What they DO want is accountability and true representation. The only special interests elected officials should be beholden to is The People. You can tell by their hateful rhetoric that the DLCers are afraid that more and more Democrats are becoming aware of the 'corporate wing' of the party.

What you call the 'FAR LEFT' is nothing more than working class citizens (finally) gathering together to bring back some semblence of a government of, by and for the people. Thank goodness that the INTERNET has allowed that to happen.

It's a sad thing to contemplate that both the DLC and the RWingers have JOINED together to demonize liberals and progressives. But it's understandable...since the 'far left' is the only remaining force that stands in the way of their dream of a corporate state.

It's true that the DLC is a pitiful minority within the Democratic party. But so were the Neocons before they took control of the Republican party. The DLC has no more of a mandate to lead the Democratic party than the Neocons did the GOP.

The type of 'influence' the DLC has comes from corporate money and media...not from a consensus of rank and file Democrats. In fact...the DLC doesn't give a shit what the rank and file working class thinks...which is reflected in their anti-worker, pro-war/corporate agenda.

[Mass]

26. The DLC is not in lockstep. Some people are way conservative,

other are fairly liberal and have many non DLCers to their right.

A flame war has been started on DU between DLCers and non DLCers. I can understand the reason after having read some of the writings on the DLC website, but is it really useful to continue here.

I don't agree with the platform that the DLC has posted during his congress. I think it is out of touch with priorities of real people.

But, I will ask again: should we have a candidate running against Spitzer? if not, we need to attack those who vote against people's interest - see Sirota articles on this issue), but stop fighting 3 letters).

[Writer]

27. Both sides have launched missiles.

Both sides are to blame.

[Mass]

29. And I blame the other sides in the thread concerning the other side.

This is from both sides a flame war that does not need to be.

There are DLC senators and congresspeople who do not represent the interest of the American people. Some, like Lieberman and Feinstein, do not even have the excuse to be from a red state. These people need to be attacked. I am all for attacking From for his attacks on Dean and the congressional democrats.

Now, there are other congresspeople who are not DLC and have as bad a record. They need to be attacked also. Reid and Byrd voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, they voted for the gun liability Bill. Byrd even voted for the Energy Bill. This need to be said also.

The Senate passed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act without even a rollcall vote. As far as I know, the chairman and the Whip are NOT DLC.

So there are a lot that does not go well in the Congressional Democrats and this needs to be said, not only for those who are members of the DLC, but for ALL.

[Q]

31. You're right...

...but the other sellouts on certain legislation can be individually taken to task. What differentiates them from the DLC? THEY aren't part of an OUTSIDE organization that pretends to have a mandate and at the same time runs a smear machine that attacks other Democrats MORE THAN their GOP opponents. You'll never hear them call Bush the awful names they reserve for liberals...like 'anti-American' and worse.

The DLC's harshest rhetoric is reserved for LIBERALS...not Bush or his policies. Why is that? Strange that 'centrists' complain that 'liberals' should attack Bush and not fellow Democrats when the DLC has nothing but mild criticism for him and his insane policies.

Once again...you're right to say that the problem goes beyond DLCers. But the sheer ARROGANCE of the DLC needs to be noted...as they ASSUME leadership of the party and claim they have a mandate to promote certain policies and principles while rejecting others out of hand.

[dsc]

32. The two votes under current discussion are CAFTA and the bankrupcy

bill. I live in NC, which last I checked was in the South, and let me clear on this. CAFTA is about as popular here as Saddam. Two Republican Congressmem voted for that turkey and one didn't vote but is claiming to have tried to vote no. The rest of the delegation, including Walter Jones who is slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, voted no. On what planet is that centrist?

The bankrupcy bill had no support out side of the credit card industry. I bet you couldn't find even ten Southerners who didn't work for a bank or cc company who actually favored that bill to the point it would enter into his or her Congressional vote.