When will Democrats (DLC) Learn?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I was "sampling" a little Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck the other day (for "know thy enemy" purposes only) and one thing suddenly became real clear to me and I think that it is something that DLC-oriented Democrats need to understand and that the rest of us desparately need to drill into their heads. It is the simple fact that no matter how much Democrats support and enable Bush/GOP, attack fellow Democrats for their perceived transgressions (i.e. MoveOn.Org), and otherwise try to pander to the various elements of the Republican party, Bush, Cheney, Rush, Sean, Glenn, etc. will ALWAYS find fault with ANY Democrat, will smear ANY Democrat that gets too "uppity" and will always lump ALL Democrats in with what they consider to be the more "extreme" (i.e. left-wing) elements of the party regardless of their "conservative" or "pro-corporate" bonifdes. On his radio show this past week for instance, Sean invented the new term, "MoveOn.Org Democrats" to smear the entire party. Basically, to MOST Republicans, ALL Democrats (with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, although he's not technically a "Democrat" anymore) are EVIL, power/control hungry, and do nothing right and everything wrong. Keeping this in mind, it is simply perplexing to me why members of the DLC seem perpetually obsessed with trying to "mimic" and/or support Republicans when NOTHING they do will ever be good enough to win the hearts and minds of members of the Republican party and, frankly, I don't understand why anybody would actually want stoop to the level that one would have to stoop in order to claim their votes. At THAT point, you might as well change your party registration to Independent or simply cross over the aisle to become a member of the Republican party. The point that I'm trying to make is that, at least in the case of MOST Republicans, if you're a Democrat, you're essentially the "spawn of Satan" and they don't want to have anything to do with much less cast a vote for you and it doesn't do our party any good to try to imitate them in a vain attempt to win them over because it just ain't going to happen. And really, with their kind of poll numbers, it defies explanation as to why any of us aspire to be more like them or assume THEIR positions. Republicans are not trying to act more like Democrats, so why should we try to act more like Republicans when the polls on ANY given issue, with the possible exception of national security, favor the Democratic position NOT the Republican one? :shrug:

[NV Whino]

1. Geez, take a breath

and put a little space in your posts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Here is your explanation and it is one that you may not

like or know

Many of the DLC are cut from the same cloth (academically for example) as the NeoCons.

They share many things in common, including the neoliberal ideology. They all studied under Friedman at the Chicago School of economics. They believe the world is flat and neo liberalism is the only way

Neo liberalism was once called fascism, or the third way.

There is more, they are also students of Leo Strauss... and Strauss is essentially a classic Aristotelian and distrust the people. Why the DLC distrust the people, why the Neo cons distrust the people.

In fact, some have sugested that at one point some took off for the Republican Party and others to the Democratic party in an effort to take both parties over

This is mission accomplished...

And both share the goal of empire... and the logic of empire is such... that you need both internal and external enemies to maintain a state of contstant alarm in your population.

[bbgrunt]

5. wow. thanks for that lucid explanation, nd.

[leftofthedial]

7. bingo

:thumbsup:

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Are you suggesting that the DLC also falls in Dean's authoritarian camp?

[The Magistrate]

3. There Is Some Useful Truth In That, Sir

The enemy makes no distinction among us, and aims particularly, in fact, for those who are viewed as, and view themselves as, moderates. These cannot gain themselves anything by attacking those to their left, and would do better to defend them. But there is a further element to this, which is that those more to the left gain nothing by attacking in abusive terms those not so far to the left as they, and lumping them together with the Republicans of the far right. This acts just as much to drive a wedge into our ranks as attacks on the left by moderates.

[BootinUp]

4. I have a question for the DLC haters

How come Clinton (a DLCer) never invaded the Middle East? Or any other country in a war of aggression? You think Bill Clinton handled Iraq incorrectly in the 90's?

The DLC Democrats believe in multi-lateral approach in dealing with rogue nations and terrorism. You got a better idea?

As for Iraq, Bush was given too much trust to take the Iraq question to the UN with a resolution that authorized war in the event inspections were not allowed. Both Dems and Republicans who never knew he was such a dumbass regret it to be sure.

But the real blame for Iraq and the lack of success in Afghanistan should be placed on Bush where it belongs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Ideologically, at least at the upper echelons

they share a lot in common.

Now as to why Clinton didn't, that is because Bill understood that the extreme in the neo con dream was just that, a wet Wilsonian dream.

But many of the folks at the upper levels of the DLC and the Neocon movement share school credentials, share drinking holes and share ideology.

The DLC beleives in free trade... never mind there is no such a thing... really

The DLC also believes the corporations have to have primacy over the unions.

And I am talking about the real upper echelons of the two movements

Granted, many more rational neocons have seen their dream partly frittered away by the true nutball extremists. But all of them believe in empire

[BootinUp]

9. You really don't know what you're

talking about.

Sure I have read about the history of the neocon movement and it does have and did have members in the Democratic Party going back decades. But the DLC is not an organization to promote those ideals. In fact the very core belief of the DLC is to reject ideological missions in favor of practical policy formed from a broad base of philosophies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Yes I doi

have been studying this now on and off for years

Including readying Strauss and other beauts

[Emit]

12. I suggest you delve a bit further into the history of the neocons and the DLC

The DLC does promote many of those ideals, particularly the hawkish approach to foreign policy.

[BootinUp]

14. They certainly will take

a hawkish approach in certain situations. The part I object to about the previous post, and yours, is neither of you acknowledge the times they have not taken the hawkish approach. Their approach requires consideration of all the options before promoting a policy.

[Emit]

20. Well, the way you've framed that question is kinda like saying

"He's not a drug addict because he never OD'd."

Clinton never invaded the ME, true. He bombed Iraq, though, didn't he? Is he a neocon hawk? No, I don't think so.

I guess, to get at the heart of your questions, at that time, the Clinton administration did not embrace the neocons -- they were called "the crazies" IIRC.

But, the DLC has in its creation, insidiously IMO, some very hawkish folks, such as Will Marshall. The overt neocon actions in the Bush administration has since allowed some of the more hawkish tendencies of the DLC to step up to the plate -- offering a friendlier form of imperialism, if you will.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Clinton Was A Pragmatist

He led the fight to liberate Kosovo because he recognized the benefits exceeded the costs...

He would have never got us stuck in a un-winnable land war in southeast Asia or a stuck in between the combatants in a civil war in the Middle East...

Sometimes, prudence is the best policy...

[Emit]

30. I don't disagree with that. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

13. Ok, time to wake up. The DLC is directly connected to PNAC:

:hangover:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[BootinUp]

15. One or even two members

do not tell the whole story. As I said they draw ideas from a broad base of philosophy. If you are going to claim that 50% or more of the party is connected to the DLC then you should acknowledge that many members have input to the process.

[Emit]

21. Yeah, but, who are their spokesmen?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1937669

[burythehatchet]

25. Dude, who stole my party?

You really ought to take a fresh look at your assumptions. The perfectly corrupt strategy is to always take over both sides. The DLC is your enemy, if you are a progressive. Now if you are a DU centrist (right winger) then there's no need to analyze this any further. But trust me, the OP knows of what s/he speaks.

[Emit]

11. I've heard it referred to as the "Third Way"

United States
In the United States, Third Way adherents emphasize fiscal conservatism, some replacement of welfare with workfare, and a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the Administration of President Bill Clinton.<9>

After Tony Blair came to power in the UK Clinton, Blair and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way in 1997 at Chequers in England.<10> <11> The Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.<12>

In 2004, several veteran U.S. Democrats founded a new Washington, DC organization entitled Third Way, which bills itself as a "strategy center for progressives."<13>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_way_%28centrism%29#United_States

[BootinUp]

16. Yes, it describes their desire

to not base policy on ideology.

[stranger81]

23. Capitalism, too, is an ideology.

And not a particularly good one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. SHHH We don't live in a capitalist country

don't tell anybody...

But both Smith and Ricardo, who were fans of tariffs as an integral part of the system, and against monopolies, are doing summersaults in their graves.

This country is as capitalist, as the USSR was Communist

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Woodrow Wilson Was Not A Neocon

"Now as to why Clinton didn't, that is because Bill understood that the extreme in the neo con dream was just that, a wet Wilsonian dream."


Woodrow Wilson was not a neocon. He was a liberal internationalist who started the doomed League Of Nations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. True, wilson was not a neocon, but his internationalism

is present in neocon ideology... hell, I can trace some of the philospphy all the way back to Aristotle, and trust me, Aristotle was not a Neocon either.

[LWolf]

31. This deserves a thread of its own, imo.

It needs to be on the front page every day for the next 2 years, at least.

[Emit]

32. Yes. I think nadinbrzezinski's post #2 and #8, combined

would make a good OP.

[bobbolink]

33. I have one question for liberal haters...

Why do you turn everything into "Hate"???

Actually, that was a very clear and factual post about neoliberalism and the DLC.

But, when you can't deal with facts, you start the "hate" meme.

Good way to stifle discussion, and create divisions!

[MisterP]

6. well, that assumes the DLC isn't a Trojan Horse using a big stick to beat down everyone

to the left of Pinochet in the name of "winning"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. You never need to apologize for or explain your viewing habits

No reason not to watch Hannity... it's fuckin' hilarious. Always makes me feel better about the Democratic party.

[Emit]

18. I listen to Hannity in the car for laughs sometimes

but, my blood pressure can handle only so much bs, not to mention, it rots the brain.

The "You're a Geat American" gig he has going with all the callers is enough to make me gag.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. "When Will They Ever Learn?"

Never. They have sold their humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgCVS2mHe0Q

[stranger81]

22. they'll learn when triangulation stops working for them,

or when public campaign finance gets passed (but I don't see the impetus for that). Not a second sooner.

[OneBlueSky]

26. no offense, but using paragraphs would make your post way more readable . . . n/t

.

[tblue37]

28. You're absolutely right--but next time use some white space

(paragraph breaks). A long block of unbroken text is hard to read on the computer.

[Orsino]

34. When the corporations stop paying them not to. n/t

[L. Coyote]

37. Don't you have any family or relatives? Which cave have you been hiding in?

A lot of my family is Republican. Maybe having a very large clan is unique, but this is way off the mark. When did we cease being people first?

You might want to assess if your thinking is part of the problem you are describing.