The left rises in the Democratic party

[jos]

"Bill Clinton was the worst thing that could have happened to the Democratic party."

Discussed here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35640-2003Jul9.html

[vi5]

1. I tend to not agree with most of this stuff.....

I think the "left" is overestimating their power with the swing votes. I think groups like unions and teachers and minorities are just as much the "base" as progressives (myself included) are. And I think if you asked your average union guy or teacher or any of the core dem minority groups (latinos, african-american, jewish) if they would call themselves "liberal" I think most would deny that. And if you asked them about any other number of supposedly "core" democratic issues I think you'd find similarly disconnected results.

That's not to say there is not a lot in the dem platform that those people or groups agree with, just that for the progressive left to think that not only are we the most important base but that all our issues resonate with the swing voting independent strikes me as incredibly naive.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

[IrateCitizen]

4. I think your approach is a bit misdirected, vi5...

You're talking about unions, teachers, minorities, etc. as being a separate agenda from "progressives" and "liberals". I would disagree. In many ways, the agendas intersect -- and much moreso, IMHO, than with the corporate-friendly DLC agenda.

The reason that members of the aforementioned groups would not call themselves "liberal" is more that the word "liberal" has been so demonized over the past 20 years that nobody wants to be associated with it. But when you talk about basic values -- economic fairness, providing a solid social safety net to help people get back on their feet again, preserving our environment for future generations, providing a solid education for all our children, etc. -- I think you'll find that more Americans agree with the Progressive agenda than the DLC or Republican one.

Just a few days ago one of our posters was telling about his Republican sister who took the Project Vote Smart "candidate matchup" quiz -- and the candidate with whom her agenda most meshed was Dennis Kucinich! That's a prime example of how most people, when you look at things issue by issue, actually support a more progressive agenda. I don't think it's anything close to an isolated incident, either -- we just have to figure out how to "sell" it.

[vi5]

6. Well, I was talking about perceptions, not necessarily reality...but...

Take for example the environment. Most of the groups I listed in my initial post would probably be relatively centrist on that issue. They wouldn't want the environment to be ravaged but also probably would not be as concerned if their jobs were at stake for the sake of the environment.

And most would probably be for a much stronger defense and more defense spending than the average "progressive".

Yes, there is not doubt that there are things like healthcare that are largely the bastion of progressives and which most people would agree on. But my point is that people who are "true progressives" if you want to call it that, have a lot of issues that other segments of "the base" that I listed might be in disagreement on.

Again, I say this as someone whose views are probably 97% left/liberal/progressive democrat. I'm just looking at the situation pragmatically and trying to be a realist about it and I think that I would be naive to assume that my role in the "base" of the democratic party was more important than anyone elses.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Hey, nobody's ever going to agree on "everything"...

I'm not saying that everyone is in complete agreement with the "progressive agenda", whatever that means. My main point is that the overwhelming majority of people are probably in general agreement with it; and much, much more than they realize.

With regards to the environment. I agree with your assessment, that most people just don't want the environment to be "ravaged". One of the prime areas of emphasis of the "progressive" approach to the environment is that protecting the environment does not need to be in opposition to protecting jobs. In fact, in many instance -- such as development of alternative energy sources -- environmentalism can actually be a CATALYST for job creation. IMO, that's an excellent example of where environmentalists and unions can find a common cause. Another is the "fair trade" movement, as evidenced by the coalition of "Teamsters and Turtles" at the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle. The next step in such a coalition is for both of these groups to work toward a common goal, a counter-plan to the current one of unabated corporate-managed trade across the globe.

Another prime example is defense. Of course people want a strong defense, but that is not necessarily a case that has to clash with the "progressive" position. Just look at the details of Dennis Kucinich's defense policies as an example. He's not talking about drastically cutting TROOPS in the armed forces -- he's talking about cutting WASTE. Do most Americans really want their tax dollars going toward wasteful systems like the V-22 Osprey and F-22 fighter? Do they really want their tax dollars flushed down the toilet on a missile defense shield that won't even work? In most instances, I'd bet the answer is no for the majority of Americans.

What this is about isn't thinking that our views are more important than anyone else's. What it is about is realizing that the overwhelming majority of people, especially people who vote, share progressive viewpoints in varying degrees. All we need to do is to learn how to sell it. If the right-wing can sell their crackpot schemes, even if the majority of the population actually OPPOSES what they believe, then there's no reason that we can sell our common-sense ideas as progressives.

I respect your desire to be "pragmatic" about this, but sometimes there's also a need to have faith in what you believe as well, and that others share your beliefs deep down inside.

[vi5]

10. I agree with what you say....

And I have faith in what I believe. I just want to make sure that energizing the base doesn't come at the expense of winning over the swing voters who are necessary for any election. I have this sinking fear that we are doing just that. Again, I hope I am wrong. I want very much to be wrong.

[IrateCitizen]

12. But vi5 -- you have to "energize" in order to win

Energizing the base is not the same as adopting every liberal position. Political parties are coalitions, and even those of us on the "left" know that. Those of us with a modicum of sense don't expect all of our pet causes to be adopted into the party platform.

HOWEVER...

What we DO expect is for our candidates to seek to fire us up about getting involved in the process. Now, what is it that gets us fired up? Is it someone who goes out of their way to not offend the other side out of reprisal? Or is it someone who is willing to stand up and clearly differentiate themselves from the other side, someone who is willing to call the other side wrongheaded when they ARE wrongheaded?

It's the latter. People respect a fighter, not someone who walks around with his/her finger in the wind. Being a fighter does not mean just shaking your fist and shouting at the other side, but it does mean standing up for what you believe to be right. Some of the muddleheaded centrists might call this behavior "liberal" as if it is something to be avoided. I call it a winning strategy.

[VastLeftWing]

11. Perceptions are Reality

Although perceptions are reality in most of life, when it comes to politics and religion, people are reluctant to let others know where they stand for fear that they will be subject to the derision of others who may be more active and perhaps more dedicated to their cause. But, what is most important in the coming election cycle is how they will vote.

America still has a "secret ballot" method of voting, and when the curtain is closed is when it matters how the voter feels. All of the temperature-taking of the electorate is wasted if the voter is not candid. However, the history of the Democratic Party, its wins and losses over the past 20 years indicated a shift to the center, and what has it gotten us? A FAR-RIGHT-WINGED Republican Madministration!

The Republicans taunt that the Dems have no clear agenda or platform that voters can hang their hat upon, and it is true, since the swing toward the center. To re-energize the Democratic voter, a clear difference from the Republicans must be articulated. Those of us that have not ceased to be active since the Coup of 2000 are the "lefties" that feel most compassionately about our social causes, but we must stay the course to bring the pendulum back to our side with the most progressive, liberal and vociferous candidate available. A great number of American voters will listen to all of the rhetoric of both parties and decide their votes by who comes closest to articulating a position more in-line with their own personal choice.

You can't fight the Right unless you are coming from the Left!

[IrateCitizen]

2. This is the crux of the argument, IMHO

"The DLC strategy of waffling GOP-lite centrism has been a near total failure for the Democratic Party," said Jeff Cohen, a longtime media critic and spokesman for Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), whose long-shot presidential campaign is gaining strength on the left. "I say 'near' total because of Clinton. Take away the unique charisma of that one politician, and the DLC strategy is a total failure."

SNIP...

Riled-up Democrats on the left blame the sail-trimming and poll-watching of the Clinton years for the party's recent lassitude. Clinton could win this way because he was a skilled campaigner, they say, but subtract his skills, and the party is left with mush. The energized left faults centrist Democrats for caving in to conservatives on welfare, health care, civil liberties, taxes -- and, worst of all, war.

Of course, I love this quote from earlier in the article:

... "the Democratic Party is Yugoslavia," in the words of one party veteran, recalling years of internecine squabbles ....

Herding cats, anyone? ;-)

[jos]

3. Plus the article omits

the fact that under the DLC "regime," the Democrats lost both houses of congress and a majority of state houses.

[CWebster]

5. Long overdue article

I never will understand how abandoning the "old religion" of the Democratic party for the "old religion" of the Republican party is going to appeal to either Democrats or Republicans.

[Tinoire]

16. It won't. Never will. The entire purpose is to weaken the Dem Party

since the entire idea, at the base, is for the 2 party system to be nothing more than a 1 party system protecting the ruling class... Dems are nothing more tha Republicans throwing a few more crumbs to the people... as if to pacify us every few years...

God forbid we ever have something more akin to a real Democracy like they do in France or Germany.

[robcon]

8. The Democratic Party was poised to rule for a long time

when Clinton won in 1992. The abandonment of Clinton/DLC may revert us back to the 1984 and 1988 embarassments.

The rank and file of the Democratic Party is closer to the DLC philosophy than the leadership is. The composition of the total electorate (excluding Republicans) is much, much more like the DLC than the left wing of the Democratic party. If we want to win the undecideds/independents, the DLC is the best way.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Are you basing your hypothesis on the stellar 1994 elections???

Because that one sure showed the invincibility of the Democratic Party! :eyes:

Your post is nothing more than a parroting of the recent WSJ editorial from Al From and Bruce Reed. And while you're discussing the 1988 election, Michael Dukakis was far closer to a "DLCer" than anything resembling the progressive wing of the party. So don't go for the tired game of trying to pin that one on the "left".

The problem with the DLC approach is its complete disdain for anything resembling populism. Populism is not the property of the left -- it can be a great way to unite the left and center, as Howard Dean is now showing. But it requires passion, something that the DLC approach is utterly lacking in.

[jos]

13. "1988 embarassment"?

Dukakis lost by about the same margin as Dole lost to Clinton after running what was probably the worst general election campaign in modern political history. And his campaign slogan was "competence, not ideology." So it's hard to say that this was an ideological defeat.

[jos]

14. Where the left went off the track.

After 1964, the right didn't run away and hide. They kept at it, resulting in Reagan's election in 1980. After 1972, too many "progressive" Democrats became totally defensive. Even after the Watergate victories in the '74 congressional elections, the left remained disorganized. Many of the victors in that election, such as Jerry Brown and Gary Hart, were the forerunners of the DLC, with their "small is beautiful" philosophy. In the '76 election, several progressive Democrats ran, such as Bayh, Harris, Udall and Church, ran. But they cancelled each other out and allowed a DLC-type Democrat, Jimmy Carter, to win. Had they united behind one candidate, they would have won the nomination and perhaps the election. Even had they lost, with inflation and the oil crisis in the late 70s, 1980 would have been a year in which a true progressive Democrat would have won easily. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan.:nuke:

[IrateCitizen]

15. Division WITHIN the DLC -- from TomPaine.com letters

Now THIS is the kind of DLC Democrat who could help forge a mighty coaltion with progressives and liberals. Just proof that I don't view ALL DLC types as corporate lackeys -- just the leadership. :D

http://www.tompaine.com/letters/
(scroll down to the 2nd letter)
DLC Division Is Within As Well
Re: Robert L. Borosage's "DLC Division"

As a member of the DLC I have to take exception with Al From and Bruce Reed's behavior on this issue. I think they are beating a dead horse. At this point it is obvious to all that they are partisan Lieberman lackeys, nothing more.

By continuously alienating all of our party brethren outside their fragile circle of Lieberman supporters, they do damage to the DLC and what it stands for. Refusing to see the forest for the trees is not an effective way of doing business, and among the membership of the DLC there is a growing resentment at the conflict From and Reed are fomenting. We joined this organization because the DLC stands for innovative, progressive modern applications of politics. Despite the blinders From and Reed are wearing, progressives are everywhere, even in the DLC. There are currently no less than five "DLC for Dean" organizations nationally. How many more DLC members support Kerry rather than Lieberman?

Frankly, we are getting tired of dragging the DLC out of the ditch every time we let From drive. This organization stands for the Third Way, a progressive philosophy that attempts to move beyond partisan bickering. Yet that is exactly what From and Reed are fomenting.

Many in our membership are CEOs, VPs, small business owners or in other positions of authority. We do not need an inside-the-beltway pol to tell us what is wrong with the party. We didn't get where we are by waiting around for our competition to define us. Unless you DC boys see the writing on the wall pretty soon, you'll be looking for a new organization to lead. There are two groups that want Lieberman to be the Democratic nominee: the fragile circle of his primary supporters within the DLC, and Karl Rove, who knows, as we all do, that Jr. would wipe the floor with him.


Mike Hickerson,
CFO, LM Financial Products