Since when has the DLC spoken for moderates?

[alvarezadams]

Yes, the umpteenth thread about the DLC. I post this because it seems that virtually the only argument that the pro-DLC crowd is with regards to the purported "centrist" or "moderate" stance of the DLC.

I don't think that even the most radical extremist far-out tree-hugging peacenik leftwinger amongst us has anything against moderates being a part of the Democratic Party. I think that we all would like to embrace a wide spectrum of beliefs and ideals - as long as they stand somehere to the left of the GOP in at least a few of the key and/or superficial issues.

Somehow someone died and named the DLC the spokesman for moderates.

As stated above, those of us on the left embrace those in the center - but where we differ from the pro-DLC crowd is, perhaps, in the definition of what the center is... and the exact character of the DLC.

To whit - the DLC holds some token progressive stances on talkingpoint issues and an extreme rw, pro-corporate, neoconservative foreign policy stance in the key issues of economy and foreign relations. By any definition this is not "centrist" or "moderate" - it is a mishmash of petty "centrists" and "progressive" stances that hides an extreme that can only be otherwise found at the extreme rw of the GOP. It is as if Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and Cheney suddenly became pro-choice and a bit green without changing one iota of their foreign and domestic stances.

So a question for the "moderates" and "centrists" - why do you support a radical rw with a sprinkling of m&m's? Why don't you support real "moderates" and "centrists"? Demand that your "centrist" candidates renounce the DLC if you really care - and I'm sure that you people care as much as we do with regards to corporate influence and corruption.

[alvarezadams]

1. FWIW, why doesn't the "left" have a group

of their own like the DLC?

Just asking.

[jody]

2. What specific DLC goals do you oppose and what Dem party platform planks

do you oppose?

Do you reject all of a party's or movement's goals just because you object to one goal?

Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) ideas are at http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86

The Democratic Party 2004 Platform is at http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf .

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The DLC is not a party.

It is a self-proclaimed and self-selected 'leadership counci' that attempts to control the politcal agenda and candidate selection process of the Democratic Party. I reject the DLC's role. Their website includes, currently, a polemic on why we need to keep murdering people in Iraq and a pile of globalist crap from Freedman.

Prominently linked on their front page :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101182.html
Reclaiming the Democratic Agenda - lets keep on killing Iraqis.

And http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=206&contentid=253920

Winning America's Future
Policies for Succeeding in the Global Era
By Thomas Z. Freedman, Nick Gossen, and Ed Gerrish

Another paeon to globalization by chief globalist apologist Tom Freedman and others.

[jody]

5. Does that mean you support all Dem Party Platform planks? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

7. The DNC is a democratic organization.

It is not a self selected group of elites. The rules and regulations for its operation are reasonably open and democratic. Do I agree with all of the party platform? No, of course not. However if the party officially supports the war in Iraq/Iran/wherever in 08 that would be a major problem for me.

My disagreement with the DLC is on multiple levels, as I have more or less clearly stated.

1.) Who appointed them boss? They are not a democratic organization, they are an elite group of self-appointed 'leaders'.

2.) Neocon war party advocates. This is a show stopper for me.

3.) Globalization. I've had enough. I'm not interested in enabling the ongoing race to the bottom that appears to benefit only the corporate elites. The Democratic Party is the party of working men and women. The DLC is a corporate-friendly policy advocate organization.

[jody]

8. IMO the DLC proposes ideas that encourage independent voters to

vote for Democratic candidates.

Politics is about getting elected and today that requires votes from independents as well as Democrats.

If elected, a Democratic candidate must represent all her/his constituents if she/he expects to be reelected. In that sense the DLC proposes ideas that will return control of Congress to we Democrats.

[LWolf]

11. Actually,

it is ideas espoused by the DLC that keep my large aquaintance of independents from voting Dem. I understand them pretty well, having been an independent for 30 years myself before becoming "D."

I'm sure there are some right-leaning independents; I know one. He most closely resembles a libertarian, and refused to vote republican even though they fit most of his viewpoints (or did until the current gang of neocons took over), but he won't vote for the "damned christian party." His words.

I think there are more left-leaning independents than right-leaning independents, and I don't think they are likely to be swayed by the ideas promoted by the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

[jody]

35. IMO independents are different among states and rural vs urban areas. n/t

[LWolf]

38. Probably.

My experiences crosses 3 states and includes both urban and rural populations.

[alvarezadams]

13. Baloney

If a fence-sitter is going to vote Dem because the DNC decides to emulate the GOP - what's the point?

"Politics is about getting elected and today that requires votes from independents as well as Democrats."

Indeed. So instead of pandering for votes by emulating the enemy, why not improve the delivery of the Democratic message? The GOP hasn't been victorious because of policies - it has won because it has framed rhetoric in a convincing way. The GOP's neocon and neolib policies are diametrically opposed to traditional GOP values - and only through rhetoric does it keep its base.

"If elected, a Democratic candidate must represent all her/his constituents if she/he expects to be reelected. In that sense the DLC proposes ideas that will return control of Congress to we Democrats."

If victory as Republicans clothed as Democrats is your objective - why not just vote for Bush and change the R for a D after his name and hold your nose?

[kath]

14. Methinks you are confusing the D*N*C with the D*L*C - it is the DLC that

is emulating the GOP, not the DNC.

[alvarezadams]

18. Of course

Follow the thread. I was responding to a comment about the DLC influencing the DNC - a scenario which would indeed result in the DNC emulating the GOP.

[jody]

34. I see we disagree. Have a nice day. n/t

[alvarezadams]

37. You too!

[alvarezadams]

6. It's not the goals

but the means to the end.

If you go over the link you provided - as well as the PPI and DLC general web - you'll see that the "goals" are to be achieved through the support of "free marketism" and "private initiative" and the reduction of the role of the federal government. This is "easyspeak" for neoliberal policies and, when the "progressive" rhetoric is taken away, both the objectives and the means are virtually the same as the GOP's.

On foreign policy it is patently clear that the DLC supports the type of strong-arm impositive foreign policy that the current misadmin supports. Their complaints are with regards to the efficiency of the misadmin's strategies, not the goals of said strategies. It is not in vain that the founder of the DLC and PPI is a signatory of PNAC communiques.

I reject both neoliberalism and neoconservatism - the cornerstones of the DLC... and of the GOP since the coup that took over that party.

I personally don't fall for rhetoric and talkingpoint memes. I translate them into the actions that the DLC tries to HIDE in their communiques. And I don't fall for the bait-and-switch of standing strong on the minor progressive points as they stand even stronger (yet opaquely) for the major neolib/neocon points.

The most radical rw funders (Olins, Bradleys) support the DLC and PPI. They do so for a purpose.

But back to the OP - who named the DLC your spokesman (assuming that you're a "moderate")? Why should the "centrists" rely on corporations and the extremist funders?

Think about it.

[jody]

10. Who said the DLC is a spokesman for anyone other than DLC? That's just

marketing BS.

IMO, corporatists finance both Republican and Democratic candidates so bills that support the agenda of the one percent of U.S. citizens that own over 50% of our financial wealth will be passed with bipartisan support.

I wouldn't be surprised if several DLC ideas end up in the 2006 Democratic Party Platform as happened in 2004.

If that happens, then the question is at what point do DLC haters leave the Democratic Party?

[alvarezadams]

12. That's just naive

On this very board we have a number of "moderates" that support the DLC because it purportedly represents their values.

The DLC's own admitted raisson d'etre is to move the DNC to the right.

The DLC's influence, not limited to its corporate and rw funding, is clear enough for any non-shill to see. In fact you yourself admit as much when you say "I wouldn't be surprised if several DLC ideas end up in the 2006 Democratic Party Platform as happened in 2004."

"If that happens, then the question is at what point do DLC haters leave the Democratic Party?"

I won't vote for it.

[The Magistrate]

15. It Helps, Sir, To Try And Get Into The Other Fellow's Skin

When commenting on matters like this.

Persons who feel themselves to be "moderates" are generally of the view that the elements in the Party well to their own left are one of the reasons the Party faces an uphill battle in many elections. To the degree that they are aware of the D.L.C., they understand it as working to temper some of the rhetoricsal excesses of the left in the Party, and think that is a good thing. The degree of attack from the left on leading and popular figures of the Party, such as Sen. Clinton, Rep. Emmanuel, and on persons elected on the Partry's ticket from more conservative states like Nebraska and Louisiana, go a long way to cement this popular impression.

Many persons who feel themselves to be "moderates" are in fact of the opinion that "free-market" practices are to be preferred and supported. They may well be mistaken in this belief, but are sincere in holding it. They do not view it as the Devil's gateway, or as the summa of evil and source of all wrong and difficulty. At worst, they view it as something that works better than any planned and directed alternative, and as something that cannot be avoided, like it or not.

Many persons who feel themselves to be "moderates" are of the view that the leading difficulty with the course of events in Iraq is the tremendous incompetence with which the adventure was, and is being, conducted. They have not the slightest interest in cries it was "illegal", or that it issued from some grand conspiratorial plot against the real interests of the country. They remain sentimentally attached to some of the announced goals of the project, and it is their continued appreciation for these that adds a good deal of the edge to their distaste for the bungling conduct of the affair: they think something good might have been achieved, and are angry that it is not being achieved after all.

[Moochy]

19. "They have not the slightest interest in cries it was "illegal""

And why is that?

And therein lies the rub, in my opinion. I firmly believe that your use of "they" could be applied to anyone who voted for the IWR. Clinton, Lieberman etc. They would love to distance themselves from their vote, and because of their opposition role they eschew, there is no accountability to the White house. They would like nothing better than to obfuscate their own complicity in the Big Lie.

I appreciate your posting, as it gives a glimpse into the mindset of a moderate; well-trained to avoid the leftist bugaboos and not fall into the propagandists traps. :eyes: What it shows to me, is that that by ignoring those "cries" that the war was illegal, it shows me that these so-called "moderates" have no stomach for accountability.

To me that makes them enablers, there is nothing "moderate" about a war of choice, of occupation, of ripping up the bill of rights and pumping up presidential power to that of a petty tyrant.

I'm sorry to latch onto that one quote, but ignoring the "cries (that) it was illegal" is the problem.

(on edit: oops spelling)

[The Magistrate]

21. They Are Inclined To Ignore Such Cries, Sir

Because they are people who, in their patriotic attachment to the country, identify themselves with it, and so to cry up that the country is engaged in criminal actions strikes their ears as cries that they are themselves are criminals. Since they do not think they are criminals, but rather decent and honest citizens, they take such things as a serious affront. Such cries will always be counter-productive in a general election, producing great back-lash against those who amke them: it os on the nature of things, and cannot be altered in any signifigant degree. The most that can ever be managed is to get some agreement that unpopular and or lowly figures committed crimes against the honor of the nation.

[alvarezadams]

22. You've just pegged

cognitive dissonance.

"Good" Germans said "Deuschland Ubber Alles", right or wrong. Nuremburg was supposed to have cured us of this type of cultish groupthink.

Are you familiar with the Abilene paradox?

[alvarezadams]

23. Actually

the entire DLC/"centrist" thingy has a lot to do with "pluralistic ignorance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

[Moochy]

24. You nailed it.

Identity politics is the poison pill! These "proud patriots" are easily moved to act against their own self-interest.

In many ways Marx was right. Nationalism is a poison.

[alvarezadams]

20. If you look at the OP

you will note that I embrace "centrists" and ask why and how the DLC has come to "represent" them.

As for "moderates" prefering "free-market" practices, it is remarkable that at the same time they bemoan the outsourcing of jobs to other, cheaper countries. In other words they've swallowed the rhetoric and now are surprised that they've been fooled. RW rhetoric has been painting a b&w picture of "planned" vs. "free-market" for decades and obviate what is probably the best solution (inasmuch as it is not an extreme) - a "mixed" solution.

The American electorate has been perverted through decades of indoctrination. They are politically unaware (outside the very minimal domestic ideological spectrum which ranges from center-right to extreme rw) and are facing a crossroads without the necessary awareness or indeed information. To this day FIFTY PERCENT of the electorate believes that WMD's were found in Iraq, for instance.

As for the unawareness that you paint regarding the Iraq extravaganza - what a sad state of affairs, no?

Given all of the above how can one defend the cabal (DLC) that contributes towards making the US and the world less safe, less healthy, less wealthy and less... moral?

[The Magistrate]

27. Your View, Sir, Seems To Remain

That the D.L.C. is in fact an extreme right organization, that simply adopts here and there some progressive window-dressing for purposes of camouflage. But most persons who view themselves as "centerist" or "moderate" do not hold a range of views that are all roughly equidistant from the opposite poles of the political spectrum: they subscribe to a mix of views on various questions, that are towards the right on some and towards the left on others, and it is this that leads them to perceive themselves as being in the center, more or less. Since the D.L.C. expresses a comparable mix of views in its materials, to the degree that such persons may become aware of its existence and platforms, there is no particular reason they should not regard its leading lights as kindred spirits, even if the precise mix it expresses does not align perfectly with their own.

You seem, Sir, to place the greratest value on economic and foreign policy considerations, and so take any rightward expression on those items as indicating a wholly rightist orientation. But persons who disagree with that valuation, and they are legion, will not take that as evidence someone is a dyed in the wool rightist. You will have great difficulty persuading them you are right and they are wrong: they look at the world through different eyes, with different interests and temperaments than yours.

Ignorance is indeed difficult and even deplorable, but political campaigns are not night school courses, and any political action aimed at mass effect that begins with announcing the intent to educate the public is doomed to failure.

[alvarezadams]

29. Well, it IS.

As I noted in my OP, I embrace centrists, moderates and even conservatives. What I refuse to countenance is an organization that paints itself as progressive while holding reactionary and extremist ideals.

What the DLC EXPRESSES is one thing, what it propounds is another.

I indeed place the greatest values on economic and foreign policy considerations. These are the cornerstones of government policy - virtually all else are "punctual" issues. Economic issues far outweigh such punctual issues inasmuch as our very economic wellbeing depends on adequate economic policies. Foreign policy, of course, also influences the economy... and our very safety from outside threats. Abortion, school prayer or any other such "punctual" issue pale by comparison.

The current economic orientation of rightwing governments is neoliberal, based on the Austrian School/Von Misses/Hayek school of thought. It is extremist laissez faire capitalism, a return to the pre-New Deal days - with the notable difference in that it is global in scope.

I am fully aware that few Americans see eye-to-eye with me outside the Ivory Tower. Few Americans have heard of Von Misses and are prone to confuse Socialism with Communism. I can't be blamed for their ignorance. I just hope to light a fire under their arses so they might take the trouble to find out how they've been hoodwinked into thinking that the extreme right is somehow moderate.

"Ignorance is indeed difficult and even deplorable, but political campaigns are not night school courses, and any political action aimed at mass effect that begins with announcing the intent to educate the public is doomed to failure."

The right certainly learned this over their decades-long indoctrination campaign. This is one of the reasons why the very concept of the DLC is so insidious, so dangerous and so execrable.

I am not a meme-monger nor a framer. I am an historian with a tendency towards reinterpretation through the application of socioeconomic factors - which is perhaps why I am so keenly aware of the extreme danger that the likes of the DLC pose. This is a democratic board visited by people who are at least moderately aware politically - I wouldn't adopt this posture in a more public, bipartisan forum if my intentions were to convince.

I -have- tried to raise a debate in this sense however: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2678558

[alvarezadams]

31. I'm surprised

Have you seen http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2787284&mesg_id=2787284 ? It seems that my POV is hardly rare in DU.

In fact, in private messages received from various posters it has been suggested that some of the pro-DLC crowd might be infiltrated GOPers, a conclusion reached by the talkinpoint responses used, the avoidance of key questions inimical to the DLC pov and a certain propensity for flaming.

As for political positioning - which seems to interest you - why not approach this from the perspective of the "traditional" DNC... the one of the New Deal and FDR vs. the "3rd way" (which sells out the New Deal and its accomplishments)?

[The Magistrate]

33. The Belief Opponents Here Are Infiltrating Trolls, Sir

Is a common one, and a common source of humor. We catch a great number of trolls who express extreme left views, and anyone who gave a moment's thought to which course might produce greater and more long-lived disruption would not need many moments to see points in favor of that course. It is a commonplace of radical organization that the persons expressing the most extreme views are the most likely to be informants for the police.

[ProSense]

26. That's not exactly accurate

or this number wouldn't be as high as it is:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 9-12, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters.

Snip...

"Some leaders of the Democratic Party have indicated that if the Democrats take control of Congress after the next election, they will investigate the Bush Administration's actions in a number of areas. For each of the following areas, do you think this is something that Congress should or should not investigate? The Administration's use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war."

..................Should...............Should Not..............Depends (vol.)....Unsure

6/9-12/06 ...........57%.............40%............................2%................1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

The current Time poll also indicates that Independents seem to prefer a candidate who stakes out a clear position:

But what those overall figures do not show is how differently Hillary is viewed in red and blue America and how familiar she already is to voters. Other candidates may have a chance to persuade voters of their merits, but people have pretty much made up their mind about Hillary. Only 3% of those surveyed in the Time poll said they had no opinion of her, positive or negative. She is the inkblot test of a polarized electorate. In the Time poll, Democrats overwhelmingly describe her as a strong leader (77% ) who has strong moral values (69% ). Republicans by and large see an opportunist who would say or do anything to further her political ambitions (68% ) and puts her political interests ahead of her beliefs (60% ). As for independents, more than half (53% ) of those surveyed said they would not support her, with 34% putting themselves in the "definitely not" category. Polls aside, what the Clintons know from experience is this: if Hillary runs, the race will be long and brutal and expensive. There are few names that so ignite the Democratic political base. About a year ago, when party pollster Mark Mellman, who does not work for Senator Clinton, asked a focus group of 10 African-American women to name their all-time political hero, eight picked Hillary, he says.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229054,00.html

[The Magistrate]

28. Two Points, Ma'am

Replying in the detached abstract of a poll, people tend to often say what they think they should: prefering a leader who takes a strong stand is the "right" answer, as everyone knows from the popular culture all around them. As the matter gets down to cases, though, whether the string stand is agreeable to people becomes more cloudy, and any number of things will be identified as a "strong stand", whatever they might acrually seem to someone else.

Investigation of whether lies were told in persuading the populace to war is a very different thing than claims the country committed a crime in going to war. Unpopular leaders, certainly, are in danger of being viewed as something seperate from the nation itself.

[ProSense]

30. Yes it's different, but

wanting Congress to investigate "the Administration's use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war", people are indicating that they harbor doubt about not only its validity, but also about how it was handled.

As the matter gets down to cases, though, whether the string stand is agreeable to people becomes more cloudy, and any number of things will be identified as a "strong stand", whatever they might actually seem to someone else.

And that is the problem: when the variables are some positions left and some right, how can anyone claim to know whether or not the strings will stand? There are just too many people with too many issues that they deem important. Trying to make it stand by compromise (where people clearly know what was dealt) is different from trying to present a muddled alternative in an attempt to mask that one side got its way. Iraq and social security are perfect examples of this.

The clear position on principle, left or right, leaves the electorate to decide, as they have with the Iraq war or the direction of the country.

[alvarezadams]

32. Exactly

Here in Spain I am often asked to explain the difference between the DNC and GOP. I go to some trouble over this, providing their respective platforms but also providing the caveats of "conservative dems", "paleocon GOPers", etc.

The inevitable response is how two parties that overlap at the middle and hardly distinguishable besides some demagoguic current event issues... can elicit such passion. They also cannot see how democracy can be defended by such parties since they really are not offering different POV's.

A democracy NEEDS an opposition or it ceases to be a democracy.

[jody]

36. Then you will leave the Dem Party if it adopts some/many DLC ideas. What

party will you join or will you be independent?

[bronxiteforever]

3. The DLC was an antidote to Dem losses in 1984 and fails to

answer the problems of the Shrub years. It was GOP lite when the GOP was the opposition party as opposed to the home of Satan and his minions. GOP lite in opposition to neocons and a party of religious ideology gets you one party government and it ain't our party.
The DLC's basic core was that populism or FDR based economic fairness doesn't work and that market based solutions are the main solution to the country's problems. The economic assumption was the middle class gets ahead and the working class and poor. But we know that is not the case. The DLC could never answer the fundamental economic question of how does an American worker compete with third world labor conditions.
The DLC is about as relevant today as "Journey" or "Asia" is to music now-The mullet is dead and so is the DLC.

[w4rma]

9. DLC = Big business appeasement.

If you are a pro-**small** buisness moderate then the DLC isn't for you.

[creeksneakers2]

16. I think going to extremes on either end hurts the Dems.

I read one of the DLC guys saying we should spend more than the Republicans on the military and even raise taxes so we can do it . I call that Extreme.

[leesa]

17. They have always spoken for moderate Republicans

[Zorra]

25. Marketing an unjustifiable war based on deceit is EXTREME RW.

There is simply nothing moderate about it.

It is about as extreme radical RW fascist as it gets.

Good post, thanks.

[theanarch]

39. well, alvarez, i'm with you on this one...

...as Gore Vidal likes to remind US (not that anyone listens), there has never been a two party system in america--we've always had one party ("the property party") of which there are two wings--the economic/social-darwinist wing (now the GOP), and the economic-darwinist/socially-moderate wing (now the DP). Everything you accuse the DLC of is correct, and they are condemned by their own words and actions.

What i find fascinating is how many self-described experts there are here on the perfidies of the "left", which they describe in terms that make me seriously wonder how many actual leftists they've really encountered in life. Their criticisms are little more than media-learned talking points that have little, if anything, to do with the lives, beliefs and/or activities of real leftists. As for what is described as the 'rhetorical excesses' of the left, again, the critics seem to be reguritating the accusations made by RW'ers against the left, rather than it being based on what leftists themselves, in fact, actually say (the hysteria about Ward Churchill being an excellent case in point: try reading what he actually said in his "little Eichman" speech and compare it what he was accused, by the M$M, of saying and you'll see what i mean).

In my opinion, television has reduced the american public to the level of Pavlov's dogs: give them the proper cue, and they'll salivate on command. The proof of this is in opinion polls that give respondents a list of issues (e.g., GOP and DP talking points): when shown a list of such issues, the public invariably places the GOP talking points at the top as being most important. Yet, when the same people are asked to make their own lists of what is important to them, without being given any examples (e.g., "cues"), DP talking points predominate. It is not the unpopularity of leftist ideas or policies that prevents the left of having a larger role in public affairs and electoral politics, it is that the left is, as an entity in their own right, totally excluded from the public discussion (by the M$M), and is "represented" (e.g., misrepresented) to the public in the form of gross, perjorative charicature...by RW pundits and propagandists, of whom the DLC are part and parcel.

[alvarezadams]

40. Thanx

I'm often reminded of Weimar when I see American politics these days.

[izzybeans]

41. my problem is with triangulation. It turns "moderate" into "appeasement"

Triangulaters blow in the wind and, if they have any real ideas of their own, hide them behind Machiavellian marketing slogans. If they represented moderate ideals and fought for them than the DLC would have me at "Hello and a lenghty explanation". I'm a Giddens fan too. However stated goals turn into rubbish, good policy turns into tax breaks for corporations, and the common good turns into privatization all in the name of triangulation.

And so the DLC lost me on the campaign trail when it was clear that many of their candidates would sell their soul to remain in office. And now we have Leiberman who is a pathological symptom.

If it were used as a research tool than great, but its not, its used to create catchphrases like "compassionate conservative", or welfare reform, and all other politico-babble that hides the consequences of the policy.