DLC: "The Third Way"

[LWolf]

I notice an upsurge in conversation about the DLC. I responded to a request for information the other day with this, but got no response. As long as the DLC is a topic of interest, I'm reposting. The DLC is not a part of the Democratic Party. Criticism of the DLC and the DLC agenda is not against DU rules.

Why not start a discussion of the DLC with a look at the political/social philosophy behind them? From the DLC website:

<snip>

Overview | June 1, 1998
About The Third Way

The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age.

<snip>

The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.

The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&cont...

That doesn't sound bad, does it? Of course, any organization who wants to gain power will make their goals sound good on paper. Let's take a look at an analysis of this philosophy at the Monthly Review. It's a long article, going into history, and variations from other regions. I've just snipped a bit, but I encourage you to read it all. The bolding is mine:

<snip>

What is the Third Way? Both historically and in the contemporary world, there are numerous examples of political leaders and movements that declare their allegiance to a Third Way—defining alternatives in opposition to what they perceive to be dominant paradigms. In the contemporary world, the best known exponent of the Third Way is British Prime Minister Tony Blair, though a number of other political leaders in Europe and elsewhere have expressed sympathy or support for the rhetoric or substance of Blair's version of the Third Way.

<more snips>

The Third Way ideologues and leaders speak to a social system based on a meritocracy—the elimination of class-based inequalities in favor of inequalities based on merit (presumably knowledge and skill). Scholars and journalists, however, point to the growth of inequalities based on old and new wealth—particularly the vast and growing socioeconomic inequalities between the super-rich of the City of London and Wall Street and the growing army of workers in the low paid service sector. The increase of social inequalities is related to another flawed argument in Third Way ideology: the end of class struggle. Contrary to the ideology, a sustained and far-reaching class struggle from above has been engaged in and has successfully weakened labor, diminished trade union membership, reduced living standards, worsened working conditions, and strengthened ruling-class control over the state and its allocation of expenditures and collection of tax revenues. The claims of Third Way ideologues that class politics are no longer relevant is belied by longitudinal studies of budgets, state policies toward crisis management, and state economic commitments to domestic markets and overseas expansion. Budgets have become heavily skewed toward tax reductions for the rich, cuts in health, welfare, and education, and sharp increases in expenditures for overseas expansion, military intervention, and bailout of overseas speculators. The winners and losers reflect the class nature of the state, the politicians who administer it, and the close ties between politicians, bankers and public policy.

What is most striking about the connections between Third Way rhetoric and New Right politics is that where the ideology is most deeply implanted—in the United States and England—social programs have suffered the worst and capitalist class prosperity is greatest.

And one last <snip> makes 4 paragraphs:

Third Way theorists argue that their goal is a more competitive and open economy shaped by the market. In reality, Third Way regimes have approved and aligned themselves with the greatest merger movement in history—leading to greater concentration of economic power among a decreasing number of monopolistic giants. The size of the conglomerates has grown, while the number dominating markets has shrunk. Third Way ideologues have argued for greater efficiencies and competitiveness—but productivity has stagnated and markets are shaped by a few market-makers. Moreover, selective protectionism, massive state subsidies, and the sell-off of public enterprises to private monopolies has homogenized the market and made entry of new participants more difficult, except in specialized market niches. Secondly, capitalist prosperity has largely been confined to the speculative-financial and real estate sectors of the capitalist class—not to the productive, innovative sectors. The economic boom has been, in large part, a phenomenon of the stock market and related domestic and overseas speculative activity in which illicit activity—multibillion-dollar money laundering—plays a prominent part. In the productive sphere, the arms industry still plays a key role in the export sector, despite the fatuous moral posturing of Third Way leaders. Finally, the claims of Third Way ideologues that we are entering a new economic epoch—a postindustrial, high-tech information era—are patently false. In the United States, computer industries represent less than 3 percent of the economy. Their impact on productivity has been negligible and they have been greatly hyped in stock values by Third Way ideologues and stock market speculators. High-tech information systems are a subordinate element to a predominantly financial-industrial economy rather than a independent, dynamic force. The attempt by Third Way ideologues to provide a technological gloss on their linkages to super-rich financial magnates just doesn't hold water. Economic realities belie the ideological claims once again.

There's much more of interest:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/300petras.htm

[Forkboy]

1. If the third way comes forth I'm drinking a fifth.

[ulysses]

2. LOL

:toast:

[LWolf]

3. I'll join you.

:rofl:

:toast:

[underpants]

4. That's it you've got to go no no no not that way... the way you came in!

:puke:

Jim Bruer from a comedy special several years ago (drinks were depicted by characters milling around supposedly in his stomach. It was the band of Mexicans, tequila, who created the "disruption" )

[burrowowl]

91. Imperial gallon fifth?

:rofl: :yourock: :toast:

[madfloridian]

5. Everyone needs to read this statement.

"What is most striking about the connections between Third Way rhetoric and New Right politics is that where the ideology is most deeply implanted—in the United States and England—social programs have suffered the worst and capitalist class prosperity is greatest."

And here is more about the Third Way and who founded it and who "owns" it.

Who owns the Third Way

The DLC

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational.

The Third Way

DLC | The New Democrat | May 1, 1999
Who Owns the Third Way?
By Al From

Opportunity. Responsibility. Community. Those New Democrat themes rang out over and over at an extraordinary, historic forum entitled "The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century," hosted by the Democratic Leadership Council on April 25 in Washington after the close of the NATO summit.

The participants were President Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Netherlands Prime Minister Wim Kok, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema -- the leading figures of the global Third Way movement.

Progressive political leaders created this movement to deal with new social and political questions posed by economic change and globalization. It seeks to strike a new balance between the imperatives of economic dynamism and social justice.

This politics goes by different names in different countries. It's New Democrat in America, New Labour in Great Britain, and the New Middle in Germany. Whatever its national label, Third Way values, ideas, and approaches to governing are modernizing center-left politics around the globe. The Third Way uses innovative ideas and modern means to advance fundamental progressive principles.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=901

[AX10]

7. The "DLC" is the HO of Wall Street and the GOP.

[LWolf]

10. That statement should generate some concern, shouldn't it?

What most concerns me is the possibility I read earlier here today that some candidates may publicly distance themselves from official membership in the dlc, but their platforms come straight from the "third way" playbook.

This is not the leadership that I want in the WH.

[madfloridian]

18. You are right. See this attack on Social Security. They have only changed the words now.

The words are from the memos at the Third Way.

I don't see anyone especially concerned over those words, though. :shrug:

Will Marshall's attack on Social Security advocates

Yes, he is still one of main leaders of both groups. This is about as anti social safety nets as one can be...

Robert Borosage is a co-director of Campaign for America's Future. Here is
the website, a very good one.
www.ourfuture.org
They led the fight in the 2002 elections to save Social Security and
Medicare in its current form.

Will Marshall, PPI/DLC, attacked them viciously in 2002, calling them a
union-backed group that can be compared to the Inquisition, latter-day
Torquemadas, who oppose change to the system.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=...

"Nothing better epitomized the hackneyed and reactive character of the
Democrats' 2002 midterm campaign than "The Pledge."
Like camp meeting converts swearing off demon rum, nearly every Democratic
candidate for Congress dutifully took the Pledge. They vowed to never, ever
allow working Americans to divert some portion of their Social Security
payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. In leftish circles, this
goes by the name of "privatization" and is regarded as the ultimate
political thought crime. "

SNIP.."And lest Democrats entertain any impure thoughts about reforming
Medicare, the pledge also requires them to swear fealty to a new
prescription drug entitlement "that will cover all drugs beneficiaries need"
and that won't "push beneficiaries into HMOs and other managed care plans."

The pledge is the brainchild of the Campaign for America's Future, a
union-backed organization that is to Social Security and Medicare what the
Inquisition was to medieval Christiandom. Its latter-day Torquemadas enforce
New Deal-Great Society orthodoxy and ferret out heresy with religious
zeal.

That's the CAF that just had the Take Back America conference.

[LWolf]

20. That is, frankly, a vicious piece of propaganda.

How can ANY Democrat, reading or hearing this, allow "the third way" a foot in the door?

[madfloridian]

21. Yes, he compared Borosage's group to the Inquisition.

For supporting Social Security and Medicare. His own words. It is vicious.

[Donna Zen]

79. A foot in the door?

Oh my, how can they be stopped? They are the gatekeepers cause they own the door.

[LWolf]

102. I've been told

on this thread, by different people, that they are "irrelevant", "defunct," and that they have been inactive, at least economically, because Republicans won the WH.

I don't think this is accurate. I think they've been the gatekeepers, and are working to prevent a storming of the gate.

[CRH]

128. Spot on, ...

-- What most concerns me is the possibility I read earlier here today that some candidates may publicly distance themselves from official membership in the dlc, but their platforms come straight from the "third way" playbook. --

And a sad reality it is, as it melds the two parties into one, and attacks the alternative from within.

[LWolf]

129. That is my concern, as well.

Whether you call it "DLC," "Third-Way," "New Democrat," "progressive," or any other marketing label, if it is the same agenda, I don't want it.

[Totally Committed]

130. So, maybe it's time to start voting the issues instead of the Party affiliation.

I won't vote (R), but maybe we should consider not voting (D) when it stands for "DINO", as well.

It'll take a while, but eventually, it could start to make a difference. I dunno. I only know the situation, as it is now, is completely untenable.

TC

[LWolf]

132. I'm of like mind.

For me, it's a return to my political practices before 2000; voting issues instead of party. As an independent for 15 years, and a Democrat for 4, I've always done that anyway.

[Totally Committed]

138. Something to think about:

"If the opposition party becomes part of the corporate consensus, in effect part of a hostile takeover, then you have an entire political system where ordinary people’s interests are not even being represented in the debate, much less in public policy. ... the middle and working class in America are being absolutely crushed everywhere they turn." -- David Sirota, in his book, Hostile Takeover

TC

[LWolf]

141. I've been thinking this since '04, to be frank.

I don't like what I'm thinking, and I don't like what I'm seeing.

:(

[Totally Committed]

144. It sickens me.

And, at the moment, I see absolutely NO solution (long-term or short-term) in sight.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

6. It must be Monday ...

:eyes:

[LWolf]

8. Actually, this question was asked on Friday.

Mod Mom asked, "Can we have a rational discussion of the policies of the DLC and how they effect our party? "

In post # 38 on that thread, I said that I was beyond needing to discuss the DLC. She responded in post # 40 with this:

"Not everyone is informed what the DLC represents. The more the average person knows about just who/what they are voting for-the better."

I thought that was a great point, so I responded with what the dlc represents. "The Third Way." The thread then sank like a rock.

Apparently, not too many people really want to look closely at what the DLC represents.

[AtomicKitten]

9. or maybe people already are well versed and know their time has expired

But you go right on ahead and continue the witch hunt for an irrelevant, practically defunct entity and the rest of us will take the battle to the GOP.

[LWolf]

11. So, if I read you correctly, you think Mod Mom's original

question, which generated this thread, is a "witch hunt" for an "irrelevant, practically defunct entity?"

I would, frankly, like to hear why you think the DLC is "practically defunct." If your reasons are valid, they could inject some hope and some fresh energy into '08 elections. In my opinion, of course.

[AtomicKitten]

12. It would seem obvious that the recurring theme here

is out of proportion with the reality of the situation but nonetheless hyped and served up here at DU as if the organization still had the clout they had in their heyday of the 1990s. They don't. And the discussion almost always devolves into a name-calling hate festival that is as pointless as it is absurd.

We have much bigger fish to fry than this, but I wouldn't deprive those that seem to require this sort of looped replay of blowing off paranoid steam from doing just that, although an eye-rolling or two along the way can't come as a big surprise under the circumstances.

[Forkboy]

23. I come armed with big frying pans.

Let's cook up multiple courses. :)

name-calling hate festival

But enough about my Christmas with the in-laws....

[AtomicKitten]

25. good times, noodle salad

[Forkboy]

26. If I had those skills I wouldn't be posting here.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

30. don't sell yourself short

[Forkboy]

33. I have too.No one buys me tall.

Best not to analyze that statement either.I'm not even sure what it means myself. :)

[IndianaJones]

13. circle je....never mind. nt.

[welshTerrier2]

14. "That doesn't sound bad, does it?"

Yes, actually it sounds very bad.

The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.

This is classic, centrist drivel. The entire focus here is constructed on the faux premise of providing a level playing field. It talks about empowering citizens with education. It abhors "redistribution" of wealth. It endorses technological innovation and "competitive enterprise." It rejoices in expanding choices for citizens using "market means."

The entire problem with this theme is that it makes absolutely no acknowledgment of the corruptions of our democracy by mega-money and mega-corporations. It unapologetically presents a naive view that we can just "give the poor more opportunity" and a level playing field will be the result. For those industrious souls who "don't just expect a handout from the taxpayers", they will have every chance to help define the direction of their government. It's utter nonsense.

The necessary focus, and the DLC dogma refuses to admit this, is that each and every citizens should have an equal say in the policies and values reflected by our government. This should not include special access for large corporations. It should not allow the poisoning of the electoral or legislative or policy processes by big money. All the education and economic opportunity in the world will not alter the stranglehold that exists today. Before we even enter into discussions of class warfare, our focus should be on plain and simple democracy.

How tragic it is that the DLC would promulgate the idea that "if you work harder you can make it" under a system that allows such disproportionate power to direct the hand of government. Such talk is the ultimate "don't believe your own eyes" propaganda. It places the blame on individual citizens. It hides behind a veil of "we will provide the opportunity if you'll agree to do the work" but it does nothing to address the fundamental inequity in our system of governance. Until fundamental changes are made, the reality is that "you can't get there from here."

So, yes. to answer the question, the DLC's pitch does sound bad. It offers false solutions. It offers hope without addressing that which stands in the way of hope. The truth is, their message isn't a centrist message at all; in fact, it's neither left, right or center. The truth is, the DLC message is un-democratic. If it truly wanted to bring about "a common allegiance to democratic values", it would recognize the corrupt system that prevents real democracy from flourishing. Until we cast the corporations and the money out of the halls of government, no solution from anywhere along the political spectrum will change the caste system America has become. Those committed to such ideals should make this their highest priority. I'm afraid the DLC and those who stand with them will never be counted among that number.

[LWolf]

15. So it is.

:applause:

[Totally Committed]

16. In a perfect world, the ideologues of the DLC would have no place

in the Democratic Party.

"The Third Way" is the wrong way. Period.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

17. much has been made about whether the DLC still has any power in the party

the truth is, it's not the DLC as an entity that's important; it's whether their reactionary, un-democratic ideas are represented in positions of power.

it doesn't matter whether candidates show up at their little events or not. what does matter is whether candidates share their ideas and reflect their values.

any candidate who fails to acknowledge the corrupting influence of big money and big corporations on the institutions of government should not receive our support. we, as individual citizens and voters and Democrats, should do all we can to stop the ascendancy to power of anyone who is funded by non-citizen corporate entities. to believe such funds are generously donated with no quid pro quo is the epitome of naivete.

[Donna Zen]

22. The DLC and power

Yes, they have a great amount of power. All of this latest rash of protestations is nothing but propaganda because they understand that the activist base is on to their game.

Look, let's be realistic. We live in a two-party system; it's terribly broken but it's all we have. If you are part of corporate class, it doesn't matter to you if the party that represents you is pro-choice or anti-choice as long as they're pro-MIC. Thus, the elected representatives of the captain of industry can say any damn thing they please during an election cycle as long as they remember who brought them to the dance. The multi-nationals understood this simple truth years ago and now they own the entire system.

The one thing that is needed to insure the success of their plan is a voter base. On the right they have the exteme Christians and on the left they have us. Well, they don't have me. Once we lost the court...and that is gone for years and years....I no longer see any reason to play this game. In fact, if we have any hope at all, it will be with holding the congress where a few good souls still dwell.

[welshTerrier2]

24. shielding their candidates from a DLC association

that's exactly how I see the latest "press releases" from the DLC ... as the saying goes, "me thinks they doth protest too much."

who could believe anything beyond the realities of corporate-right versus corporate-left? does anyone really believe outsider candidates, be they Democrats or third parties, have any real chance to penetrate the corporate veneer that owns the candidates, the policies, the airwaves and the government?

unfortunately, i fear that rumors of the DLC's tragic demise "have been greatly exaggerated."

[Totally Committed]

41. If they succeed in ramming Mrs. Clinton down our throats (meaning, she gets the nomination),

there will be a "resurgence" within the Party of the DLC. (Personally, I think this "demise" is all a massive PR rouse, but I digress....) They'll be back. Trust me.

TC

[Donna Zen]

67. Absolutely!

A PR rouse. In my part of the country, people remember who brought them NAFTA and the China Free Trade policy. How can they forget since their jobs are gone forever with nothing coming to replace them? With the never-ending polling, I'm sure the DLC knows that the Clinton machine needs to play "look over there."

Life in the Best Democracy Money Can Buy turns out to be not very democratic or Democratic after all. TC, I've been braced for a bout of Plan B for a long time now.

[Totally Committed]

75. Plan B worries me, too...

These are not people who go away when they are shown or told they are unwanted.

Ah, well........ that's life in the best democracy money can buy.

So, what do we do? Any ideas?

TC

[AtomicKitten]

73. it's unfortunate that the only candidate that gives her any cause to sweat

is being lumped together with her without the differentiation he deserves and is summarily dismissed by some here

[Totally Committed]

76. Who? --- Obama?

They are going to run him into the ground. I'm seriously sorry to tell you, but the Clinton/DLC steamroller is coming for him, and he will be part of the pavement when they are done with him.

I wish he wasn't so "centrist" himself. But, I have to say, he's better than Billary any day.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

90. I don't accept nor yield to the inevitability of her candidacy.

As the field narrows, voters will go elsewhere and I don't think it will be to her.

I also don't see Obama as a centrist. He was against the Iraq war from the onset and that matters to me.

[Totally Committed]

117. I was thinking "centrist" with regards to his economic and some social issues...

I do agree he was against the war from the beginning (and that does go a long way with me.)

As long as he stays away from the DLC and their operatives and "advisors", I could consider voting for him in the GE if he's the nominee.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

122. good to know

:)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

153. He has the same views as DLC leader Hillary Clinton on all those issues

What does that tell you? ;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

152. Because there is no difference between the two on policy

A presidency under him, substantively, will be the same as a H. Clinton presidency.

[Totally Committed]

45. $$$ = power and DLC = $$$

Am I missing something? The protestations would be funny if the ramifications for this Party weren't so goddamned sad.

TC

[madfloridian]

27. He who has the money has the power.

And this type has control in Florida. Right now activists are just annoying little gnats they brush away.

[LWolf]

19. We certainly agree on that.

I'm a bit bemused by the conflicting realities I keep hearing when the DLC comes up.

Is the DLC "nearly defunct," or is it alive and well, and so deeply embedded that party purists will defend it rather than excise it?

Has it been discussed so thoroughly at DU that any discussion of roots, branches, and leaves is redundant?

Is it true, as wyldwolf claimed on some thread I read today, that Obama's book is "straight from the third way?" (Or something to that effect?) Obama, who has publicly distanced himself?

What, exactly, are all the candidate's current relationship with the DLC?

Does it matter, if they adopt "third way" philosophies and strategies without being a "member" of the DLC?

Who is unequivocally clean of DLC taint?

Argh...too many questions.

[AtomicKitten]

28. so it's either 'defend it' or 'excise it' is it?

"Is the DLC "nearly defunct," or is it alive and well, and so deeply embedded that party purists will defend it rather than excise it?"

Or #3 ... calling a spade a spade or in this case an irrelevant organization just that.

And purism? Seriously? I see more calls here at DU to think the same. And it's coming from the furthest left of these boards. Purges. Torches and pitchforks.

It is the ideology that is the real point of dispute and has been personified in the form of a strawman. It would be more honest and relevant to argue ideology which is really the point of disagreement and discord.

[LWolf]

31. I disagree, obviously, lol.

I'm not really sure what you have to say about the DLC, other than that you think they are "irrelevant" and "defunct."

Again, this thread was started in response to what I thought was an honest, sincere question:

Can we have a rational discussion of the policies of the DLC and how they effect our party?

Is your response to this question that the DLC is irrelevant and defunct, and therefore doesn't affect the party?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the DLC is defunct? How about the ideology? Is the ideology spawned by the DLC still active, whether or not particular Democrats may associate with the DLC itself?

What about the DLC ideology would you like to discuss?

The regressive social and economic policies?

The cozy relationship with the new and old "right?"

Or do you just object to anyone wanting to discuss the DLC at all?

CAN we have a rational discussion of the policies of the DLC and how they effect our party?

[AtomicKitten]

32. hey, knock yourself out

... if you have plenty of time to waste perpetuating a lame flame-fest between factions. I give the DLC the acknowledgment they deserve, my total and utter lack of interest.

I'm a liberal Democrat. I don't agree with much of the mindset that embraces centrism other than it seemed like a good idea at one time to cast a wider net in elections. But what really resonates now in America is a discussion of ideology.

I believe in inclusiveness and lifting everyone's boat. I believe in worker's rights and that corporations and rich people should really pay their fair share and should participate in growing America instead of outsourcing jobs overseas. It is on those kind of issues debate should ensue.

I'm just not interested in what should be a thoughtful debate being reduced to lobbing snark at last decade's political organization.
But you go right ahead. I'll continue working to win in 2008 because I care more that a Democrat wins the WH than which particular Democrat because it is imperative that a Democrat appoint the next Supreme Court justice. That's what matters to me.

[LWolf]

34. Please tell me what, exactly, about

a rational discussion of the policies of the DLC and how they effect our party is

a "lame flame fest," or somehow NOT a "thoughtful debate."

If you are so anxious to discuss ideology, why aren't you expressing your thoughts on the DLC ideology?

If you think a discussion of the DLC is a waste of time, why do you keep posting on the thread?

Make up your mind, for ________'s sake.

[AtomicKitten]

35. this is a looped whine played over and over again

which is my point exactly about these kinds of threads ...

There is no point. Oh, except DLC bad. There. I'm on board now.

[LWolf]

37. Well, that's something, I guess, lol.

DLC bad is not exactly a a rational discussion of the policies of the DLC and how they effect our party, but it's something. You gave it your best shot, I'm sure.

These kinds of threads that call for rational discussion are so pointless and repetitive!

:spank:

[AtomicKitten]

40. please alert me when there is something other than this looped meme

to incite yet another purity pledge

thanks

[LWolf]

55. I'll do that.

Not.

You wouldn't want to engage in a useless, repetitive loop that never actually offers up any DLC policy to discuss per the OP.

[AtomicKitten]

56. *

[Forkboy]

63. The two of us should start a meme that the "purity" charge is bullshit from either side.

And I wish both would cut it out.(Or,as an ex-gf's mother would say,"Knock it the shit off!")

I can safely say that very,very few people on any side of any issue expect purity.Maybe young punk rockers....but hey,they DO listen to the right tunes,so I can forgive them.

[AtomicKitten]

69. on that, sir, we agree

I just think we have more interesting and relevant things to fight over. :)

Like $400 haircuts and cleavage and being black enough. :crazy:

And prying GOP fingers off the steering wheel.

[Forkboy]

77. Sir? Who walked in?

;)

[Cha]

106. This begs the question

How effective is an obnoxious call for unity? Is that like.."The beatings will continue until moral improves"? :)

[LWolf]

127. Much like that.

Conservatives, Republicans, want the poor underclasses to remain invisible. They want a large supply of cheap labor, and they don't want to invest in safe, clean, vibrant communities, acceptable standards of living, health care, or any infrastructure to support the underclasses. It's ok if they live in poverty, in danger, if they don't get access to basic services. They just need to be invisible.

There are some Democrats that would like for the liberals, the left wing of the party, the independents, the 3rd parties to all be invisible as well. They are expected to show up and vote "D;" it's assumed that they "owe" that vote because of the republican efforts mentioned above.

Like the "help," though, they are also expected to remain out of site; to be invisible and silent. When they don't comply, they are "fired." It's assumed, I guess, that their participation and votes won't be missed.

Until they are, and then you get a lynch mob to corral the runaways.

The centrists and the DLCers might say the same thing. They might even be "right," pun intended.

The conversation I hoped to have was one that would clarify the principles on which the Democratic party stands, and compare the DLC "ideas" to those principles.

I don't really understand why that is so threatening to a few people. I don't mind saying that I'm opposed to the DLC, but if I didn't want to open it up for discussion, I wouldn't have started the thread.

[Cha]

131. I think you've done

an admirable job in opening up discussion on this and I really appreciate it since I feel the more light we have on the dlc the more they will be exposed for the infiltrators they are.

Maybe time will reveal why certain beings insist we don't discuss them.

[JamesA1102]

114. Well said nt

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

36. Please expand on that.

What, exactly, about regressive social and economic policies, should the Democratic Party, or the United States, be tolerant of?

If there is no room for intolerance in the party, does that mean that the Democratic Party must tolerate neoconservatives within the party or a neoconservative agenda in the party platform?

What about tolerance of neo-liberal/new/old right-wing ideology? Should the party tolerate that as well?

[Totally Committed]

39. Forget it... you might as well be speaking Swahili.

Don't even waste the energy.

TC

[JamesA1102]

43. Yes it is like talking Swahili

to those who can't see beyond their own hatreds.

[madfloridian]

94. Facing reality is hard.

The reality is they have turned our party into a corporate thing. I started fighting when I found out about them when they attacked us for being against the war. I was not aware of them until Dean ran for the Democratic wing of the party. He knew what he was talking about, he had been one of them. Governed that way in VT.

They went after him viciously as well as his supporters.

Fringe

[LWolf]

44. Wise words. n/t

[JamesA1102]

42. Sure

Neo-cons don't even try to understand the other side of the argument. They misrepresent the other side's positions in order to villify them. You're doing the exact same thing. I bet you've never even spent 5 minutes on the DLC website to understand what their positions really are.

[LWolf]

48. You'd bet wrong.

That's a real problem, assuming you know more about someone you've never met, or with 60-something posts to your name, had much of an opportunity to converse with.

I've paid attention to the DLC since Bill Clinton brought it to my attention in the 90s.

I believe that you are misrepresenting me, and thus contradicting yourself.

You are also villifying another DUer; I'm wondering if you've had the opportunity to get to know her, or find out her positions on anything before you jump in to declare her "intolerant."

You seem to be having a little trouble walking your own talk.

Is there something about DLC policies that you would like to enlighten me on, or did you just jump in to be intolerant of those who would like to openly examine the DLC and DLC policies under a good light and discuss them?

[JamesA1102]

51. Nice bit of double talk there

Your previous post exposed that you are either unaware of the DLC's stands on issues or that you are puposely misrepresenting them to demonize them.

BTW That's another right-wing debating tactic, diverting from the main issue by attacking the person that your debating with.

[LWolf]

53. Which previous post would that be????

Or is it that, if I think the DLC stances on issues are right-wing, that is somehow attacking a person I'm debating with?

What do you need to be clear on this? I think the DLC is a right-wing organization cloaking itself with centrist propaganda.

The main issue of this thread is to discuss DLC policy. I posted some in the original thread.

Do you have anything at all to say about DLC policy, or are you just here to attack people who criticize the DLC?

:wtf:

[JamesA1102]

58. Most of them.

"Or is it that, if I think the DLC stances on issues are right-wing, that is somehow attacking a person I'm debating with?"

No it means you have little understanding or are purposely misrepresenting their stands in order to demonize them.

"What do you need to be clear on this? I think the DLC is a right-wing organization cloaking itself with centrist propaganda."

Well you could think the sky is purple. That doesn't make it so. Trying dealing in facts without assigning hidden motives to people. That is exactly the same type of tactic Rush, O'Reilly and those on the right use.

"The main issue of this thread is to discuss DLC policy. I posted some in the original thread.

Do you have anything at all to say about DLC policy, or are you just here to attack people who criticize the DLC?"

If people were honestly discussing the DLC's stands on issues, I would. But like you they are just venting their hatred and intolerance for anyone with a slightly different view. I denounce when the right does it and I'm going to denounce it when the left does it too.

[LWolf]

61. The ball is in your court.

If you honestly think someone on this thread is misrepresenting the DLC, then feel free to step in and correct that misrepresentation.

Cough up some evidence, and start debating.

Or just keep kicking the thread with baseless accusations. :shrug:

[JamesA1102]

103. You're the ones making baseless accusations

Not me. I'm not the one making blanket statements or accusations of propaganda and hidden agendas. This is the same BS tactics the right-wing uses and it's as distasteful here.

[Totally Committed]

38. "... the intolerance of a neo-con."

I have an intolerance for leaving the poor behind. I have an intolerance for leaving children hungry or under-educated. I have an intolerance for war. I have an intolerance for TRUE intolerance. I have an intolerance for corporatism and all the other forms of greed that masquarade as "Democratic" in this Party.

Yes. I am intolerant of these things and many more. Pretty good for a neo-con, I'd say.

TC

[JamesA1102]

46. And I have an intolerance for ignorance

And it is clearly evident that you are ignorant of the DLC's positions. Just like most neo-cons are ignorant of most liberal positions and try to paint all liberals with one brush.

[Totally Committed]

47. Have all 67 of your posts been in defense of the DLC?

Just curious. :eyes:

TC

[JamesA1102]

49. No

In fact I never wrote one in defense of the DLC until yesterday because I think they are being unfairly attacked and misrepresented. Being a moderate or centerist is not a bad thing and feel they have every right to be Democrats as much as anyone else.

One thing I can't stand on the right is how they twist the positions of those on the left in order to demonize them. When I see those on the left doing the same thing I'm going to stand up and denounce it.

[LWolf]

52. Now we are getting somewhere.

You've expressed something that makes sense to me.

Are you knowledgeable about the DLC, or do you consider them "centrist" because you hear them framed that way?

Many people on the left feel that the DLC has twisted the positions on the left. Some of us even used to, before the DLC, consider ourselves "centrists," only to find that we are now "the fringe on the left."

So I understand your concern. I would say that I don't actually consider the DLC to be centrist; I consider them to be obviously right-of-center, trying to cloak themselves under "centrist" propaganda.

That's what their regressive social and economic policies indicate to me, anyway.

[JamesA1102]

59. We are?

"Are you knowledgeable about the DLC, or do you consider them "centrist" because you hear them framed that way?"

I consider them centrists because I know some people that are members of the DLC, such as Chris Jackson who created the 'Al Gore Support Center', and know that they are truly centrist.

"Many people on the left feel that the DLC has twisted the positions on the left. Some of us even used to, before the DLC, consider ourselves "centrists," only to find that we are now "the fringe on the left."

Now you are misrepresenting their positions, and assigning a hidden agenda, based on nothing but your own opinion. And as far as the term "the fringe on the left", I challenged someone in another thread to find where the DLC ever used that term and they could not. That's just putting words in someone's mouth in order to villify them.

"So I understand your concern. I would say that I don't actually consider the DLC to be centrist; I consider them to be obviously right-of-center, trying to cloak themselves under "centrist" propaganda.

That's what their regressive social and economic policies indicate to me, anyway."

Again, you're misrepresenting their positions and assigning a hidden agenda with no proof other than your own opinion.

[ulysses]

65. how about these then?

And as far as the term "the fringe on the left", I challenged someone in another thread to find where the DLC ever used that term and they could not.

"loony left" - http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252914&kaid=127&subid=173
"pacifist and anti-American fringe" - http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253472
"elitists who think they know better than everyone else" - http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=1

Straight from the mouths of several DLC horses.

[JamesA1102]

81. Didn't say "fringe on the left"

As far as "loony left" is was in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I would decribe them as loony too.

"pacifist and anti-American fringe" that term wasn't assigned to the left but to specifically those groups.

"elitists who think they know better than everyone else" Well I think you've proven that point.

[LWolf]

71. Actually, I get to offer up my opinion.

This is a political discussion board. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that I've misrepresented anything at all.

All I've gotten from you so far is that you consider yourself a centrist, you have a friend and some aquaintances that are DLC members, and you think that makes the DLC ok. I've yet to see you offer anything up but your own opinion, and so far your opinions are focused on the people posting, rather than the positions of the DLC, which is what the thread was started to discuss.

Do you have nothing to say about any position that the DLC takes? Can you do nothing but accuse other posters of what you are, yourself, doing?

[ulysses]

74. I've gotta head to bed.

Let me know if you get anywhere with him. :)

[LWolf]

80. It's early on the left coast,

but I've got chores to do and dinner to prepare. I suspect your gentle observations are correct. ;)

[JamesA1102]

85. You're misrepresented everything

And don't pretend you haven't. Seven year old articles about policies that were never implemented. Blanket statements accusing them of propaganda and a hidden agenda without any proof. The more you post the more you are proving my point.

[ulysses]

50. then please, educate us. n/t

[JamesA1102]

54. It's not my job to educate you.

It is every citizens responsibility to educate themselves. I think it was James Madison who said, "An educated electorate is needed for the proper maintainance of democracy". Everyone here has the ability to go to the DLC's website and read where they really stand on issues. No one has to agree with them 100%. I know I don't. But at least debate the issues. Don't publically misrepresent their positions, parroting what are essentially inaccurate talking points, in order villify the whole organization.

[ulysses]

57. this is true.

It is every citizens responsibility to educate themselves.

So it is, which is partly why I have, in fact, spent a fair amount of time studying the DLC's actions and statements, same as LWolf. Like her as well, I've come to the conclusion that it's a right-wing organization aimed at neutering the Democrats as an opposition force.

But at least debate the issues.

LWolf started this thread precisely for that. So, debate.

Don't publically misrepresent their positions, parroting what are essentially inaccurate talking points, in order villify the whole organization.

Well, you don't have to like the conclusions to which I and others have come, but please, save me from my error if it is such.

[JamesA1102]

64. I know it is.

"So it is, which is partly why I have, in fact, spent a fair amount of time studying the DLC's actions and statements, same as LWolf."

Actions and statements? I don't know what that means. Have you actually gone to their website and read their positions? Or have you just read opinion pieces and posts about them on the web.

"Like her as well, I've come to the conclusion that it's a right-wing organization aimed at neutering the Democrats as an opposition force."

That's a very broad statment. Do you have proof to back it up. And since the DLC was behind the only Democrat to win the Presidency in the last 25 years, you better have lots of hard proof.

"LWolf started this thread precisely for that. So, debate."

I will once I see an honest discussion of their positions. So far all I've seen is a lot of vitriol and hate-mongering.

"Well, you don't have to like the conclusions to which I and others have come, but please, save me from my error if it is such."

The conclusions seem to be based on mind-reading of the DLC's true intentions, not on a true and fair discussion of their positions.

[ulysses]

66. ?

Actions and statements? I don't know what that means.

If you don't know what actions and statements are, I would gently suggest that you may have a problem with reading comprehension.

And since the DLC was behind the only Democrat to win the Presidency in the last 25 years, you better have lots of hard proof.

Or what? Should I be scared?

[JamesA1102]

86. !!

"If you don't know what actions and statements are, I would gently suggest that you may have a problem with reading comprehension."

'Actions and statements' as a very broad term. What do you mean by it?


"Or what? Should I be scared?"

Yes be afraid. Be very afraid or the evil DLC monster is going to get you.
Which is about the level of discourse in this thread.

[Forkboy]

68. There's no saving you from your errors.

I get that driven home day after day.

But that's parents for ya....

:)

[ulysses]

70. doom! dooooom!

;-)

[LWolf]

60. Debate this issue:

It's not as if I haven't tried.

This is from a nice article at the DLC website, written in 2000 but on the front page of "the new economy" portion of "ideas:"

<snip>

Just as the populists aligned with the Democratic standard-bearer William Jennings Bryan in the 1890s sought to resist the onslaught of industrialism and preserve small farms and merchants, the new populists on the left, whether protesting the WTO in Seattle, opposing genetically modified organisms, or lobbying against meaningful public school choice and accountability, also resist the changes stemming from a New Economy. They seek to bring back the glory days of stable jobs at big corporations; blue-collar manufacturing (and family farms); strong unions; dominant central cities; big national government; and a national, as opposed to global, economy. They argue that the New Economy has failed American workers, leading to declining wages, increased income inequality, and higher levels of uncertainty and risk.

Your damned right I do all of the above.

<snip>

While the new populists argue that the New Economy is a bad deal for American workers, it in fact promises to unleash liberating and fundamentally progressive forces. These include:

Higher wages. Powered in part by the information technology revolution, the New Economy will enable American workers to see their standard of living increase the way it did in the three decades following World War II. We have seen five straight years of strong productivity and wage growth (over double the rate in the '70s and '80s) across all income levels. As this level of wage and productivity growth continues, within a decade we can expect workers to have not only higher incomes but a reduced work week, expanded vacations, and an overall increase in the time they can spend with their families.

Well, let's see. It's been 7 years. What, exactly, has the "New Economy" unleashed? To be honest, I'm not feeling all that liberated. I don't see anything accurate here.

This is not a policy piece, but a piece of propaganda. False propaganda. That's what I find when I browse their "ideas" section, where one would expect to find policies outlined.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=107&subid=296&contentid=2298

I don't know why you would assume that nobody goes to their site and reads this stuff before deciding that it's wrong. These are documents they posted at their site. It's not a misrepresentation.

So debate the issue. Where do you fall? With the "new populists on the left," with the DLC's "new economy," or somewhere else?

Can you make your case, or are you just here to accuse others of misrepresentation?

[JamesA1102]

72. You're making a blanket about the whole article.

Why don't you point out the specific points that you disagree with and why. Right now all your doing is saying the whole piece is a lie without any arguments to back it up.

You're also being dishonest by acting like this article was written about the current economic situation instead of pointing out that it was written in 2000.

[LWolf]

78. I did point out the specific points I disagree with.

Per copyright laws, we don't get to post the whole article here, so I pulled out the paragraphs that highlighted their disagreement with my position, the first <snip, and their positions that I disagree with, the second <snip>.

Of course, it is from 2000. Still, since they were predicting the outcome of their economic policies over the next decade, I figure it's ok to take a look at current conditions and see how that worked out for them.

They haven't exactly been burning up the presses with more current stuff.

I don't think that pointing out that the article is from 2000 is exactly being dishonest. :eyes:

Do you have anything at all to say, in support of or in opposition to, the DLC's "new economy?" Or is your whole agenda about me? This thread is not about me. It's not even about my opinions about the DLC. I asked for discussion about it. That means that I invited dissenting opinions about DLC policies and actions. Do you have any?

[JamesA1102]

83. You can't debate something that never happened.

"Of course, it is from 2000. Still, since they were predicting the outcome of their economic policies over the next decade, I figure it's ok to take a look at current conditions and see how that worked out for them."

No it is not. The DLC policies were never implemented. Bush was became President and implemented his economic policies. It's like blaming Al Gore for invading Iraq. You're just being intellectually dishonest.

[LWolf]

99. Never implemented? Of course they were.

The DLC, while carrying the label "Democratic," works with republicans as well. Their economic policies fit well with republican platforms due to their corporate influence.

JamesA1102, it's time for a parting of the ways. You've attacked me, personally, without ever offering to discuss DLC policy, the point of this thread, too many times. I've been patient with it, but no more.

You obviously have nothing of substance to say, in support of or in opposition to, the DLC. It's time to stop boosting that post count with circular arguments.

[JamesA1102]

105. No they weren't and you know it!

"The DLC, while carrying the label "Democratic," works with republicans as well. Their economic policies fit well with republican platforms due to their corporate influence."

Total BS. This is just another blanket statement with no facts to back it up.

"JamesA1102, it's time for a parting of the ways. You've attacked me, personally, without ever offering to discuss DLC policy, the point of this thread, too many times. I've been patient with it, but no more."

Reminds me of when O'Reilly yells to have someones mike turned off when he can't support his arguments.

"You obviously have nothing of substance to say, in support of or in opposition to, the DLC. It's time to stop boosting that post count with circular arguments."

You've given me nothing of substance to discuss. All I've seen is a lot of vitrol and blind hatred. You're starting point is the DLC is evil and you're working backwards to prove it. Anything on their website that doesn't agree with your conclusion is automatically propaganda. Blanket statements with no facts to back them up. It's just like debating with a neo-con.

[jackbourassa]

97. How on God's green earth was the DLC responsible for Clinton's victory in 92?

The DLC opposes "class-warfare" type politics and Bill Clinton's primary meme of 1992 was "It's the Economy, Stupid." He FREQUENTLY spoke about how, during the previous 12 years of Republican rule, the rich got richer and the poor were poorer. Also, Clinton STRONGLY criticized George Bush Sr. for "doing business" with China after the 1991 Tienanmen Square Massacre. He also spoke of the need to "re-visit" the NAFTA negotiations (it was in its final stages at that point). Let's not forget about Clinton's promise to provide health care coverage for every single American citizen.

THESE WERE THE REASONS BILL CLINTON GOT ELECTED IN 1992.

Let's not forget that the DLC opposed a national health care system, supported NAFTA as well as allowing China into the WTO.

Clinton may have been a member of the DLC, but there is no doubt he never espoused any of their rhetoric or policies during his campaign for President in 1992. At least they weren't the issues he was most closely associated with. He campaigned as a liberal and governed as a moderate Republican. Even Clinton once compared his Presidency to Eisenhower's. In fact, I don't even really remembering hearing about the DLC until around 1996 or 1997. They weren't as powerful before then and have been in a seemingly decline since Gore lost in 2000 and they came out in favor of the war in 2002 (not to mention in favor of privatizing Social Security, medicare, etc.; abandoning our traditional allies like labor, but going to bat for people like the trial lawyers; supporting credit card companies with the Bankruptcy Act, and then opposing raising the minimum wage to a suitable level and indexing it to inflation. This just doesn't sound too progressive to me).

The Democrats only ran into trouble in 1993 and 1994 once: a) the health care thing collapsed (thanks in part to many "centrist" DLC-supporting Democratic Senators who said they would support the Republicans in opposition; and b) once Clinton flip-flopped on NAFTA and many independents and Perot supporters abandoned us and went over to the Republicans. As a result we lost both Houses of Congress for the first time in 40+ years. Of course the DLC said the reason we lost was because we were "too liberal." They never really provided any of evidence supporting this claim. I can't think of anything in that term, save the Health Care debacle, which could be considered overtly liberal. But that was what they said. After all, their response to everything seems to be, "the liberals did it. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah...nah."

Check out the debate from the DLC side:

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983141-2,00.html

The truth is, when I first heard about the DLC (in 96 or 97), I was a supporter. I thought of the DLC as an organization which believed in market-based solutions yes, but did so with the goal of promoting traditional Democratic aims. Take Health Care as an example, I support a national health care system but am open on the method by which we achieve this. So if we adopt a "market-based" solution to make health care coverage more efficient then so be it. But the DLC seemed to be more interested in protecting the INTERESTS of insurance companies than getting coverage for the uninsured, and that is where the problem lies. Later issues such as "The Telecommunications Act," their support for privatizing Social Security, their treatment of Gore during the recount, and of course their support for the neo-cons and the war in Iraq destroyed them in my mind.

The problem with the DLC, in my opinion, is that they advocate an unnatural discourse for our party. Politics is not just some glorified debating society made up of senior old men who, in a patronizing way, know "what's best" for the rest of us (especially given the corrupting nature of politics). It is a battle of DIFFERING (and usually INCOMPATIBLE) interests. That's what Democracy is. There are only so many dollars to go around, and everyone wants their fair share. So we elect representatives to REPRESENT OUR INTERESTS. So to deny that such a dynamic even exists, when it has ALWAYS EXISTED in every society, in every time; is to deny reality and demonstrates either a lack of sincerity on the part of the DLC, a sinister hidden agenda, or gross naivety.

[LWolf]

101. Interesting.

What you are saying about '92, and the Clinton administration, fits what I remember very well, although I've never thought of it from that perspective before.

After 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, I think Democrats were ready to try anything that would help them "win," and the DLC offered a new perspective.

I wonder how many Democrats, politicians and voters alike, have, after gaining some knowledge and experience, left the DLC behind? I know that I started out neutral, and ended up opposing them.

I wonder where Al Gore stands with the DLC these days.

Thank you for a thought-provoking post.

[MrMickeysMom]

123. I was wondering about Al Gore, myself on another DLC thread

... and by the way, thanks to those diggers of information here. I have appreciated many links to source the subject matter. This is the only way I'm gonna educate myself to see where any candidate truly stands and why.

When looking the DLC's home page banner, you see HRC... but as I understand it, she and others have sort of back away from them. Their policy which clearly does not represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. The rise of conversatism that snuck up since 84 has never stood for any Democratic values I hold dear - labor, woman, and civil liberties all of which were demonstrated by my parents and grandparents.

So, I'm curious now whether Al Gore left the DLC far behind. Good God, I hope so...

:hi:

[LWolf]

125. I hope so, as well.

He endorsed Howard Dean in '03/'04, which is interesting. Dean is definitely NOT DLC, lol. He did not endorse his former running mate, Lieberman.

His speeches, book, and work with "An Inconvenient Truth" seem to indicate many views that are not in sync with the DLC.

[Totally Committed]

133. Have you read his new book, "The Assault on Reason"?

Doesn't sound like the DLC Gore to me. He was unequivocally different than Al Gore, circa 2000.

THAT'S the Gore I'm interested in seeing run. THAT'S the Gore that could deliver this Party from Corporatism to Populism.

The Gore that ran in 2000, with Lieberman by his side, and Donna Brazile advising him will not get my vote.

TC

[MrMickeysMom]

149. No, but I should get this to read for vacation next week

... cause I've heard so many good things about it.

I fully agree this Al Gore has metamorphized into something far away from 2000 and the DLC.
If you caught Melissa Ethridge at Live Earth, she talked sincerely about the Al Gore she knew during her song intro - the same one of our interest.

[jackbourassa]

151. The thing you have to remember...

Is that the DLC DID NOT "MAKE" BILL CLINTON. BILL CLINTON "MADE" THE DLC.

The DLC didn't get Bill Clinton the party's nomination --- the fact that we had a weak field in 1992 (especially after Mario Cuomo dropped out) did. We had a weak field because EVERYONE (pundits and other typical assholes) believed George Bush Sr. was UNBEATABLE in 1992. Let's not forget that Papa Bush had an approval rating in the 90s at the end of the First Gulf War in APRIL of 1991.

Like I wrote in my original post, Clinton then campaigned as a liberal. He won the election and then BROUGHT IN VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE DLC.

I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find many people who were even aware of the DLC at the time of the 1992 election that November, much less a supporter.

Again, like I wrote, they didn't start entering the consciousness of our body politic until Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 (and subsequently, a year later with the election of Tony Blair as Britain's PM in 1997). When Democrats began losing elections (and kept losing) ONE short election cycle later, the rhetoric of the DLC became increasingly grating to traditional Democratic supporters who were sick and tired of these Washington technocrats, most of whom have never been elected to anything, tell them how wrong and "fringe" they are.

Which brings me to my final point. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the DLC would so strongly condemn the liberal faction - repeatedly. They purport to "speak for" (which i'm not buying) the southern white vote (or any other Republican voting bloc which is the fancy of the moment in D.C.). They so strongly supported the war (and it's rationale, not to mention that abomination known as the "National Security Strategy of the United States," also known as the "Bush Doctrine"). They are quick to offer advice, whether asked for or not, regarding how to win the independent voter. Yet, they support the candidate with the strongest liberal record. Who is widely despised among Republicans and most independents. Who initially supported the war, but has since flip-flopped and now opposes it every chance she gets.

Why?

The answer is simple and I alluded to it in the first sentence of this post. The Clintons are the ones who keep the DLC alive and even remotely important. The DLC need the Clintons far more than they need them. The only thing preventing the DLC from drifting into obscurity and irrelevance, are the Clintons.

Hence the reason they support Hillary Clinton, aka their "sugar mama."

Their talk of "ideology" is just a ruse. Their true "ideology" is about putting themselves into a position of power and then trading access to that power by offering it to the highest bidder, which we Democrats then should join together, stock and barrel, and support even if we disagree with the policy down to our very bones; lest we be willing to be labeled - gasp! - "liberals."

It is a very self-serving racket if you ask me.

[Cha]

95. Yeah, fascists are fucking

great and the dlc's shit doesn't stink.

[JamesA1102]

98. The definition of liberal is to have an open mind.

It seems that yours and a lot of the minds here are very closed as well as delusional.

[Cha]

104. It seems like you're

a disingenous, purposely obtuse, agitator.

[JamesA1102]

136. No I'm someone keeping an open mind

You should try it sometime.

[Cha]

139. You don't know me so ..

quit giving me unsolicited advice.

[JamesA1102]

142. So you get to call me names but

I'm not allowed to respond. Nice double standard.

As the saying goes, if you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

[ProudDad]

62. Ah, the DLC "third way"

Lose three out of every four elections by being republican Lite...


On Edit: According to all of the propaganda on their website, they adhere tightly to the discredited myth that the "free market" and everyone taking "personal responsibility" cures everything. Hmmmm. "Personal responsibility"? Isn't that a lot like "I've got mine, Jack. Now screw you!"?

I guess they're against "We the People" acting as a society to help each other out...

------------------

Case in point, their "think tank", the PPI take on Health Care:

"The Health Priorities Project promotes the creation of an Information Age health care system that joins individual choice and responsibility with universal access to the information and resources that people need to improve their health. We recognize the complex interactions between science, politics, and the marketplace, and seek to develop a coherent, dynamic, and integrated health policy that can achieve the following goals:

* Enhance accountability for health by enabling and encouraging health professionals to improve their performance and individuals to take better care of themselves;

* Modernize Medicare and Medicaid not only to preserve them for future generations, but also to create a universal system of affordable, private health insurance;

* Organize the information that people need to make good health decisions and invest more in health research and prevention in order to reduce the overconsumption of health services."

==========

Note the "PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE" :wtf:

I guess we all have to exercise "personal accountability" for our genetic predispositions too, eh?

[LWolf]

82. You are correct, of course.

Reading their site takes some ibuprofen, or strong drink. Getting through the propaganda to what they are really saying is a chore.

Apparently, I am accountable for making sure I don't have health problems that my expensive insurance has to "cover," and my doctor is accountable for making sure that I don't need his billable services.

We're "overconsuming" the services of our health professionals.

[Donna Zen]

84. Beware: Universal doesn't always mean Universal

My friend just told me that they have affordable health insurance. See everyone can that....or can they? She said that she and her husband, both self-employed, are paying $20,000 a year for a family of four. That they can afford it is great; however, she is a good Democrat, a real one, and condemned the system that places this option out of the reach of most Americans. But hey, if you can afford it, it's Universal.

Universal is the new buzz word for keeping for-profit health care moguls well fat and happy.

[welshTerrier2]

87. universal health insurance doesn't guarantee universal health care

many people are under-insured. too many insurance policies do not provide coverage for quality health care. and even when they do, there is no guarantee the preferred treatment will be approved by the bean counters in the insurance company.

that's not universal health care by any definition.

[Donna Zen]

92. They're in love with the word

Universal is so universal. It covers a host of sins. Repeat: "If you elect ME, ME, ME!!!! I'm for Universal health care....did I tell you Universal?"

As with all insurance policies the devil is in the fine print and the premium and in the exceptions.

[welshTerrier2]

88. modernize Medicare means creating a system of "private health insurance"???

maybe that's what Hillary meant when she said she was a "modern progressive."

not only does the PPI oppose single payer, now they want to "privatize" Medicare. that's very republican of them ...

[JamesA1102]

89. Funny you left out a few quotes from their site

"Ultimately, the federal government can and must move toward truly universal health coverage."

Universal healthcare? Curse those neo-con wannabes!!!

"We should raise the minimum wage while committing our country to a bigger bargain: If you work full time, then you and your family will live above the poverty line. This goal is not only morally right but one our country can afford."

Helping the poor make a living wage? Damn these republican-lites are evil!

[ProudDad]

93. In order to deconstruct the DLC

I'll address those points:

Universal Health Coverage in DLC-speak means "affordable" PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. Impossible...and wrong...and expensive and NOT UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE. There is NO private health insurance that I could ever afford on Social Security... Many other millions of people would NEVER be able to get private health insurance at ANY PRICE because they have "pre-existing conditions"...

The right answer is HR 676 - http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER for ALL...

But don't hold your breath for the DLC to support it -- it's not "free market capitalist"


"If you work full time, then you and your family will live above the poverty line"

Which, last I checked, the "poverty line" is a FUCK of a lot LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE. Big Fucking Deal... Typical DLC under-reach for triangulating purposes...

And how about people who are disabled or can't find work. Are they supposed to starve!!???!?!??

Those old DLC'ers are real good at sounding progressive without committing the crime of actually BEING PROGRESSIVE...

Yes, those republican-lites are evil in their ignorance of how the real world works...


To quote another DLC'er-Lite, "Bring it on!"

[LWolf]

100. You deconstruct that well.

The federal poverty line for 2007, in all states but AK & HI, is $10,210 for one person. Add $3,420 for each additional person.

If you make $10 an hour, you make $400 a week, X 52 weeks; that's 20,800 per year, assuming you don't get sick and miss any days. THAT'S DOUBLE THE POVERTY RATE. The lowest federal income tax is 10%, social security is 6% rounded off, and state income taxes range from 0 - 9.5%. I'll add 1% for state income tax, giving a conservative 17% tax rate on that $20,800. That's $3586 in taxes, leaving a net annual income of $17,264, or $1439 per month.

A single person might be able to live decently within that income by renting a room from someone; a clean, safe apartment will not be affordable in many parts of the country. A good public transportation system would also be necessary, as this income is not going to cover fuel, maintenance, and auto insurance, let alone the purchase price of a decent old car.

A person with dependents is going to be in some trouble; an apartment would be necessary, since it's very difficult to find a room for rent that will allow a child. Most 1 bedroom apts don't allow children.

I don't see a lot of wiggle room for people making double the "poverty rate" to buy "affordable" health care. I sure hope they're healthy.

I, for one, am not willing to close my eyes to the population of people who cannot count on affording basic amenities like safe housing, utilities, transportation, and health care. I can't pretend they don't exist, and I can't pretend that it is somehow "their fault."

[JamesA1102]

107. Deconstruct

That's just another word for spin and misrepresent.

According to the plan on there website, lower income people would recieve an additional tax credit for healthcare (in addition to the Earned Income Tax credit which they recommend expanding and increasing).

Of course you just forgot to mention that.

[Totally Committed]

109. "the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous..."

The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win

The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates this week are busy genuflecting at Corporate America's altar -- otherwise known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Now, it's true -- the DLC is really just a group of Beltway-insulated corporate-funded hacks who have spent the better part of the last decade trying to undermine the Democratic Party's traditional working class base -- a base that had kept Democrats in power for 40 years and now, thanks to the DLC, has been forfeited to the Republicans. Even so, the fact that these presidential candidates feel the need to bow down to the DLC is a troubling sign about whether the Democratic Party is really serious about regaining power in America.

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda.

Now, you could make a credible argument that the DLC's corporatization/Republicanization of the Democratic Party was justified, had it led to electoral success for Democrats. Few would argue that today's split-the-difference Democratic Party hasn't followed the DLC's policy direction over the last 10 years. That means the last 10 years of elections really have been a referendum on whether the DLC's model -- regardless of any moral judgements about it -- actually wins at the polls.

And that's when we get to the real problem with the DLC -- its policies are BOTH morally bankrupt, and politically disastrous. The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-democrats-2008-choice_b_4729.html


TC

[JamesA1102]

112. One person's opinion

Big deal!

[ulysses]

113. no, more than one.

:D

[JamesA1102]

115. Ah yes the mob mentality! nt

[ulysses]

116. ah yes, the "any group that disagrees with me is a mob" mentality!

:eyes:

[JamesA1102]

134. Weak comeback nt

[ulysses]

135. mm hmm.

Tell you what, how about you pick a DLC position and try to change my mind about the organization?

[JamesA1102]

137. I'm not here change your mind

but rather to remind you to keep an open mind. It seems like there are a lot of closed ones here. Nor am I saying you have to agree with any of their position. I'm just saying that it is unfair to mischaracterize their positions in order to demonize them and then say they don't belong in the party. That's the same type of tactics FAUX and the neo-con use. I denounce it when the right does and I'm going to denounce it when those on the left do it too.

[ulysses]

140. oh, thanks.

James, I've been around the block with DLC folks and other party conservatives on DU for over six years now, and been dissatisfied with the party's rightward slide since shortly before I voted for Nader in 1996. It isn't about keeping an open mind, it's about fighting what I see as destructive influence on my party.

If you'd like to convince me that the DLC isn't a destructive influence on the party, it's your world. If you'd rather not take the time, then that's fine too.

[JamesA1102]

143. You're the ones making the accusations

I'm just asking you to prove them. I believe in tolerance and guilty until proven innocent. I've starting working in Presidential campaigns as way back as 1984. I've had relatives that served as members of the DNC. I also know people who are members of the DLC. I don't agree with them 100% of the time but they are good people, and good Democrats, not deserving of the vitriol and hatered exhibited on this board. And there are way to many closed minds here for people who profess to be liberals.

[ulysses]

145. you've asked nothing of the kind.

Besides, you don't know what actions and statements are, so I'm not sure how I could prove them anyway.

[JamesA1102]

146. Nice evasion! nt

[ulysses]

148. what proof would you accept

if you don't even know what I mean by statements and actions?

Anyway, it's a school night for me, so I'll assume from your collected responses on this thread that you would rather repeat the "intolerant" thing ad nauseum instead of telling me why I'm wrong about the DLC. That's fitting.

'Night.

[JamesA1102]

150. And when I asked you to explain

you were unable to. What do you mean by statements and actions or maybe what specific statements and actions were you refering to?

[Wetzelbill]

96. The third way is just another name for date rape

to paraphrase that one guy that one time.

[Totally Committed]

108. Stan Goff: Unmasking the DLC - The Huffington Post

A strategic imperative for the antiwar movement must be to push for the defeat of any and all DLC supported candidates, and to expose and eviscerate the power of this ruling class committee. This is possible using the communications media available to popular forces through the internet, and combining this networking capacity with aggressive grassroots education efforts.

Black Commentator editor Bruce Dixon:

The DLC is the corporate-funded right wing of the Democratic Party. It was founded in the mid 1980s by a small group of mostly white, male, largely southern Democratic politicians, corporate lobbyists and fundraisers. The original clique included Tennessee Congressman Al Gore, Senators Chuck Robb of Virginia and Sam Nunn of Georgia, and Al From, a former political operative from the Jimmy Carter Administration. To them, the Democratic Party had become too open to the political voices of African Americans and Latinos, too respectful of the rights of working Americans and the labor movement, too responsive to the justice, peace and environmental movements.

Joseph Kay writes:

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) held its annual convention in Columbus, Ohio, last weekend, outlining its program for the upcoming 2006 mid-term elections and the presidential election in 2008. Speeches at the meeting and documents published in advance indicate that the Democratic Party plans to run an extremely right-wing campaign, particularly on the issues of "national security" and the war in Iraq.

Sean Donahue wrote in 2004:

Most of the major contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign are corporations or employees of corporations that have ties to a network of organizations dedicated to moving the Democratic Party to the right. These organizations, which include the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Network, and the Progressive Policy Institute, are dedicated to pursuing a policy agenda that includes support for high levels of military spending and an aggressive role for the U.S. military around the world. Kerry has a history of political links to these organizations as well, and though he has been using progressive rhetoric during his campaign, the details and nuances of his positions indicate that Kerry is still dedicated to pursuing their conservative agenda.

Still wonder why Kerry refused to oppose the war?

In 2003, Ralph Nader wrote:

To the DLC mind, Democrats are catering to "special interests" when they stand up for trade unions, regulatory consumer-investor protections, a pre-emptive peace policy overseas, pruning the bloated military budget now devouring fully half of the federal government's entire discretionary expenditures, defending Social Security from Wall Street schemes, and pressing for universal health care coverage.

So right-wing is the DLC, mounted imperiously on their sagging Party, that even opposing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, that cause huge federal deficits and program cuts in necessities such as health, education, environmental protection and children well-being, is considered ultra-liberal and contrary to winning campaigns.

"Special interests" to the DLC means defending the rights of African-Americans, Hispanics, blue-collar workers, and securing the full day in court for wrongfully injured Americans. Being serious about consumer justice and environmental protection also raises DLC's eyebrows. These pieces of corporate shit boast 40 members in the US House of Representatives and 20 members of the Senate; and a bunch slid in during the 2006 anti-Republican vote against the US aggression in Iraq. Now that one message has been sent in 2006, another has to be prepared for 2008. If you're in the DLC, you won't get a vote from me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/unmasking-the-dlc_b_39287.html

TC

[JamesA1102]

110. Ralph Nader???

In 2000 Ralph Nader took GOP money and used to lie about Al Gore, saying that he was no different from Bush. Nader has no credibilty.

[Totally Committed]

118. It's a quote from the article that is posted.

Within the context of the article, I thought the quote should stand.

If you had been here longer than you obviously have been you would know I am as disappointed in Nader's antics and actions as anyone on this board. I agree he has lost his credibility, and the moral high-ground.

TC

[JamesA1102]

119. Cool I agree! nt

[MiserableFailure]

111. Why vote for Republican-lite when you can vote for the real thing?

Bears repeating, over and over and over again.

If Democrats don't distinguish themselves strongly from Republicans, then they will alienate the voters on the left side of the spectrum and the people on the right will still vote for the right-wingers, so this accomplishes nothing.

This country is ready for a liberal president again, not a Bill Clinton-centrist copy. Voters elected Democrats last year to end the war, by any means necessary. Democrats have repeatedly failed the voters with their mandate and this is why Congress's approval rating is so low. If Democrats want to see a bump in the polls then they should stop funding the war. Just don't approve it.

[LWolf]

120. It does bear repeating.

Why vote for republican-lite when you can vote for the real thing?

:thumbsup:

[Totally Committed]

121. Conversely, if you would never in a million years consider voting for "the real thing",

why would you ever consider voting for a Republican-lite DINO? Doesn't make sense, and hurts our Party just as much.

TC

[LWolf]

126. That's my point of view, anyway.

A stronger party emerges when we elect people who strongly support and defend democratic principles, imo.

[Upfront]

124. DlC sucks!!!!!!!!!

I hate these phony basterds!!!!!!!!!!! Oh ya, lets pass another tax cut for the rich. Not here on this forum but people need to see the truth. Also, fuck James Carville!

[cmkramer]

147. Huh?

Ed Kilgore - who's also going to be at Dailykos - attended the DLC meeting in Nashville

Democratic Strategist

"Last week Markos Moulitsas, who it's safe to say has some personal issues with the DLC, said this meeting was going to be nothing more than "a cocktail party for Liebercrats." Well, I have to report that the only person I've heard mention the name of the junior senator from Connecticut was a reporter. And most of the rhetoric about Iraq, Bush, and Republicans generally wouldn't at all sound out of place at YearlyKos. In a lunch break during yesterdays workshops, Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain, spoke, and his presentation of the need for passionate, principled partisanship from Democrats had the crowd cheering. "

[mdmc]

154. loserman is the epitome of the dlc

they should try to hide him