Forever Free _DLC Stuff not what I meant

[TayTay]

That'll teach me to post something and then walk away before I qualify what I meant. Sigh! My apologies my dear.

When I asked you about DLC I was thinking about what you saw as their issues. Are these distinct from what are perceived as 'liberal' issues? If so, in what way.

Put another way, is the DLC a way of thinking or a policy committee?

You have said tht you see Kerry as a 'New Democrat.' New implies a change from something. What changed?

I am not attacking you or asking you to go on the defensive. I have posted this many times but I believe that the Dems need both the lib and mod wing of the party. The libs have a lot of the conscience of the Party and take ideas that are motivated by the desire to affect direct change in the lives of marginalized people and bring them forward.

True liberals are sort of angry people. (No offense.) They see the starving child and the homeless family and the people without health care who need medical attention and scream, "We must help these people NOW! Tomorrow is too late for them. Now, now, now." The moderate wing sees this too, but also sees what can actually be done given the resources that are at hand. When both sides are clicking, it is a great harmony of ideas, conscience, action and results. (And the moderates keep the libs from falling off the cliff. The desire to save the world complete is strong. The desire to do so and have the resources left to do so again tomorrow is strong as well.)

So, tell me. What does Third Way and New Dem bring to the table? And how does it enhance 'the art of the possible' that is politics?

[Forever Free]

1. I think primarily the DLC is willing to think outside of the box

There are typical liberal or progressive positions on a host of issues that have developed over the decades: (These are the usual suspects, but not limited to them)

1. Anti death penalty
2. Pro-choice (most liberals want the LEAST restriction on abortion)
3. Social Welfare
4. Tolerance of minorities (which in recent years have included gay Americans)
5. An inherent antagonism or suspicion of the use of military force (which is NOT to say that liberals are weak on DEFENSE, its just that we don't blindly "wave the flag" and are immediately gung-ho about war)
6. Acceptance of other cultures and less traditional values (in essence, less conservative)
7. Environmentally conscious

I might be missing some points in there, but you get my point. These are the more generally accepted liberal principles. And I agree with everyone of them. But I like to look at the political situation in this country in this light.

Conservatives and liberals both have tools that they use. Conservatives use a screwdriver, while liberals use a hammer, for example. So when they encounter a problem (say in the form of a nail or a screw), they try to use their respective tools in order to solve the problem. Sometimes they're successful, other times they're not, while in others its in between.

That's why I like liberals AND conservatives that can think outside of the box and accept other strategies that could work to solve the problem. Just because a strategy isn't part of your usual political orthodoxy or somehow "belongs" to the other side shouldn't dissuade politicians from considering them. This is not capitulation or spineless compromise, its common sense.

Now what the DLC does is look for other strategies. Sometimes the typical liberal strategy isn't the answer. We'll use social welfare as an example. The more liberal legislators will demand more encompassing social welfare. The New Democrat might be more inclined to take into account the out of control federal deficit and thus might want to curb federal spending.

In this case, the New Democrat is NOT compromising on his "core" values. Rather, he knows that in the long run, a balanced budget and a surplus are much more beneficial to the country as a whole. As a result, the government can then afford to spend more on social welfare, health care, and so forth.

This type of thinking can be applied to a host of other issues (defense, the death penalty, the environment, and abortion). With that said, I think the Democratic Party SHOULD be more inclusive and accepting of Democrats that don't necesssarily hold every precept of liberal orthodoxy out there. Its like Howard Dean said, "We have to reach out to pro-life and pro-choice Dems".

That's why I'm glad that "pro-lifer" Harry Reid is our leader in the Senate. And that's why I also support Evan Bayh and Bill Clinton, who are both pro death penalty, while I am not. We can both agree to disagree civilly and still work together as Democrats. That has always been the strength of our party. And its also the key to taking back our country.

:patriot:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[JohnKleeb]

3. No take really

Another day flies by where I feel moderate than I remember that its just my tone, I am still further to the left than most americans but Ive come to abhor the extremes on both sides.

[MH1]

4. You may be right, but if so you show the problem.

Or, *a* problem.

Nowhere in your post do I see anything about economic approach.

Here is my view of the DLC: they are pro-corporate. And - and this is very important - they have to be. It is their job.

What do I mean by that?

I mean that like it or not, the political landscape is what it is, and it taks huge piles of money to get elected. Those huge piles have to come from somewhere and one of the places they come from is corporate donors. And if corporate donors don't donate to Dems, they will donate even more to Republicans. What I've noticed is that mostly, corporate donors spread a little on both sides to hedge their bets, but most industries the big players seem to lean Republican.

My theory, and it's only a theory, is that the DLC is the arm of the Democratic Party whose main job is to cozy up to corporate donors and pry away as much big-chunk moolah as possible. This means they have to espouse some pro-corporate positions like coming out in favor of CAFTA. The good side of this (sort of) is that it allows other Dems to be not-so-pro-corporate, but they still get a share of the money pot if their seat is in jeopardy.

Okay, it's a theory. I don't really know. But for all that I can't stand the oligopolistic tendencies of behemoth corporations, or the pro-corporate politics that help them get even more behemother, I think I can grudgingly accept that there's probably room for an organ like the DLC to draw some of that cash to our side.

But that's the value you missed - true free market economics, which includes controls to keep opportunities open for small businesses, thus keeping the market truly competitive. I don't see that as one of the DLC's values, and I think that's where they miss the boat for a lot of people.

Correct me if I'm wrong though...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[JohnKleeb]

7. Youre really helping me understand that mindset btw

I am still what I consider a traditional liberal who prefers labor to business but you explain your points well.

[MH1]

8. Pro-megacorporations *is*, unequivocally, bad. (IMHO)

While I think the DLC approach has a place in the world as it is, I think it is very wrong to support "economic growth" for its own sake. And it is even wronger still to support unlimited expansion of large corporations.

There are several reasons why I think this. Number one is the crowding out of market competition. Number 2 is that I believe that large corporations by their very nature enable and then encourage unethical behavior as they grow larger and larger. I believe that this is a natural, immutable phenomenon. There is no amount of economic growth that justifies the moral harm of a system where people are presented with overwhelming ethical challenges that can cause them to lose their souls.

I'm sure my number 2 is controversial to you. But I would refer you to study "groupthink" and famous cases in the failure of business ethics, such as the Ford Pinto and the more recent SUV saddlebag gas tank design. My position is that these are not isolated events, or a "few bad apples" (gee where have we heard that phrase before), but actually a necessary outcome of a system designed to produce such outcomes.

Also think about the power of groups versus the power of individuals, and you see that as corporations grow larger and larger, they wield ever more inordinate power over individuals.

Finally, if you haven't read Gladwell's The Tipping Point, please do. With special attention to his discussion of the size of communities, and once they get over about 150 people or so, problems begin to escalate geometrically because people can't possibly know each other. I'm sure Gladwell didn't originate the theory, but he describes it well. I think the concept applies to all kinds of social organizations, and could explain many of the problems we see with increasing population and loss of space.

I am not anti-business - far from it. I am anti-communist in the sense of every communist system yet tried has required a totalitarian state for its continuance. That is because I think "pure" communism relies on people to behave in a way that is either completely unnatural for humans to behave, or (more likely in my view) that our culture has not yet evolved to support (and believe me I don't have some utopian fantasy that that evolution will occur in my lifetime).

But I think that capitalism MUST be controlled in order to produce a reasonably just society. Oligopoly and private monopoly are inherently evil, because they allow a few very powerful individuals to have inordinate power over the vast majority; and because they are structured to reward unethical behavior and as they grow larger the reward of unethical behavior outweighs any social disincentives.

So what we are left with is that government should act as necessary (preferably in the most efficient manner possible) to create an economic climate where many sellers compete in a market, and no single seller is allowed to get too much control. That is what antitrust legislation is about, for one. There is also a need to externally enforce ethical behavior due to the "race to the bottom" effect when markets only reward economic results, regardless of how those results were achieved. That is the goal (sort of) of legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley, and any worker safety, environmental, or product safety legislation.

Are there some misguided regulations out there? Sure. But many large corporations and so-called "economic libertarians" balk at any new regulations and want to dismantle many good regulations we have. That's just wrong. Also, some large corporations don't want to dismantle the regulatory environment at all - they just want to make it more favorable to their company or industry. They operate solely for the narrow self-interest of the corporation, or sometimes individual executives or board members when those get too much power. Whether they care a whit about social concerns comes down to the personal beliefs of a very few people controlling vast amounts of wealth and power.

I see the DLC as being the arm of the Democratic Party that represents these large corporate interests - not small business, whose interests I believe are generally at odds with those of the mega-corporations. I will accept the DLC's need to exist, in the current political climate. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

(btw, as far as I can see, Kerry is on the small-business side, not the mega-corporation side. The fact that he is listed as a DLC member is meaningless; what counts is how he acts and votes as a Senator.)

[TayTay]

10. That is a bit of an open question, actually.

This may be a bit of heresy, but it is actually an open question as to whether or not Kerry is a 'New Democrat.' (And he has used the phrase in past campaigns. He used it in media interviews and he used it in public speeches in the '90s.) The phrase itself now sounds a bit dated to me. (How long can you be a 'new' anything before it kind of becomes an orthodox view and thus not really new anymore?)

Kerry has always been a moderate on spending. (Well, a real moderate leaning lib. All the definitions are skewered now because of the Rethugs.) Way back in the '72 Congressional campaign, he advocated for welfare reform. (And this was in the 'Kerry the Commie' campaign the year that McGovern secured the Dem nomination! Wow!) One of his first acts in his first Congress after being elected Senator in '84 was to vote for the Gramm-Rudman spending caps act, which was very unpopular with social support and liberal groups in MA. And he voted for the '95-96 Welfare Reform bill that Clinton signed into law after the Rethug Revolution took both Houses of Congress in '94. (Kerry took a lot of heat for that in his '96 Senate race. I think it hurt him as much as it helped him, btw.)

So, Kerry is now and always has been more socially liberal than economically liberal (Which by Rethug terms is nearly non-existent difference. By Dems terms though, there is a difference.)

FF: What are your views on this? There is a running (light) debate in this group on whether or not Kerry has re-emphasized certain views post-election '04 and de-emphasized others. Do you see this?

[MH1]

13. WTF? Forever Free's message was deleted by mod?

You're an old hand here, do you have any idea why FF's message would have been deleted? I certainly didn't see it as offensive. I think this is an important conversation to have, and I don't understand why that post would be deleted. (Of course, since it isn't there, I can't see what it says, so maybe there was some reason that I missed.)

Your thoughts? WTF is going on? Do you think it was deleted by mistake?

[JohnKleeb]

14. I just saw that, odd

[MH1]

16. Is it possible he was banned?

I just looked up his username and couldn't find it.

:(

He seemed okay to me. Don't know if we can find out, but if he was banned I'd like to know the rationale.

[JohnKleeb]

18. Oh my lord

He was. What the hell. I dont even agree with him, I dislike the DLC but hes not a disruptor or republican or anything liek that.

[Mass]

28. delete

[TayTay]

17. Our discussion is important

I was learning something from Forever Free's articulate post about what she believes and how she thinks those beliefs can and will affect the Democratic Party going forward.

This threat has been a model of how not to fight over the DLC, but instead how to have a civilized discussion about differences of opinion. I am at a loss to explain how something so benign was deemed a flame-fest. (We know flame-fests. We've participated in flame-fests. And that, my friend, was no flame-fest.)

[MH1]

19. Banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=157018

:wtf:

Maybe some postings outside this group?

:shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

20. but why would they delete his posts in here?

God that makes no sense to me. In saracats thread too, his posts are deleted, what in the hell is going on here. I dont agree with him on the DLC but hes a democrat and not a disruptor, just what the hell.

[MH1]

23. I don't know.

I'm clicking out of DU for awhile at least today. This situation upsets me and I need to step away from the keyboard.

[JohnKleeb]

24. Its my b-day anyhow

and my moms folks are here so I wont be on much anyhow, just what the hell.

[TayTay]

21. Oh dear!

Well, it wasn't anything done in here. I am so sorry this happened. FF will be missed.

[TayTay]

5. ACtually lots.

Still ruminating. Give me a little while.

Loved the post. Very articulate and you lay out your views very well. Lots to think about.

[Mass]

26. Apparently Forever Free was banned.

I cannot see why they did that, but if you click on the profile icon on his/her initial post, you will see the " disruptor " icon.

[TayTay]

9. So much of this debate centers around regulation

The current system is out-of-whack. When Reagan came to office and brought his voodoo economics with him, he also ushered in an error of unleashing corporations from regulation. The neo-liberal economists who came with him decided that the best way to grow the economy (and avoid the malaise of the '70s) was to de-regulate business and let the free market take it's course. So we got those tax cuts and we de-regulated the airlines and other businesses. This approach has had mixed success. The idea also led to the unbelievable growth in the US deficit.

Robert Reich has pointed out that the incredible growing gap in income distribution is a result of de-regulating big business and stripping away worker protections in the US. During the bad old tax days of the 50s and 60s, the average CEO made about 12-20 times what the average worker did. Now it can be thousands of times what the average worker makes. Globalization has enhanced this effect so that the whole world is getting divided into a tiny pile of 'haves' and an enormous pile of 'have nots.' Needless to say, a huge group of countries with populations that have no possible hope of gaining a livable wage is a catastrophe waiting to happen. If we don't straighten out this mess and give low income people a way to increase their earnings power (and invest in property, schools, infrastructure, medical facilities and health care and so forth) the world faces a future of permanent unrest, terrorism and poverty.

What is the DLC position on advancing the cause of unions in a globalized economy? Senator Kerry's recent floor speech on CAFTA emphasized a position that he greatly favored free trade as a means of pushing up wages for people in poor countries. I think he said that countervailing safeguards that ensure that workers rights are guaranteed to a discernible global standard need to be put in place or exploitation, abuse, child labor, extreme and continuing poverty and a growing corporatization of global politics will occur.

So, what say you on this? (My economics grasp is weak and I think you and MH1 know more than I do on this subject. Feel free to correct my mistakes.)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[TayTay]

12. That's very fair

I took a long time to get back to you. My apologie. You presented a good case.

[TayTay]

15. Why was Forever Free's post removed?

She merely said that she was pondering a response to a question and that I would have to wait a bit for the response?

If she broke this rule, then chances are, I did too. I am unclear on thisninterpretation of the rules. Could you help me out here?

[Mass]

22. Why were these messages deleted?

I read them earlier and why I cant say I agreed, there was nothing inappropriate in them?

[JohnKleeb]

25. This is so very bizzare

[Mass]

27. He/she was clearly banned.

[JohnKleeb]

29. He yeah

[Island Blue]

32. That's really strange that he would have been banned

I certainly didn't see anything in his posts on this thread that was bad, and I hadn't seen anything he had written else where that seemed too controversial either. (Certainly not in comparison to some others who post regularly - not here but in GD.) Very strange.

[Mass]

33. It is very strange. I do not understand while

but his profile has now a RIP tombstone.

[GRLMGC]

30. Why was he banned?

He's a centrist, so what? I know for a fact that he's a good Democrat who just respects other points of view. I'm really pissed off about this.

[politicasista]

31. I am too.

He didn't seem to be causing trouble. Hope they didn't get blm. Her profile has been disabled. I like reading her posts.