Reason #1 that the DLC rocks: ending child hunger by 2012

[LoZoccolo]

In recent years, the partisan squabbles in Washington have taken on the qualities of World War I-style trench warfare: increasingly brutal and repetitive battles that bleed both sides dry but allow neither side to gain much ground. The American public, meanwhile, knows that societal problems are festering and is waiting for someone to stand up not with rhetoric, but with real solutions. Indeed, Americans are almost desperate for someone to put aside political fighting and solve the obvious problems our country faces. In an age of unparalleled innovation and technology, Americans wonder why the United States is not tackling some of its more obvious national problems.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=114&subid=143&contentid=253861

I implore anyone to point out where the Republicans want to do the same. As a matter of fact, I recall that the right-wing book Losing Ground, one of the factors contributing to the social Darwinist tilt of the GOP, advocates reducing the number of children in certain populations in America, whatever that means. :scared:

[wyldwolf]

1. now you know there is probably some hidden corporate agenda...

...actually, the main reason the DLC rocks is they are one of only a few Democratic organizations actually making policy proposals. Even if one doesn't care for them, their very existance proves the Republican mantra "Dems have no ideas" wrong.

However, if someone posted up DLC policy proposals, but didn't include they were DLC ideas, most would garner lots of praise here on DU.

[mike_c]

2. the DLC would be just fine with me if they'd restrict themselves...

...to social work. It's practicing repig lite politics that puts me off 'em.

[wyldwolf]

4. perhaps we can have a civil DLC discussion for once...

It's practicing repig lite politics that puts me off 'em

I have never seen a satisfying answer as to what "repig lite" politics are and what makes them so.

[The Magistrate]

12. Indeed, Sir, It Would Be Nice To Have A Definition

There may well be one, mind, but absent such, it is just a noise satifying to some, abrasive to others....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Solon]

14. I can answer that...

They accept Republican framing of social issues at face value, even when such framing is false, they also have a tendancy to be REALLY fiscally conservative, and I don't mean the good kind in JUST reducing deficits, etc. but talking about "Market Solutions" to certain problems that seems to me to be a halfassed way to give corporations giveaways. That type of stuff.

Hell, I made a post on it, more detailed, covering a couple of issues that the DLC supports, its here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2623036

[wyldwolf]

15. but how is that "repig lite?"

They accept Republican framing of social issues at face value, even when such framing is false

For example?

they also have a tendancy to be REALLY fiscally conservative, and I don't mean the good kind in JUST reducing deficits, etc. but talking about "Market Solutions" to certain problems

but how is that "repig lite?" Are you saying those traits aren't or haven't been common to the Democratic party? Sounds like you have an opinion, yes, but still this isn't a definition of repig lite unless you can demonstrate that the positions you dislike from the DLC have not been common to Democrats in general.

[Solon]

22. Here's one example of Repig framing that the DLC seems...

to accept at face value:

When this changed -- after a series of Supreme Court cases that limited the role of religion in the public sphere -- the impact on the political world was intense. The Christian Right became a highly visible and powerful force starting with the election of Ronald Reagan. And in response, progressives backed away from religion, wary of the consequences both of commingling religion and politics and of being confused with the conservative Christian movement.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252572&kaid=127&subid=170

Uh, the Supreme Court didn't do that, I mean, seriously, that's a freakin' LIE they are perpetuating. Same for a further quote down below that previous one:

For the second group of Democrats -- those who come from religious backgrounds and are comfortable with the language of faith -- there is one simple duty: Unmuzzle themselves. For decades, Democratic politicians have forgotten that, as Joseph Lieberman is fond of pointing out, "It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." Respecting the essential principle of separating church and state need not mean that we also maintain a bright line between the worlds of religion and politics. Yet, the phrase "separation of church and state" is spouted with almost Pavlovian regularity when Democratic politicians are asked about religion as an excuse for why they can't or won't talk about their personal faith.

Yet another false framing, by Leiberman of all people. Not to mention that the whole principle of "Separation of Church and State" is about separating the business of the STATE from Church influence, and vice versa. This has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with CIVIL RIGHTS. I "get" what the article is saying, and I cannot say I disagree with it in its entirety, however, the way they frame it is aggrivating to say the least.

Another example is in this article:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252306&kaid=110&subid=181

Particularly in this paragraph:

The academic standards of most states make reference to religion and religious history, but in practice teachers are reluctant to take these issues on in any depth. Educators are understandably worried about attacks and lawsuits from organizations and advocacy groups at the extremes of the ideological spectrum that are too ready to pounce on perceived adversaries with even the flimsiest cause. In addition, there is insufficient training, curriculum support, and resources for teachers who wish to tackle these issues in any depth. Frequently, what does exist is milquetoast at best because it is sanitized for any hint of controversy or political correctness. This curricular problem touches many subjects, as the education historian Diane Ravitch recently documented in The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.

My problem with this is the lack of definition with WHO those groups are, not to mention they don't really define what the extremes are. Do they mean the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or the ACLJ?

Onto fiscal policies, everyone knows their position on Free Trade, a position that seems to be the polar opposite to the goals of posts such as the OP, but, to be honest, I don't see how they can resolve such issues and stay consistant.

Onto health care, let's see, there is this:

Kerry has opened the door to needed reforms that would enhance the best qualities of the U.S. health care system by delivering more services, more state-of-the-art technology, and more personal care by highly trained professionals -- without waiting lines. His approach would enable the advancement of other crucial reforms, such as faster development of cures for chronic diseases, an end to the separate and unequal status of low-income health care programs, and creation of medical courts for swift, reliable justice.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=137&contentid=252792

OK, now, I only excerpted the last paragraph, but will comment on the rest, you can read the rest at the link. First, they perpetuated the myth that a UHC system is both budget busting and has long waiting lines. At the same time they talk about restraining costs by getting rid of "frivolous" lawsuits, this is a big red flag, the TOTAL costs to health care due to such suits is less than 5%, yet administrative costs, which is much larger, is closer to 30% of the costs. So Kerry and the DLC proposed a plan that wouldn't have really made a dent in health care costs, but would just give insurance and private health care companies a large amount of money in the hopes they will cover the poor and uninsured. Half measures can sometimes be worst than trying nothing at all.

[wyldwolf]

26. I'll take up your first point

Uh, the Supreme Court didn't do that, I mean, seriously, that's a freakin' LIE they are perpetuating. (after a series of Supreme Court cases that limited the role of religion in the public sphere)

Are you seriously saying that the Supreme Court HAS NOT limited the role of religion in public? I would direct you to this book, "That Godless Court?: Supreme Court Decisions on Church-State Relationships by Ronald B. Flowers.

Of course, I don't expect you to go out and buy a book that proves your first point wrong, but the fact remains that. more often than not, the Supreme Court has limited religion in the public arena.

Engel v. Vitale - limiting school prayer, for example.

The Supreme court also barred two Ten Commandment displays in Kentucky last year.

Point 2. The phrase "It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" is correct. You don't have the right not to be exposed to religion.

Don't really have time to dissect your other claims, but they hold as much water as your first two.

[Solon]

32. See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about...

All right, Engel v. Vitale forbade the PUBLIC SCHOOLS from LEADING prayers. Students are FREE to pray in school as long as they do NOT disrupt class, etc.

On the Ten Commandments cases, its not the fact that the Ten Commandments were forbidden, its that all other religious documents were excluded, you put the Ten Commandments up on a wall in a PUBLIC building, and you have to allow everything from the Vedas, Wiccan Rede to Hammurabi's Codes up as well. However, more often than not, the government refuses such requests, so is ordered to take down one religious document because they do not allow others. Either allow all, or none, no other way is truly equal.

[wyldwolf]

39. regardless of the reasoning

the decisions DID limit the scope of religion in public. Period.

[Solon]

42. They limited the power of government to coerce religion...

period.

[wyldwolf]

45. and since the government is the only entity that can coerse religion

The Supreme court has, indeed, done what you say they have not - limited the role of religion in the public sphere.

[Solon]

47. All right, if that is how you define it...

OK, so are you saying this was a bad thing? Like I said, I didn't like the framing, it is a "negative" framing, are you saying that government coerced religion is a good thing?

[wyldwolf]

51. no, but just as a matter of fact

The Supreme Court HAS handed down many such decisions, just as the DLC article claimed.

[Solon]

54. OK, I don't understand the equivelency at all...

You say that the Supreme Court limited religion in the public sphere. That is a statement of opinion and spin, not fact. By preventing the GOVERNMENT from promoting religion in OFFICIAL ways, the Supreme Court has actually ENSURED that religion in the public sphere is FREELY practiced. Anyone, even Congresspeople, can pray on public property, we even have an unenforcable, but still "official" Day of Prayer in this country. This is true of students in public school as well.

[wyldwolf]

55. it is a statement of fact

When the Supreme Court says schools can no longer lead prayers or government property can't display a religious monument, that particular religious act has been limited. That is a fact, not an opinion.

If I had the power to prevent you from drinking milk in public, and then said you couldn't do it, I would have effectively curbed your consumption of milk. Fact, not opinion.

[Solon]

59. Wrong analogy...

The correct one would be if I had the power to MAKE you drink milk in public, and then you said I couldn't do it, that doesn't stop you from drinking the milk anyways. You just did it on your terms, not mine.

[wyldwolf]

61. perfect analogy

Our bone of contention is has the supreme court limited religious expression in public. You said no. I said yes.

However, we have seen that they, indeed, have.

While first you drank milk in public, but then I said you no longer could. Your consumption has been limited.

[Solon]

65. Where in the decisions of the Court did they limit free expression?

That is the problem, you bought the right wing spin. You are FREE to pray all you want on public property, that is plain as day. When Senators and Congresspeople sang "God Bless America" on public property on 9/11 there was no outcry from anyone, and no lawsuits either. That was perfectly legal and PROTECTED by the first Amendment. At the same time, those same people were forbidden from PASSING A LAW REQUIRING people to sing with them. Its the same damned thing, your analogy was fatally flawed.

In school its the same thing, my PUBLIC SCHOOL had Christian clubs, prayer groups, etc. and there was NO outcry, because they had their FREE EXPRESSION protected. At the same time the schools were forbidden from REQUIRING students to participate in these student-lead groups. This is a fine line that shouldn't be crossed, and it does NOT inhibit the free expression of religion, but rather it REINFORCES it.

[wyldwolf]

70. sigh

If I want to display a religious monument, I can't do it in a public area. I can't paint a the ten commandments on a public building. If painting is how I express myself, it has been limited.

But we weren't discussing "free expression." We were discussing "Supreme Court cases that limited the role of religion in the public sphere."

[Solon]

78. Bzzzz, wrong again...

But hey, go ahead and keep on talking. OK, let's see if I can make this clear, you are FREE to even put a Religious object on public property, however, do NOT expect the government to maintain it, and if the government is allowed to let you put such a monument on public property, they cannot forbid other religions from doing the same. Now, your second example is just plain ridiculous, no government, either local or federal, allows graffiti on their buildings, so I guess not only is your free expression suppressed, but so is everyone elses too. I can't paint up "Mao's little red book" either, so what is the complaint?

Do you really have to go to ridiculous levels like this to try to prove your point? You failed, badly.

[wyldwolf]

79. LOL!

Has anyone noticed how some people won't provide links or sources to back anything? Just a "because I said so" mentality and tired cliches like "bzzzz, wrong again" and "Do you really have to go to ridiculous levels like this to try to prove your point? You failed, badly."

If giving actual Supreme Court cases and showing a book that proves my point across 100s of pages is "going to ridiculous levels" and "failing badly," then guilty as charged.

[Solon]

83. I'll do one better, here is an interview by the author...

on the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State's website:

This section is particularly enlightening, given our conversation:

Q. You note that school-sponsored, coercive programs of religious worship have been struck down by the courts but that truly voluntary student religious expression is permitted. In light of this, why does the myth of public schools as “religion-free zones” persist?

A. Those of us who know the true nature of the court’s decisions have not done a good job of getting the message out. Americans United has tried for a long time; I try in this book. But many still live under the impression that was formed when the decisions came down, that they were hostile to school prayer. This myth has gained a life of its own. But the myth’s “life” has been perpetuated by many who do not want the truth to be known. Many on the Religious Right are hostile to the public schools. They actually believe, or at least want their constituents to believe, that the public schools are inefficient, not teaching well, infected with discipline problems, purveyors of galloping secularism, in short, evil. So, it is in their interest of discrediting the public schools to make the claim that the schools are “religion-free zones.”

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8007&abbr=cs_

So, you were saying?

[wyldwolf]

87. Again, I'll remind you of your original premise:

after a series of Supreme Court cases that limited the role of religion in the public sphere... Uh, the Supreme Court didn't do that, I mean, seriously, that's a freakin' LIE they are perpetuating.

Now, the person interviewed says, "school-sponsored, coercive programs of religious worship have been struck down by the courts ..."

Again, this proves that the Supreme court limited the role of religion in the public sphere. The charge wasn't made that the Supreme court has banned all religious practice, but that is has LIMITED it.

So you were saying? LOL!

[Solon]

88. I still don't understand where the two are related...

Preventing school-sponsored, coercive programs of religious worship does NOT mean that the role of religion in the public sphere is being limited.

[wyldwolf]

89. yes it does

I cannot see how you don't understand this. Your original assertion was not about "school-sponsored, coercive programs of religious worship." It was about Supreme Court cases that limited the role of religion in the public sphere.

[Solon]

90. How do you define the "public sphere"?

This is probably the biggest point of contention, I think. For me, the public sphere is simply being "in public" as in on public property of any sort, whether preaching on street corners or praying before a Math test in school. I don't see how either is limited by any Supreme Court decision.

[Solon]

35. I may not have the right to not be exposed to religion...

However, I do have the right to not have the government coerce me into participating in a religion that is not my own.

[wyldwolf]

40. that is correct, which is why the courts consistently side ...

...on first amendment rights. The DLC was correct.

[izzybeans]

95. On point 2, sure we do.

Freedom of religion encompasses freedom from religion if I so choose.

It is a big tent.

That being sad this issue is secondary to the posting made. The program sounds fine on it's own merits.

[The Magistrate]

24. Thank You For The Answer, Sir

Your comments in the piece you linked to are quite impressive, and well reasoned. A few elements seem weak to me, but we agree on much.

Our most important area of agreement is on the matters of trade and the economy. The D.L.C. thinkers certainly do buy into the prevailing "free-marketeer" orthodoxy, and that orthodoxy is a bankrupt and wrong-headed paradigm. No country in history has ever risen to general prosperity by serving as source of low-wage labor for foreign capital investment. Countries that have risen to general prosperity have all done so by employing a judicious mix of tariff protection for the investments of domestic capital in industry, and of government investment in domestic industry in its early stages of development. The product of this industry may be aimed initially at an export market, and even benefit from a low wage scale, but the important element is that the capital is native, not foreign, and so the profits remain in the country rather than being repatriated to the lands of the investors. Nor does any country benefit from throwing large numbers of its domestic workers out of their jobs; the damage from this decisively outweighs the benefits that are gained by lower prices of goods imported from cheap foreign manufacturies. The idea of a general prosperity based on service industries and rentier incomes is wholly illusory; such an economy cannot possibly benefit the greatest proportion of the populace, though it may bring great benefit to a few. It must inevitably reduce the majority to a subsistence condition as the price of the minority's prosperity. This has been, of course, the general case in human societies throughout history, but so has autocratic and authoritarian rule, and such rule is the only means by which such a society can be long maintained. That economic structure is always, and necessarily, incompatible with a democratic polity: social planners must choose one or the other; they cannot have both. The general economic measures employed today to demonstrate the economy of our country is "going great guns" concentrate on aggregate numbers, and do not take into account the increasing concentration of wealth and declining living standards experienced by the bulk of the populace. They are a mere facade, behind which glittering front is conmcealed a dilapidated and crumbling tenement hall.

Perhaps our most important area of disagreement is well illustrated by the item your comments commenced with, namely the issue of religion in schools, and we may generalize from this to some other "hot-button" items, though there is no need to deal with the others at this point. To avoid any misunderstanding, let me say that examination of the archives of the Religion and Theology forum will amply demonstrate my views on religion are those of a dyed in the wool infidel. But it seems to me that a good deal of the effort carried out under the rubric of securing seperation of church and State is as extreme as the efforts of the religious right to break down that seperation. A person who sues to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, or to remove a Nativity scene from a municipal park, would better serve the left and progressive cause by finding another hobby. Such things are of monumental unimportance, because almost no one who is not attached to either extreme view of the matter takes them at all seriously when encountering them in the course of their lives or the holiday season, but are generally moved to some annoyance by the spectacle of a crank loudly insisting they are worth legal action and a grand fight in the newspapers. Such actions even when successful gain nothing of importance, and whether successful or not provide the enemy with useful propaganda fodder, making it easy to stigmatize left and progressive elements as out of touch and a little odd, in short, as a sort of people most will not want to identify themselves with and join in alongside. Since electoral politics is at bottom a process of cultivating group identification, and success in it depends on forming for your side the largest group identity, this does real damage.

[Solon]

29. My major point of contention would be your second paragraph...

My problem is mostly the framing of the issue, not the result. First, I don't see how either of those cases actually should hurt Democrats in any way, the DNC didn't right amicus briefs in support of such lawsuits, in fact, they have been largely silent, as they should be, it shouldn't be a political issue at all, simply a civil rights issue. You can go back further in time and say that the Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't have wasted time in making the Pledge optional instead of required, they were the ones who brought the first major suit "against the Pledge" in the first place. Same with let's say nativity scenes on public property, problem is that its public property, many of these suits were brought due to the stupidity of city councils, if Christians can put Nativity scenes on public property around Christmas, then Wiccans can do the same with the Green Man being birthed by the Goddess. Same for all religions, Menorahs and other religious objects HAVE to be allowed when requested, or none are to be represented, or equal rights is nothing but a phrase. If the city refuses, then what other recourse is there but to sue?

You could also use that argument for religious expressions being suppressed in school as well. There have been a LOT of lawsuits because schools have forbidden religious jewelry from being worn by some students but not others.

[The Magistrate]

41. The Reason, Sir, That Such Things Do Damage To Our Electoral Prospects

Is that the careful analysis of who actually participates you present is not engaged in either by the public at large or by the enemy's propagandists. No one cares whether the Democratic National Committee files an amicus curia brief when some local zealot files suit to remove a creche from the Town Hall lawn. They simply know that the person who did it is a liberal, and a prickly and self-righteous one at that, and they know that liberals are the same as the Democratic Party, because everyone knows the Demcoratic Party is the liberal left of the country's political life, and so the person who files the suit over such nonesense is obviously interchangeable with the Democratic candidate up next year for County Commissioner and Congress in the district, as well as Senator in the state and President of the country. The sort of distinctions we make among ourselves here, by which some consider me a rightist, would reduce most people, even many who consider themselves pretty engaged in political life, to stunned amazement at the intricate mirror world they have come upon. The Democrats are the left, and whatever is identified as the left by the people at large is ascribed to the Democratic Party. That is not a question of accepting right wing framing of an issue; that is a practical fact of our political life, that cannot be disregarded save with extreme peril, the sort of peril that must arise whenever something real and actual is ignored and something one would rather have be the case than what is is substituted for it.

In regard to the examples you pursue in the matter, my point has nothing to do with whether something is or is not right, or whether people do or do not have equal rights, or any other such concern, but rather with whether a particular course or action is beneficial politically or not, or in other words, with whether or not it will advance the project of expelling the worst elements of reaction in our polity from dominance of the national government. If there is a creche on the Town Hall lawn, doubtless a Wiccan has a right to have an image of the Goddess there as well, but why anyone should attach the slightest degree of importance to the question from either direction escapes me entirely, and what benefit such an action can confer in the struggle against reactionary dominance of our national government presents me with an even greater mystery. Since it is clear, though, that the number of people who do not object to the creche is vastly greater than the number who would demand the Goddess, it seems pretty clear that such an action will harm that project, and so it should not be made, and if made, will not enjoy my support, and should not enjoy the support of anyone seriously engaged in politics.

[Solon]

44. Only because perceptions are controlled by the Christian Right...

Its a "Damned if we do, Damned if we don't" situation. As far as I know, the guy who sued over the "Under God" part of the pledge could have been a staunch Republican. Unless he came out as a Democrat, the issue should have been apolitical. If Democrats are silent on the issue, the Republicans frame it as they support it, and if Democrats come out against such a decision, the Republicans call that pandering. The problem is that the Republican party OWNS the FRAMING of the debate, and therefore they always win on it, because their talking points, even if inaccurate, reign.

[killerbush]

27. wyldwolf, people don't want to have a civil discussion about the DLC

They see the letters DLC, and it drives them nuts. They have a preplanned agenda to destroy any vestiges of the DLC. We moderates are a visible threat to them. Why do you think Lieberman is catching all the vile crap? It's because people have an inherent dislike for anything that scares them, and the DLC scares them.

[wyldwolf]

30. Hey, all I want it...

A list of the policies of the DLC people here believe aren't based in Democratic princples and are "repug lite," then demonstrate how that is so.

Free trade? Democratic platform for years. FDR ran on it.

Strong defense? Woodrow Wilson created the doctrine of "liberal internationalism" that the left hates so much.

Family values? Faith? ALL firmy entrenched in Democratic party history.

[Solon]

46. Dissection time...

First, the Free Trade snipe, let's see, oh Yeah, FDR ran on policies where corporations are STRICTLY controlled, and that included in trade policies. He believed that Free Trade is a good way to promote peace worldwide, and he is generally correct. The problem comes when CURRENT free trade policies value Profits over People.

On strong defense, I have no freakin' clue what you are talking about, who promotes things like the ICC and the UN? Oh yeah, the LEFT! If you are going to try for an insult, try to be at least accurate, the most isolationist people in this country are REPUBLICANS, they are the ones that withheld funding to the UN, and other measures to pander to their paranoid base. We sometimes criticize institutions like the UN, mostly due to lack of effectiveness in today's world, they are generally underfunded and lack TEETH, along with democratic accountability, but that doesn't mean we oppose it or what it represents in principle.

As far as Family Values and Faith, OK, I support family values because I believe that family is a keystone of society and that supporting families, REGARDLESS of what form that family takes, helps support stability in society. This includes giving the same rights to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples enjoy, and for encouraging ALL families that can to take in children in need that are in the foster care system.

On faith, all people have the absolute right to practice their faith without interference or encouragement from government. Seems pretty simple to me.

[LoZoccolo]

50. The UN has been an interventionist body from time to time.

Yes, that's a left-wing position in the tradition of Kennedy and Truman as well. The neocons stole it from us and twisted it.

[Solon]

52. The biggest criticisms of the UN, from the left anyways...

is due to the lack of being interventionist, to much influence of NGOs, especially ones representing industries, etc. Remember, the UN's first priority is to keep the peace, a place where governments can air out their differences before the world, without resorting to guns and bombs. The problem with the Neo-cons isn't the corruption of the UN, but the defanging of it entirely. The Neo-cons are STRONG believers in UNILATERAL interventionist policies, disregarding the input of ANY international body or other governments. They attempted to gain legitimacy for the War in Iraq through the UN, only for diplomatic expediency, however, not for any principled reason, and they also failed in that attempt.

My other major problem with the UN is the Security Council, or rather, the idea that 5 nations have veto power over the council is rather stupid in today's world. While France and Russia were good in vetoing the legitimacy of the Iraq War, most likely the US would have lost a simple majority vote as well. Also, this process has hampered the ability of the UN to intervene in problems around the world that sometimes required quick action, instead they have to rely on 5 nations that don't really agree on anything to act, and most of the time deadlock instead.

[wyldwolf]

53. I though you said "disection time." Where's the disection?

FDR asserted that worldwide reduction of trade barriers would benefit both the United States and its trading partners. His victory marked the beginning of America's modern trade policy; a year later, the signing of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act on June 12th, a forerunner of NAFTA, established a commitment to open markets and trade liberalization sustained by each of the next ten presidents.

A strong defense has precious little to do with the UN and ICC. Wilson created the doctrine of liberal internationalism, which became paramount to the foriegn policy of every president thereafter. Liberal Internationalism: A marriage between the pursuit of liberal purposes (security, free trade, human rights, rule of law, democracy promotion, etc.) and the use of institutionalist means to pursue them, including NATO, the UN, and unilateral actions.

No one has said you don't believe in family values.

So why not list all the big bad "repig lite" policies of the DLC?

[Solon]

57. Uh, I don't think FDR would have actually liked...

the "free for all" policies of NAFTA, the WTO, or the policies of the IMF. Open markets only works when they are regulated, yet we undermine our own markets because of the general LACK of regulations, especially in regards to trade policy. Remember, FDR also ran on the plank of reigning in corporate excess, which he did, forming the SEC and other regulatory bodies in addition to creating public works projects to help rebuild the economy.

As far as a strong defense, I would say that we excelled in "liberal internationalist" policies with the Korean War, and failed since. Korea was a UN action, granted the US took the lead, militarily, however, it was, largely, justified. However, since then especially in regards to unilateral actions, we have generally failed to live up to the expectations of Wilson, especially in regards to human rights, rule of law, and democracy promotion. I'm really trying to think of ONE place in the world where we succeeded in intervening that lead to any increase in the three items you listed, and I can't think of a single country we helped in that manner.

[wyldwolf]

60. you referred to "opinions and spin" in another post in this thread.

Fine examples of such there.

I don't think FDR would have actually liked the "free for all" policies of NAFTA, the WTO, or the policies of the IMF. Open markets only works when they are regulated

And they are regulated.

As far as a strong defense, I would say that we excelled in "liberal internationalist" policies with the Korean War, and failed since.

I would say it excelled in Kosovo. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the doctrine is a traditional Democratic one, despite protests from the left.

[Solon]

63. OK, in what aspects are they regulated?

Serious question, do companies have to follow ANY international standards in minimum wages, minimum ages in factories, safety or enviromental laws, really, show me an example, just one.

OK, I'll give you Kosovo, however, that wasn't a strictly unilateral action, but a Multilateral one, again lead by the United States. Are there any other examples?

[wyldwolf]

66. answers

Serious question, do companies have to follow ANY international standards in minimum wages, minimum ages in factories, safety or enviromental laws, really, show me an example, just one.

Why should I show you examples? I said NAFTA had regulations. If you want info on specific ones, Google is your friend. But NAFTA has reams of regulations.

OK, I'll give you Kosovo, however, that wasn't a strictly unilateral action, but a Multilateral one, again lead by the United States. Are there any other examples?

I never said they had to be strictly unilateral actions. But even if there were NO examples, the fact remains that the doctrine is dating back over 80 years.

[CTLawGuy]

84. are you referring to us, the "terrorists"

I never got a chance to thank you for comparing people who support change in the Dem party to people who commit mass murder of innocent people.

Very Classy :eyes:

[SOS]

91. Nice article wasn't it?

Supporters of Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont are:

a terrorist band of assholes
jerks
nutjob, leftwing blog readers
bastards
non-thinking
crap
can't think straight
IQ of houseplants
closet racists (!)
trash

:puke:

[CTLawGuy]

92. must have a hell of a thesaurus

!

[leesa]

3. Right. That's seems to be progressing really well. They SAY crap like

this all the time, but their corporate masters would NEVER allow action.

[LoZoccolo]

5. Well, do you think it might not be progressing because...

...maybe the Republicans control the house, senate, presidency (thanks far-left for 2000), and supreme court (thanks again)?

[Solon]

11. Put blame where it really belongs...

Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris disenfranchised over 10,000 Democratic, mostly black, Voters for (s)Election 2000, THAT is what lost the vote for the Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

17. Nader received some 97000 votes in Florida

[Solon]

23. Oops, sorry...

it was 57,700 voters taken off the rolls, with a 90.2% error rate, in other words, over 40,000 voters were taken off the rolls errantly. You were saying?

[wyldwolf]

28. I was saying Nader received some 97000 votes in Florida

considerably more than the figures you provided. You... were saying?

[Solon]

34. And Bush "won" the state by 537 votes...

In other words, those votes to Nader would have been a non-issue if Jeb Bush didn't commit voter fraud.

[wyldwolf]

38. much easier to commit voter fraud when 500 votes are all you need

But 97,000? Or even half that?

[LoZoccolo]

19. This is a tired point that's been belabored.

I should not have to explain the cause-and-effect of 10,000 Nader voters possibly voting for Gore, and thus more of their agenda rather than less could have been had.

I should not have to explain that more than one thing can cause an election to sway this way or that.

I should not have to explain that for 10,000 or less (wasn't it down to like 500 votes?) of those 97,000 Nader voters, that the power they personally had over the election to get more of what they wanted rather than less was squandered.

I should not even have had to explain these three things, and will not explain more. At this point, the conversation has been held so many times that it's clear that there are the people who will acknowledge it, those who won't, and those who pretend not to (probably the vast majority of the apologists for your argument), and that's just the way things go.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I should also not have to mention...

...that it appears that about three quarters of the 2000 Nader voters in Florida themselves agree with me as to questions of their responsibility in not squandering their vote, as Nader recieved 1.6% of the vote there in 2000, and .4% in 2004.

http://www.electoral-vote.com

[Solon]

6. Maybe they think the Children should work?

Second, the United States has a tangible political and moral stake in our partners' success. All six today are peaceful, democratic nations -- and bipartisan American trade policy deserves some of the credit. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, a trade preference program dating back to 1985, helped bring new urban industries to Santo Domingo, Managua, San Salvador, San Pedro Sula, and many other Central American and Dominican cities. Central American clothing factories now employ about half a million people, and often provide the first jobs for hundreds of thousands of young women moving out of impoverished villages. This source of employment has helped Central America make a crucial transition from the wars, armed insurgencies, and military repression that characterized the region in the 1980s.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=127&contentid=253383

Fuck the DLC and their Neo-Liberal assholic support for draconian trade policies.

[LoZoccolo]

7. And you know this?

And please don't change the subject. It's called "thread hijacking" here at DU, and it is against the rules.

[Solon]

10. Actually, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy...

But really, go on, and tell me how I'm an Evil Communist(TM). I'm slightly amused here.

On a more serious note, its all fine and dandy to say you want to end Child hunger in this country by 2012, but really, all it is is empty rhetoric. I'm all for the idea that Child Hunger should end in this country, and some of the best ways to do that is to preserve American Jobs, preserve Unionization, and encourage its growth, and also to increase pay across the board. Problem is that their position on Free Trade hinders those goals.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Also, maybe progressives think we should institute communism?

I went to another "progressive" message board, and some of the people there who were against the DLC were for a communist revolution.

(If you want an insane conversation, I so can give you one.)

[ulysses]

9. great.

I'm all for it. :thumbsup:

[OneBlueSky]

13. the DLC is the corporate wing of the party . . .

and we've had enough corporate influence/control of our government over the past six years to last several lifetimes . . . they may indeed propose something good here or there, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in hock to corporate America big time . . . no thanks . . .

[LoZoccolo]

16. I'm impressed by your command of the specifics. n/t

[Zorra]

21. Here are what appear to be some specifics:

How the DLC Does It
By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 4.23.01
snip---
While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

A key member of the event committee for the 2000 annual fall dinner was Mike Lewan, who runs a boutique lobbying house that has represented clients such as Oracle and BellSouth. In the late 1980s, Lewan, who joined the DLC because he was "one of those disaffected Democrats," went to work as Lieberman's chief of staff--and promptly introduced the Connecticut senator to the DLC. Today, Lewan helps recruit support for the DLC on K Street. "It's astonishing to me how much support the DLC is getting from the professional Washington people, the lawyers, the lobbyists," he says. "There's a relationship and a trust level that's been built up."

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

lots more

[Dr.Phool]

25. I was at 2 different events Saturday afternoon and evening

Where Jim Davis (Dino-FL) was also appearing. He's running for Governor, and I can't stand this slime. He has a primary opponent in State Senator Rod Smith, who is definitely getting my vote.

[flpoljunkie]

81. Rod Smith is a conservative Democrat. Jim Davis endorsed by Bob Graham,

Rhea Chiles. Why do you call Jim Davis "slime?"

[Zodiak]

37. Thanks for the post

Their donor list looks like a who's-who of the worst mainstream corporate offenders in America.

I track senator votes as a hobby. With a few exeptions (Kerry, Clinton..for the most part), the DLC members of the senate have a long and consistent history of scuttling Democratic efforts at opposing the Bush agenda. Important matters like Alito, otehr right-wing judges, bankruptcy bill, tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot Act,removal of the right to class action lawsuits, etc. etc.

When someone says "one or two issues" are the sins of a particular DLC Democrat (Save Kerry and Clinton, there are 17 more of them), they are not keeping track of the votes. Most (11) of these senators vote with the Democrats less than 50% of the time on important issues. Kerry and Clinton are anomalies for the DLC, and should not be considered representative.

Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson (Florida), Nelson (Nebraska), Carper, and Leiberman do.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist

I have come to the conclusion that the big tent of the Democratic party should not be so big on the right that we have these characters as such a prominent constituency in the party. They are not transparent, they have crappy voting records (NOT "moderate, but right wing in many cases), and Democratic activists are on to them.

There are a couple of fairly right wing Democrats that are not DLC (Byrd, Biden), but by far, the worst we have are all members of this nefarious, shadowy organization (if you will not publish your membership or your donors, you are shadowy..what have they to hide?).

[Zorra]

43. Yes. Anti-Democrat votes, and the lack of a reasonable explanation

for these votes, are very telling as to where a legislators loyalties lay.

[nickshepDEM]

18. Corporate SLIME!

Just kidding. K&R of course.

[Mass]

31. I thought it was hunger in the world. If it is about the US, the goal

should be as soon as the Democrats take power. Why should it take 6 years to end child hunger?

[LoZoccolo]

48. I don't know, how come you haven't fixed it already?

I mean you personally. Why should it take you more than six weeks to end child hunger?

[Radical Activist]

33. We could end it next year

If we had the political will and courage. Delaying it six years is typical of the procrastinating, half-assed sort of proposals we're used to seeing from the DLC.

[LoZoccolo]

49. Why don't you do it yourself then?

Did I just hear somebody volunteer?

[Radical Activist]

58. Since I'm a US Senator with millions of dollars in personal wealth

I'm just the right person to do the job. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

62. So you think it should be paid for with the personal wealth...

...of politicians?

Seriously, how would you propose ending hunger almost immediately?

Better yet, show me a link to such a plan from DFA or PDA.

[Radical Activist]

64. Try reading the book

"The Politics of World Hunger" by the late Senator Paul Simon. You can see how it can be done from a Democrat who wasn't afraid to stand for something meaningful.

[wyldwolf]

67. I have

So answer my questions.

[Radical Activist]

69. pppttthhhh

really? If you've read the book, it answers the question pretty well.

[wyldwolf]

71. pppttthhhh?

I have the book right in front of me. Tell me what page I can find the answers to my questions on:

"So you think it should be paid for with the personal wealth of politicians?"

"Seriously, how would you propose ending hunger almost immediately?"

"Better yet, show me a link to such a plan from DFA or PDA."

[Radical Activist]

73. I still don't believe you.

But if you do have the book in front of you I'm sure you can add plenty to the discussion. I don't feel any obligation to answer a question that requires far more serious and in-depth discussions than is going to happen in a few posts on DU, and don't relate to the premise of the original pose regarding the DLC.
Someone who is in the Senate and has the contacts that come with great personal wealth is in a much better position than I to solve the problem. That was my point.

The positions of DFA and PDA are irrelevant to the discussion.

[wyldwolf]

75. beautiful example of the "cop out."

:)

[Radical Activist]

76. and what were your questions about?

Avoiding the issue? Deflection? Pardon me for not being interested in your tangent.

[wyldwolf]

77. must I repeat them for the third time?

Tell ya what. Read the thread. I'll come to you.

[LynneSin]

36. DLC has some great agenda items

I don't agree with all of them but a few years ago I read a great article about gun control that made sense notonly to me but my NRA-republican step-father. I shared that article with him and he agreed that what the DLC was suggesting was common sense and that maybe he could vote for a few democrats.

The policy was just common sense laws of ensuring that law abiding citizens could purchase guns. But it was explained in such a way that even the NRA had to agree with these policies.

And no - I don't own a gun

[AtomicKitten]

56. The DLC raises $$$ for the Democratic Party

To suggest that taking corporate money is whorish is short-sighted and unrealistic. Sure, in a perfect world and enforced across the board, it would be ideal. But with the money filling the coffers of the Republicans, I am grateful for any entity that organizes to do so for the Democrats.

The DLC platform can't possibly please all people all the time, however, they are Democrats first and foremost and too many people here at DU forget that. Their voice is as valid as any others in the party. It's called democracy.

[union_maid]

68. How about just acknowleging the problem?

You're right in that no one's platform is going to please all of the people all of the time and that you need corporate donations. But the problem is that corporations have more or less declared war on people in the last few years. I'm not even sure if they can help it. All the deregulation makes it much harder for a corporation to do the right thing. But DLC's identification as a pro-corporate group is a problem now.

[AtomicKitten]

72. I fully understand the problem.

I just don't see an easy, quick solution. I don't want to hamstring the Democrats by the unrealistic expectation that the source of their funding be pristine when the Republicans have the dough rolling in.
Acknowledging the problem is window dressing. Solving the problem is another thing all together.

[katinmn]

80. No, the DLC discourages giving money to the Democratic Party

and attacks the chosen leaders of the Democratic Party.(See Paul Begala http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/bringing-a-knife-to-a-gun_b_21275.html)

It's common knowledge that there is a power struggle within the party between left-to-moderate and Right-Wing Democrats.

Those of us who are mainstreamers (i.e against the war, support universal health care, are pro-choice and pro civil rights) view the DLC as a cancer on the Democratic party.

The DLC's "platform" is not the platform of the people. The DLC does not solicit input from Americans nor does it trust Americans to make their own decisions about who will represent them. They get their money and their marching orders from special interests. What they don't have is VOTES.

Given a choice, people will use their voting power to elect people who represent their views not those of special interests.

[flpoljunkie]

82. Don't forget DLC From's list of "OUR CANDIDATES-Clinton, Vilsack, Warner &

Bayh"--listed in that order, when AL From appeared on Washington Journal on October 25th, 2005.

[Beacho]

74. How are they going to do it?

Oh, let me guess.


Maybe somemore tax cuts? 'Welfare reform' that promises job training, then in the middle of night cutting the funding for training? Passing more legislation leading to the re-establishment of debtors' prison? Handing over the government to corporations via privitazation scams?

[mmonk]

85. Any organization

that supports "pre-emptive war" , does not tackle the Geneva conventions being ignored, has little problem with violations of the 4th amendment, offers no opposition to appointments of "unitary executive" judges, etc., can't be saved by one program to help against hunger and does not "rock".

[rman]

86. promises, promises....

[SOS]

93. Lyndon Johnson

gave this speech in January 1964.
Then he got to work, FDR-style.
By 1968 the poverty rate was cut in half.
The DLC article does not mention how they plan to accomplish their goal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. my problem with the DLC

First let me say that not all DLC members are the same. There is a range of opinion. It is not monolithic.

However, the DLC still stands for neoliberal economics and militaristic global hegemony. The are not are not the right-wing of the Republican Party. And their version of these core principles are somewhat more moderate than the Republican Party version. There is no denying that.

Many liberals and progressives make the mistake of thinking that the DLC is "right-wing" the same way the right-wing of the Republican Party is right-wing. This is not correct at all. If you check the voting record of leading DLC members of the House or Senate you will see that their voting records on such matters as pro-choice, gay rights or other social issues are about the same as the voting record of leading liberal/progressive members of Congress.

My main problems with the DLC are:

1. The attempt to marginalize progressive voices within the Democratic Party and to represent mainstream opinion regarding trade issues, single-payer universal health care and matters of war and peace as extreme positions. When the evidence shows that it is they if anyone who is out of the mainstream on some very important core issues.

2. They embrace an albeit modified form of neoliberal economic ideology and believe it should be imposed on the third world who do not want it because of the devastating consequences it has on the third world fueling inflation, dispossessing the peasantry from their land--creating a new commercial class for the benefit of the few at the cost of the vast overwhelming majority. The only place where the Orwellian named "free trade" is less popular than the rust belt of northeastern United States is in the developing world -- the very people who would be the greatest theoretical beneficiaries.

3. On foreign policy they just don't understand that the world does not want and the American people do not an imperial America that is in a never ending series of military conflicts while the social contract and social fabric of American society disintegrates on an over-bloated military budget that as as former President Eisenhower described as "so wasteful it weakens the nation". I am very much afraid that America could be led astray into an even more disastrous imperial war in the Middle East or elsewhere not by a Republican President but by a DLC-type Democrat President.