Ok Somebody please clearly explain what is meant by "Third Way" and "Third-wayers" nt

[kelliekat44]

[BP2]

1. Wiki it. Bill Clinton was a third-wayer. eom

[Marr]

2. Third Way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

[think]

3. ThirdWay.org /nt

[Recursion]

4. It's become a sort of meaningless label here at this point

And basically means "Democrats I don't like".

Historically it referred to an attempt to synthesize right-wing and left-wing economic ideas. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are probably the two biggest "third way" figures of the last generation.

[hootinholler]

6. Bullshit.

See reply 5.

[Recursion]

10. Yeah, you're confusing a think tank with a philosophy

"third way" has been a political philosophy for decades.

[hootinholler]

16. I don't think that I'm the one confused here.

I'm sure you can provide links backing your assertion that it was in common parlance before the founding of the think tank, right?

[Recursion]

21. Seriously?

Wait... just to be clear, I want you on record. You will state unequivocally that you actually didn't know Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were called "third wayers" long before any think tank by that name was founded in 2005? I just want to be clear you're saying you had no idea of that, before I show you about a hundred examples of it.

[hootinholler]

41. Yes seriously

Well considering that I was pretty apolitical up until about 2004 or so it's not surprising (to me) that I was unaware of the use of the term. I first heard about the term when I learned of the think tank. I read in other posts about who coined the term. Learning all the time, dude. It also does nothing to lessen my disgust of their policy advice.

It's also an odd coincidence that the DLC folded shortly after the think tank fired up it's operations.

[Rex]

17. Seems you are the confused one here, we are talking about the think tank.

Keep trying.

[Recursion]

23. Nope. The think tank doesn't have any democrats in it. EDIT: Nope, I was wrong

Democratic party.

Clyburn and Giffords. OK, so apparently that's who people want out of the party.

[Rex]

26. It doesn't? I guess you don't know what we are talking about then.

Since it does.

[MADem]

59. I think you're conversing with people who were either very young or political naifs during the

WJClinton-Blair era. You're right, they're mistaken.

[Segami]

13. +1

[think]

7. Bullshit

[Rex]

9. Wishful thinking.

I love watching you try though.

[Recursion]

12. No, that's actually what "third way" has meant for decades

I realize somebody on DU just found out that there's a think tank with that name, and the freak-out is kind of amusing, but that doesn't change the fact that of how "third way" has been used for decades.

[Rex]

15. Again, nice try.

Third way is a group of investment bankers that practice Reaganomics. But you probably knew that already.

[Recursion]

18. But they aren't Democrats, so that's not who people are talking about kicking out of the party

People are talking about getting rid of third way Democratic politicians, none of whom are in Third Way.

[Rex]

20. Nope. They are talking about getting rid of the Third Way group that supports

libertarian policies.

[Recursion]

25. Looking back I see that Clyburn did something with it, so I guess there's him.

OK, fine: Third Way is apparently James Clyburn. EDIT: and Gabby Giffords. Hmm... that should be interesting.

[Rex]

28. You can pretend I am talking about politicians until you are blue in the face.

Because you know I am not.

[Recursion]

29. No, I actually don't know who you are talking about

The actual Third Way group is a bunch of investment bankers. What exactly do you want to do about them forming a group to support their political views?

[Rex]

31. I don't want our Dem politicians taking money from a group that embraces libertarianism.

Nothing else really.

[Recursion]

35. Does Third Way even have a PAC?

How much money do they actually raise and donate? They seem to be a lot more like access brokers.

[Rex]

42. Well they supported Clyburn and Giffords

so you tell me.

[Recursion]

44. As a PAC or as an individual contributer? And how much? (nt)

[Recursion]

30. Let's start over: I honestly haven't been sure whether people meant the specific org or

the political philosophy.

Which one do you mean? The think tank? Or the governing philosophy?

[Rex]

32. #31

EDIT - I am not talking for anyone else here, but me. You might be right and other people are talking about politicians. I am talking about the group Third Way.

We know Reaganomics is a total failure, why would we want those kind of policies?

[Recursion]

37. #35

Do they even have a PAC?

[tammywammy]

11. I agree.

On DU it's basically anyone not deemed "democratic enough".

[cheapdate]

50. Indeed, as with most labels

it's meaning is vague and diffuse. It suffers from overuse. It inevitably leads to false conclusions. It obscures more than it enhances understanding. Etc, etc.

[hootinholler]

5. Basically, they are the remnants of the DLC

After the DLC realized their brand was tainted and folded up shop, the founded "The Third Way." Currently on their web site they are taking credit for "Marriage For Gay Couples" (note not Marriage Equality, but marriage for gay couples).

Who is funding them? Well the same people who funded the DLC and are funding many republicans.

Probably enough to get you started.

[Recursion]

8. No former members of the DLC are in "The Third Way"

So, other than the fact that you completely made that up... and at any rate, "third way" has for decades been used to describe centrist Democratic/Labor politicians.

[think]

19. Please wish them well and please invite the unions to the TPP proceedings

Thank you.....

[adirondacker]

27. Do you have a list?

from wiki...
United States
See also: New Democrats and Third Way (think tank)
Two Third Way proponents: Professor Anthony Giddens and former U.S. President Bill Clinton

In the United States, "Third Way" adherents embrace fiscal conservatism to a greater extent than traditional social liberals, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have 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.[38] With respect to U.S. presidents, the term "Third Way" was introduced by political scientist Stephen Skowronek.[39][40][41] "Third Way" presidents 'undermine the opposition by borrowing policies from it in an effort to seize the middle and with it to achieve political dominance. Think of Nixon’s economic policies, which were a continuation of Johnson's "Great Society"; Clinton’s welfare reform and support of capital punishment; and Obama’s pragmatic centrism, reflected in his embrace, albeit very recent, of entitlements reform.'[42]

Clinton, Blair, Prodi, Gerhard Schröder and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England.[43][44] The Third Way think tank and the Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.[45]

[hootinholler]

33. Of course not

They learned from the DLC experience and now hold politicians at arms length. Funny how the Democratic centrists seem to fight much harder to implement their policies than more traditional Democratic Party values. Also funny how the people funding them are the same people who funded the DLC. A lot of coincidences in politics there.

Entitlement Reform
Third Way has spearheaded a long-term campaign to fix the safety net.

After the 2008 election, we launched a long-term campaign to make the progressive case for fixing the broken entitlements system. In those five years, we prepared and got introduced a bill that would create a Social Security Commission, created the narrative around an impending “collision course” between entitlements and investment spending, became the leading center-left venue for entitlement reformers, and directly influenced the language and policies of top Democratic officials.

For a think tank they sure have lots of pictures of Democrats on their website though.

[Recursion]

36. And McConnell's web site has a lot of pictures of African American women

They have 5 Democratic honorary co-chairs, including Dingell and Clyburn. I suppose we can castigate those 5, though.

[hootinholler]

47. I will castigate any politician who advances their policies

They were wrong before and continue to be wrong today.

Funny how they have two websites with two completely different looks and feel. (third-way.com and thirdway.org)

Funny how corporations write off their donations to them as donations to Lobbying concerns.

They boast of having their ideas making it into laws. They place their people on staff of politicians. Read their fellowship program description where they promise a seat in the room where policy is made.

Wasn't Obama's chief of staff one of their actual directors? (not an honorary one)

[msongs]

14. its a front for democrats who want to implement republican policies nt

[Baitball Blogger]

24. .

Also, Democrats who prefer social networking over transparency and procedure.

[bhikkhu]

22. What is meant, generally, is don't bother to vote

because everyone is suspect. Especially if they actually occupy a position and have to be involved in governing.

[GeorgeGist]

60. Keep digging.

[madfloridian]

34. Here's a little about it.

If you are interested, I have lots more.

Stuff happens when you follow the false centrism of Third Way.

Long post, but this is the heart of that group's rise. To get rich so they don't need us average folks. They have pretty well succeeded.

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

The DLC was what the Third Way is before they supposedly died and changed their name.

[NYC_SKP]

39. Hey Mad, I think you should post that again as a fresh OP, wait til morning tho.

It'll get a lot of views if you post early tomorrow and stay up all day through the Sunday shows.

It needs to be seen.

[madfloridian]

64. I did, give a rec.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025791867

[NYC_SKP]

67. 66 recs, nice!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. +1

[hootinholler]

43. Let me second SKP's suggestion! n/t

[madfloridian]

65. I did just now.

So give a rec if you can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025791867

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Here's something about the Turd Way I found on Daily Kos

It's from the Nation, about a year ago:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177437/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party

Third Way, a centrist think tank that portrays itself as a Democratic group, has some advice for the party: avoid economic populism at all costs. In a column for The Wall Street Journal today, the group argues that the party should steer clear of creating a strong safety net, and criticizes Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s call for universal pre-K funded through an upper-income tax increase as a foolhardy idea for national Democrats.
--snip--

What’s more, Third Way’s leadership has tenuous connections to the Democratic Party it hopes to shape. Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager listed as a trustee on Third Way’s 2012 annual disclosure, bundled $556,031 for Mitt Romney last year. Third Way board member Derek Kaufman, another hedge fund executive, also gave to Romney.

There is a long and storied tradition of corporate, right-wing interests seeking to shape the economic policies of the Democratic Party. The DLC, another Third Way–style group that folded in 2011, was funded by none other than Koch Industries. Richard Fink, a strategist to the Koch brothers who helped found what is now known as Americans for Prosperity, was on the DLC’s board.

Washington’s Big Business–friendly press has greeted the Third Way column as a “game changer.” But these arguments aren’t new, and neither are the strategies. Large corporations have many ways of finding useful surrogates, and Third Way is a prime example.

[NYC_SKP]

66. They aren't even trying to look like the care about us. Fuck Them.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[madfloridian]

45. Third Way not fond of liberals or the left.

Third Way warning about liberals again. Says Obama voters were moderates and centrists.

From March 2013

In post-election polling by Third Way, and confirmed by national exit polls, the plurality of those who pulled the lever for President Barack Obama were not liberals but self-described moderates. In fact, 56 percent of those who voted for the president defined their own ideology as either moderate or conservative. A supermajority of Obama voters said they wanted the president to be more moderate or conservative in his second term compared with his first. And overwhelmingly, they wanted the president and members of Congress from both parties to compromise rather than stand their ground. In fact, the most unanimously supported statement in the post-election poll of 800 Obama voters was this: “Democrats and Republicans both need to make real compromises to come to an agreement on fixing the deficit.” A full 96 percent agreed with that statement.

And their present leader Jonathan Cowan started calling for privatization of Social Security way back in the 90s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024150143Past words of "wisdom" by Third Way prez, Jon Cowan. Too much influence on Democrats.

Cowan openly called for the privatization of Social Security in a 1995 op ed.

The time has come to reinvent Social Security based on a "cut and privatize" approach that will be fair to all age groups. This reinvention should be based on three principles:

* Start immediately to lower boomers' expectations of the returns they will get and encourage them to increase private savings. My generation and my kids' will have to pay upward of 30% of our income in payroll taxes to finance the boomers' retirement at today's benefit levels. That's unreasonable and unworkable. Instead, we'll have to dramatically slash benefits to stay solvent, and we should let folks know now what to expect when the ax falls.

* Separate out the welfare portion of Social Security and pay out poverty benefits to today's--and tomorrow's--needy seniors from general government revenues. In some cases, benefits will have to increase as we keep our commitment to protect America's elderly from poverty; at the same time, benefits will have to be cut to seniors who are well-off. Yes, we'll be breaking our commitment to folks who have paid in for decades, but that was not a contract my generation signed, and it's not one that America can afford to fulfill.

And he called seniors greedy.

Dear Grandma and Grandpa:

We write to ask for your help. We're in a financial mess, and unless everyone in our family gets together to fix the problem, we're heading for "economic and fiscal catastrophe." That's not a phrase we picked up on MTV-it's from a recent U.S. government report on the budget deficit.

This year alone America's budget deficit will be nearly $300 billion, which means we're spending $300 billion more than we take in. That's $300 billion on top of the $4.2 trillion debt we've already built up, enough to pay basketball star Michael Jordan's salary for almost a million and a half years.

Really? He called them Grandma and Grandpa? Rude.

We are not ungrateful. We respect and value the sacrifices you've made for our country and have no desire to take money away from those in need. But our generation is in trouble. We were educated in a collapsing school system. Our incomes and skill levels are lower than any previous generation-by the year 2000 over one-third of younger Americans will be living in poverty. And we will be the first Americans to inherit a lower standard of living than our parents.

We're not asking that your generation solve all our problems. And there certainly are many other programs that also must be cut to get the deficit under control. But Social Security must be considered, just like everything else in the budget.

AND our party is following their playbook all down the line.

And I think that is why we lost bigtime in 2010 and 2014. Our leaders pretended not to be Democrats.

[think]

48. Bookmarking. TY /nt

[wavesofeuphoria]

58. +1 great post as always!

[RiverLover]

70. .."why we lost bigtime in 2010 and 2014. Our leaders pretended not to be Democrats." Bingo!

Great info & couldn't agree more. Thanks for posting!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. Third Way = To the Right and then Down.

[JHB]

51. They claim that they represent a "third way" between New Deal liberalism and conservatives...

Last edited Sun Nov 9, 2014, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Conservatives want a very narrow role for government (or at least claim that, as long as it doesn't affect programs they benefit from) -- no social programs and services, no regulations, just the military, courts, and protection of property (or at least their property).

Third wayers characterize liberals as pining for a bygone era, with inflexible institutions made outdated or obsolete by changing technology and trade patterns -- high taxes, lots of social services, heavy regulation, high unionization; etc. Things that Third wayers paint as stifling innovation and growth.

Third wayers characterize themselves as "centrist", "pragmatic", and "pro-business", proclaiming that has a place in the economy, but it needs to be flexible and responsive in order to meet the needs of the people without stifling business. They're for "small government", just not as small as microscopic as the conservatives would like.


The liberal critique of the Third Way is that while their position is crafted to sound reasonable, in practice they nearly always promote policies that benefit wealthy investors (who are also wealthy political donors) over working people. Third Wayers have treated union-busting, outsourcing, and offshoring of jobs regrettable but necessary while working for policies that aid companies doing that and working against policies that would reduce its attractiveness for companies. To liberals, this amounts to a program of boosting corporate profits by squeezing the people at the bottom and is nearly indistinguishable from what conservatives have been pushing for decades, which has been gutting the middle class in this country.

[Samantha]

52. Here is a link that describes the Third Way from the inception of that term

Many people struggle to under it, so I saved this post. Bill Clinton strugged to find a term to describe the politics of his particular presidency, and this is one of the alternatives he liked.

He was the first DLC'er to win the Oval Office. That organization folded after it came under long and continued criticism from what I will call classic Dems. They truly made themselves look foolish when they refused to support Gore during the 2000 election controversy, and in 2004 publicly said they didn't want him to run. Many people who followed the DLC model now follow the Third Way approach. Same difference....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5733969

Sam

[lob1]

53. Thom Hartmann explains 3rd Way simply and clearly.

When you say 3rd Way, think investment bankers.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/third-way-no-way

[BeanMusical]

54. It's a cult.

And their leader is a man named Third Way Manny.

[NanceGreggs]

55. You'll understand soon enough ...

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Third Way?"

The DU hearings will be starting any day now.

[GeorgeGist]

62. Keep digging.

[NanceGreggs]

68. Did you have a point? n/t

[Major Hogwash]

56. It's code for "we hate Democrats who get elected"

Except for the ones they don't hate!!!

[MADem]

61. +1 nt

[SoCalDem]

57. In another era, they would have been called collaborators

In our time, they are "deal-makers".. ready to trade away things necessary for the least of us, in favor of goodies for their donors..

DINOS are noted for being eager to compromise with people who would gleefully stab them in the back (literally) if they could get away with it, and who (figuratively) do stab them in the back every chance they get...and then laughingly tout whatever legislation that gets passed, as BI-PARTISAN

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. Something that "Third Way Manny" is always railing about?

I don't know, I usually ignore the guy.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

69. Have you figured it out yet? There's good info in this thread. (n/t)

[stevenleser]

71. The latest in the series of liberal/left penis-length measuring labels.

It doesn't really mean very much other than a way for some here to collectively identify a bogeyman group to rail against and on which to blame everything. For instance:

We can't get bills passed because of (Bogeyman Label)

We don't like certain candidates because they are (Bogeyman Label)

It doesn't make any sense to work for anything or vote because of (Bogeyman Label)

(Bogeyman Label) is responsible for all of our problems.

(Bogeyman Label) is responsibly for milk spoiling earlier than it should.

Yes, sure, there are folks who self identify as third way, and they consider themselves more moderate, but they are not the Bogeyman that some folks on DU make them out to be.

The Bogeyman Label used to be New Democrat, then DLC and now it's Third way. It's the missile gap of Liberalism. Something for everyone to get upset about but doesn't really amount to a whole lot.

[ucrdem]

72. And the worst are full of passionate intensity

as usual.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

73. It's a losing strategy. 2010 and 2014 are not something to cheer about.

Depending, of course, on the length of one's penis. And whether it swings left or right.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

74. Read up on Nancy Jacobson to learn more about DLC/Third Way/No Labels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Jacobson

And Frank Rich's The Bipartisanship Racket.