One reason Howard Dean is taking his time on the Denver decision...unions, DLC

[madfloridian]

"they turned their back on their core constituencies" is a statement Dean made in 04, referring to Al From's statement in 1995.

From day one of his campaign he said that the great middle class of America was built because the unions were strong. One of his goals is making them strong again.

I remember this quote from his book. He quotes a statement by Al From that concerned him. It is why he is taking his time on the decision. I am a strong believer in unions, and I am glad he is giving Denver the extra time it needs on this issue.

From his book "You Have the Power", published in fall of 2004:

Dean: "They turned their back on their core constituencies, in some cases under the guise of being "New Democrats." In fact, they relabeled their "core constituences" as "special interest groups," whose influence, they tried to tell the public, had to be avoided like the plague."

He refers to this quote from Time Magazine in 1995 in which Al From told Time that "a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse (Jackson) and the labor unions".

Dean further states that "the real problem, of course, is that Jesse Jackson and the labor unions form the core of the people who traditionally have elected Democrats. It is not an accident that members of labor unions and African-American voters became less interested in the Democratic Party as we crept to the right......we began to lose elections up and down the ballot with increasing regularity." END SNIP

From You Have the Power, pp. 63, 64.

Take your time, Governor Dean.

[madfloridian]

1. "We became a great country because we built a strong middle class"

"We became a great country because we built a strong middle class. All Americans, not just union members, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of America's labor movement. They grew the roots of our prosperity, and built a nation with blood, sweat and toil.

They struggled together to pass on to their children and grandchildren an America that was better than the one they inherited. The men and women of the labor movement joined together because they knew that they could accomplish more in unity than they could be going it alone. And if we are going to change America for the better, we must find in ourselves again that same sense of community and common cause.

It was this sense of community that was the foundation of the middle class and America's shared prosperity. When companies did better, wages rose, and benefits kept pace. A strong labor union movement made sure that the factory worker and the sales clerk saw their real incomes rise.

At the same time, we created institutions that shared risks. Companies were offered incentives to provide health and pension benefits to their workers. Social Security and Medicare were founded to make sure that no Americans would end their lives in poverty or lack medical care. We built a strong public education system, and offered training and advancement through loans, grants, and the GI Bill."

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript-Vision_for_Economic_Growth_30July2004.htm

[madfloridian]

2. More quotes from 1998...

Al From's memo in 1998, where he refers to the strong opposition they got to NAFTA...but they got it into the agenda even though people did not want it.

Friendly Fire

The Third Way has come a long way. Early on, it ran into fire not only from Republicans but from leaders of our own party. Former House Speaker Tom Foley objected harshly to an early draft of the New Orleans Declaration at a meeting in the Capitol in 1990. A group of liberals led by former Sen. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio held a counter-convention in Des Moines the same 1991 weekend that the D.C. adopted the New American Choice resolutions in Cleveland. Jesse Jackson came to Cleveland to protest as did the United Auto Workers, who objected to our support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Even moderate Democrats who were part of the D.C. were nervous. A number of them called me on the carpet for promoting heresies.

In 1992, just one year later, many of those ideas -- fiscal discipline, expanded trade, the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, community policing, charter schools, market in government, to name a few -- were part of the Democratic Party platform.

Now Third Way ideas are at the Democratic Party's core. That was clearly evident at a White House meeting this summer convened by Hillary Clinton. The first lady invited about 20 of us -- roughly divided between associates of the D.C. and the liberal policy journal The American Prospect -- to talk about the Third Way with her. The fact that we were there to discuss the Third Way rather than how to revive liberalism speaks volumes about the progress of the policy debate in the party."

Al is saying they were there to meet with Hillary, but not about liberalism.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=838

[paulk]

3. the AFL-CIO has objected to the convention

because Denver has only one union hotel.

Denver is a right to work state - unions are not strong here, and have never been strong here.

This has nothing to do with the DLC.


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

[madfloridian]

4. Al said it in 1995....which is why Dean is standing with unions today.

Dean's book referred to this in 04, before he was chairman. Al From said those words. I posted that. Unions in this country have almost been destroyed, and not just by Republicans.

One good thing about all my checkers here, I know they will keep me honest.

Dean's has worked closely with the unions. Yes, it does have something to do with the DLC. Al From was/is the leader, and he said those things. That is what I said.

It is the Dean's insistence on working with unions that is the reason he is giving Denver more time. And it does have something to do with it in a way because the DLC tried to get away from minorities and unions.

Thanks for keeping me straight. But I said it correctly.

[madfloridian]

5. Found the 1995 quote from Al From....about unions and Jesse Jackson.

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

Al From himself embodies John Maynard Keynes' warning that the real difficulty in changing any enterprise lies not in developing new ideas but in escaping from old ones. "The problem for us and him," says From, "is that Clinton promised to be different. He's been that a bit, but the whole is less than the sum of the parts. The fundamental change he pledged hasn't come. We've been consistent in articulating the ideas he won on, but he hasn't been consistent in advancing them. We were at this before Clinton, and we'll be at it after he's gone, because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions. Most people are politically homeless now. They're our target. We'll work to get Clinton to pursue us, but we're damn sure going to make it hard for him to catch us."

Which means what? "Al feels a loyalty to Clinton because he feels responsible for electing him," says Steinhardt. "But what we're planning is bigger than some psychological thing. We'll just have to see if Clinton buys our new stuff. If not, and someone else takes it on, then we'll probably fracture." Then Clinton will have even more trouble than he has already. ¹

He really truly said it...the nerve..the utter nerve.

because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions

And Steinhardt: what the heck does this mean, sir.

"But what we're planning is bigger than some psychological thing. We'll just have to see if Clinton buys our new stuff.

What "stuff" would that be?

And once I posted that they were going after Bill Clinton because he was not toeing their line in the sand. Some argued with me, but this Time article proves I was right when I posted this:

Washington Monthly: the DLC "squawked when Bill strayed."

From the Time article above:

The White House is having an anxiety attack at the prospect of a liberal challenge from Jesse Jackson, but a potentially more dangerous threat may come from the Democratic Leadership Council, the group of moderate Democrats formed in 1985. Clinton helped found the organization, chaired it before resigning to run in 1992 and sold himself to the nation on the basis of the ideas developed by the council's think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Clinton had defined the DLC's task as creating "a new middle ground of thinking on which someone can not only run for President but actually be elected."

Having accomplished that goal, Clinton has wandered. "Since his election," says DLC president Al From, "the President's campaign agenda hasn't been his first priority." A repeat of that performance is what many centrist boosters worry about most. Clinton's latest moves to the center, like his recent balanced-budget proposal, are viewed by the DLC as mere electoral tactics that may signify nothing at all about a second term's direction. "In '92 our ideas captured the country but not the party," says William Galston, who resigned recently as a White House aide to help develop what From calls a "third way." Since then, adds Galston, the tension within the Administration "has involved accommodating the liberal tendencies that still dominate the party and the centrist views the President ran on." That confusion is exactly what could doom Clinton, since many Americans still wonder what the President really believes in and what he will fight for.

The centrists don't want to go down with him. Explains Elaine Kamarck, a former PPI fellow currently working for Vice President Gore: "The DLC worries about dying off if the President's defeated. The battle for the party's soul will continue even if he wins. But if he loses, the liberals will claim that the dlc's centrist views were responsible and should be tossed aside entirely. The counterargument will be that just because the messenger proved imperfect, doesn't mean the message itself should be junked."

Wow, they never were satisfied, were they?

[madfloridian]

6. I may need to start a new post about this article from Time...1995

This article has two of the policy makers of the DLC/PPI/Third Way centrists specifically advocating privatization of Social Security...

Now when I say that is one of their goals, people pile on saying oh, no mf, that is not what they mean. Well, yes, it is. It sounds like in 1995 they were already thinking of themselves as a third party kind of thing...which Bill Clinton could either accept or not. I find it ironic that Bill's wife, Hillary, is one of their leaders now.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983141-1,00.html

Fearful that such a distinction would be lost in the blame game following Clinton's forced retirement, those who helped elect him are preparing to distance themselves while they still have the chance. "We're out to push the intellectual envelope," says the ppi's Rob Shapiro, who is working on a "radical" series of issue alternatives that could "unyoke" the centrists from their President. A full-fledged manifesto is due this fall, and if, as currently planned, it includes ideas like privatizing Social Security, it's unlikely that Clinton will have the nerve to sign on. At that point, says Galston, the group's new prescriptions will "be there for anyone to embrace."

Anyone? Even a third-party candidate like, say, Colin Powell, who'd probably be as leery as anyone else about the notion of privatizing Social Security? "Maybe," says Michael Steinhardt, the hedge-fund guru who chairs the Progressive Foundation, which will publish the manifesto. Steinhardt is one of about two dozen wealthy Democrats behind the project, a roster that includes entertainment mogul Barry Diller; investment bankers Steve Rattner, Felix Rohatyn and Barrie Wigmore; and entrepreneurs Mitch Hart, who started Electronic Data Systems with Ross Perot, and Sandy Robertson, who assembled much of the California support so vital to Clinton's '92 drive.

Most of these bankrollers are backing Clinton, says Steinhardt, who identifies himself, Diller and Hart as the three most willing to walk away from Clinton right now. "Precisely because we could be washed out in a Clinton loss, I hope our 'third way' leads to a third party," says Steinhardt. "That's a ticket to irrelevance," Rattner retorts. "We should stick with Clinton as we try to remake the party." "But why support someone who's conned you?" asks Diller.

Steinhardt, I think is an editor of the NY Sun now.

[Squeech]

7. Yup

All this indicates that the DLC is simply the corporatist wing of the Democrats, just as intent on screwing the working and middle classes for the benefit of a soi-disant aristocracy as the Repukes. This is exactly where NAFTA and welfare reform came from, not to mention the thunderous lack of real support for Hillarycare. Me, I'm rooting for an uncouth populist.

[madfloridian]

8. Me, too.

Looks like just the two of us care about this, though.

[Squeech]

9. Dunno

DUers seem to entertain populist ideas quite a bit more often than not, and there's certainly a lot of support for Dean as chair.

What there isn't so much of is an interest in the philosophy behind it.

Or maybe it's just that we find it ambiguous. On the one hand we can say we like "triangulation" because it worked for the Big Dawg. On the other hand, there's the problem of how many of our key constituencies it undercuts, not to mention the long term damage inherent in these policies to our economy and our diplomatic posture and the ecology and any conception of justice...

Do you read the blogger known as Digby? He has a lot to say on these topics.