DLC Vs. The Democrats?

[JackD76]

I hear about the war between the Democrats and the DLC but why are democrats and democrats fighting? It seems like it would be smarter for both sides to realize that we need as many democrats as we can get. What is going on here?

[Selatius]

1. They fired the first shot, not me

Who was it that send a "warning" to Chairman Dean to "do no harm"? I read an article from them basically saying that if we're going to settle our differences in a power struggle, now is the time to do it years before the next presidential elections.

Personally, I don't want a fight with anyone, but if anyone attempts to purge me from the party by branding me as "fringe" or "extremist," I'm going to defend myself.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I agree that would be smarter

Unfortunately, there are a lot of dummies on both sides of the dispute.

Nevertheless, the dummies on the DLC side have names like Al From, Bruce Reed and Will Marshall. For the DLC to become the constructive force it was in the late eighties and early nineties, those fellows are either going to have to moderate their rhetoric or get lost.

[K-W]

3. Because the DLC believes in abandoning progressivism

because they incorrectly think that the success of the right is a result in a populist shift in public opinion, ignoring the actual cause, the corruption of various stages in our politicial system.

[stray cat]

4. I think they agree on more issues than they differ

They certainly have more in common with each other than they do with the radical republicans. It seems like extremes on both sides are trying to blame one another for democratic losses. Areas where both groups agree get lost in hateful rhetoric.

[Fleshdancer]

5. from my perspective, its all about power grabbing

and the DLC, again, this is only from my POV, is working overtime to convince Democrats that they need to constantly compromise their beliefs in order to win elections. The problem I have with that (aside from the obvious lack of moral integrity involved in this tactic) is that their "solution" didn't exactly work in 2000 or in 2004 and yet their model hasn't changed.

They fuel the right wing attacks on people like Howard Dean by calling him an extreme leftist when they know he governed Vermont as a centrist. The Democrats who work hard to oppose the Iraqi war or to save civil rights and liberties are called extremists and groups like MoveOn are demonized.

The DLC seems to have a huge problem with the Democratic notion of grassroots and when they start taking cheap shots at leaders and groups who have done good things for the Democratic party, it's difficult not to argue about it. It would be different if I heard more solutions than insults from people like Al From, but for the past several years, I haven't. And if your not part of the solution...

[Jack Rabbit]

9. There's quite a bit of truth in that

However, your tone would indicate that you believe Al From to be an inferior breed of Democrat to Dennis Kucinich. Al From should not be thought of so much as an inferior kind of Democrat, just an inferior breed of political strategist.

The fact is that in order to reach a consensus and win election both the partisans of the DLC and those of the progressive wing of the party are going to have to compromise.

If the Democratic Party stood for everything I would like it to in my wildest dreams it would look like the party of Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace and Jesse Jackson more than anything the DLC would like. I also know that the electoral record of such a party would be abysmal. Therefore, I am willing to compromise.

However, the DLC's approach to the problem is to give the progressive a choice:

• Sit down and shut up; or
• Leave the party.

In 2000, a lot of progressive Democrats (including your humble servant) took the hint and voted for Nader. It was a factor in Gore's defeat. The militant moderates screamed bloody murder and blamed Nader and those who voted for him without ever once suggesting that they should re-examine their own tactics and make progressives feel more welcome in the Democratic Party.

In 2004, many of those Nader voters returned and voted for Kerry. However, From, Reed, Marshall and company are whistling past the graveyard if they think that it means progressive Democrats are going to be complacent while they lead the party further to the right. The reason progressive returned in 2004 had to do with Mr. Bush being a major threat to American democracy, a phenomenon to which the DLC's leaders seem oblivious. Indeed, they still talk about the Democratic Party's base as a problem to be obliterated. Read some of the screeds from From, Reed or Marshall on the DLC's website. They are the ones being rigid and doctrinaire. This is just foolish.

American politics is basically a two-party system. The progressives and the moderates need each other to defeat the Republican coalition of (1) free market capitalists seeking to privatize everything depress wages and start unnecessary wars of aggression for the purpose of creating opportunities for war profits and (2) intolerant puritans who want to tell the rest of us what to do and what to think. The Republican coalition is a toxic blend of anti-democratic forces, but an effective one. It has become a menace to very survival of American democracy. It will take an improbably broad coalition of centrists, liberals, progressives and perhaps even some sober conservatives to take back America.

It is not helpful for the DLC or any other faction of the Democratic Party to create an atmosphere where some people do not feel welcome. We are in a fight for the soul of America. In order to win, we will need every body on our side of the barricades we can get.

[Montauk6]

6. Pretty basic, the DLC are quislings...

who've played out their calling card of back-to-back Clinton (member) victories. But let us not forget that as successful and Bill was, we still lost control of the H/S for the first time in, what, decades? They've also managed to practically move the party right of Nixon. And they've laid the foundation for serving up the party as the Washington Generals to the GOP Globetrotters.

[madfloridian]

7. In their latest Blueprint, they tell Governor Dean to "do no harm."

That is probably the most insulting thing they have ever said to him, and they have said plenty.

They always include his "followers" in their admonitions as well, calling us fringe activists.

Then when they were proven wrong.. that we are not fringe anything...they don't apologize or back off.

They started the battle in 2003, and they can end it anytime. Dean has to work with them as chair, I don't.

[mattclearing]

8. The DLC aren't Democrats. n/t

[stray cat]

10. If we litmus test for "pure" democrats that means < 30% of the population.

Then the best we can hope for is a moderate republican party a radical republican party, a green party and the "pure democratic party".

In the meantime I don't know what we do with Bill Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards as members of the DLC. Maybe we can get them to run as moderate republicans.

[mattclearing]

11. I'm not referring to a litmus test.

I'm saying that the DLC are corporate infiltrators. They are subverting the will of the Democratic Party constituency through deep pockets.

The people you mentioned took money from the DLC and spoke at their events. That doesn't mean that they are totally on with the DLC agenda.

The DLC agenda is no different than the Republican agenda: all things in subordination to corporate domination.

[GettysbergII]

12. By 2008 the DLC will have to take 3 giants steps to the left just to

keep a shred of credibility with the working people in this country and that's going to be very hard to do when you're anchored to the Iraq War, NCLB and suppporting the interests of the ruling elite ahead of the working stiffs. The biggest problem the Democrats will face in 2008 will be to convince the working stiff that there's any significant difference between the Democrats and the Republicans except a bunch of egalitarian lip service and higher taxes for ineffective social programs.

At least they're going to have to convince this working stiff of that. At a minimum that would take a platform to:

1) End the oil wars and commit completely to developing alternative energy sources

2) Create a first rate nationalized medical care program.

3) Repel NCLB. Fully and fairly fund public education instead of privatizing it.

4) Halt the outsourcing of jobs and start supporting locally U.S. produced goods and small businesses because after the oil production peaks if it hasn't already, that shit from China is going to cost alot more to get to the Wal-Marts

[derby378]

13. The DLC basically threw the election for * out of spite

Howard Dean was the front-runner in late 2003, but he never kowtowed to the DLC - only the grass-roots organizers that he inspired. This did not endear Dean to Al From, so the DLC decided the put the fix in. A DLC-backed 527 started to agitate in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Kerry found himself gaining primary votes out of thin air, Dick Gephardt tried to taken on Dean head-to-head and lost, and then the Dean campaign blew all its money trying to pull itself out of the hole the DLC dug for it. The result was a relatively ordinary campaign by the Kerry camp running up against the Bush juggernaut, the Swift Boat/Karl Rove camp, and electronic voting machines.

Thanks, DLC. We really appreciate the knife in our back.

[UdoKier]

14. Because the DLC are not democrats.

They are corporate operatives doing their damndest to destroy the democratic party, make it beholden to corporate interests rather than people and become a pale version of the GOP. I don't even consider them conservative democrats, because it's not about appealing to dixiecrats. It's all about money.