In their own words. An "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

47. "without having to rely on the party's traditional constituents."

The Democratic party's ship ran ashore in the 1980s precisely because we had to rely on the party's "traditional constituents."

Every time someone makes the point you did in your OP, I'm reminded of a piece from The American Prospect by Michael Tomasky in which he very succinctly addressed the Democratic Party's over-reliance on 'traditional constituents.' Why? Because the party has lot of them. The diverse coalition as means of financial support in a time where Republicans were increasingly out-raising us (and beating us at the ballot box) made that system difficult to maintain if our goal was to win elections

For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.

Many of today's Democrats - of the further left variety - still cling to the outdated post-Great Society notion that the Party must cater to every interest group's whims. It's important to remember how central the interest group/group rights framework was to the Left until around the time the DLC formed. Back in 1988, one of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's best known speeches invoked his grandmother's quilts as a metaphor for the Democratic Party, and then he proceeded through a litany of "the groups" (everyone from small business people and farmers to gays and lesbians), addressing each with the warning: "Your patch is too small."

That quilt is better indicative of a Democratic Party that had become a loose confederation squabbling groups who could never be collectively pleased, a state that manifested itself with dwindling votes at the ballot box.

One last thing before the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins, before the obligatory 'fuck you's' and threats to leave the party. You referenced a review of Al From's book by Lloyd Grove. I rather like Matt Stoller's, which ended with this very important piece of advice - advice 'progressives' have always ignored and probably always will. Recycling the same anti-Clinton, anti-DLC screeds on message board is just so much easier.

...if you expect changes in philosophy and behavior (from the Democratic Party) you’re going to have to do what Al From did. Which is, organize. And don’t just organize to put Democrats in power, organize around ideas the way that Al From did. From’s ideas were incredibly consequential, and they are today the basis for how the West is run.

http://bit.ly/1zybePv