Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda

The truce appears to be expiring among Democrats in Washington. In the immediate aftermath of Sen. John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush in November, Democrats notably avoided the postelection squabbling that's consumed the party after almost all recent presidential races — even those it won. But as the new year begins, a series of high-profile articles in leading liberal journals is suddenly reopening old divisions.

On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal organization of party centrists, of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

In equally combative terms, a leading young centrist commentator published a manifesto in the New Republic magazine accusing the Democratic left of slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism and undermining the party's image on security — an argument instantly embraced and promoted by the Democratic Leadership Council. In the near-term, the Democratic desire to unify in opposition to almost all of Bush's agenda is likely to take the edge off these disagreements.

But these twin firefights, which have inspired volleys of responses, Web postings and e-mails, reflect enduring divisions over strategy, message and policy that could influence the race for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) next month and are certain to loom over the contest for the presidential nomination in 2008. "There is a big fight about the direction of the Democratic Party still going on, and these are big documents in that fight," says Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=4&u=/latimests/20050102/ts_latimes/democratssplitagainoverpartysagenda

the majority of us don't speak out loudly enough or often enough to challenge those within the party that are abandoning our ideals.

I think if you want to point to the "seed of evil" in our party, that's it.

We have to get the msg out: corporations and people (consumers + labor) are ADVERSARIES.

The Democratic party leadership should be made to choose sides (OUR side)

I asked this question in another thread earlier, but got no adequate response. From what I have read on this forum, there is a tremendous amount of anti-DLC, anti-NDN sentiment here, and as this article acknowledges, this question (of whether to accept the DLC as one of the party's primary representatives) is central to the future of the Democratic Party. So why is there no DU forum (or forums) centered around this issue? Why no anti-DLC (and pro-DLC) forums? Hmm?

of the democratic party.
it's merely an extension of the repuke tactic to create divisions in the country -- operating on a slightly smaller scale.
liberals, leftists, environmentalists, socialists -- if they want to survive need to close ranks and start dishing out the same tactics on both groups of folk.
it's still doable -- but it gets harder with each passing year.

If you want a festering wound to heal, you first have to remove its cause.

True unity will mean someone giving up something (or a whole lot of somethings) and I'm tired as hell of it always being the left.

that the Dems need to deal with.

The Dem platform is the best a party can have to cover the range of public opinion in this nation. The media is pushing division to force the party rightward.

http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2004/index.cfm

A part of Campaign for America's Future.
http://www.ourfuture.org/

Another part is the Tom Paine website.
http://www.tompaine.com/

Which is part of the Institute for America's Future.
http://www.ourfuture.org/institute/

no matter which side it comes from.

that we should be having?

to come up with a winning message. We should run against those in power. We should run on economic populism as Clinton did. We should against everything bad the Republicans do. We should run on what unites everyone in the party.

The corporate media won't tout it.

And the voting machines won't allow Dems to win.

Gotta concentrate on those issues FIRST - the message is already there.

it can get through all the media crap. The tactics just need to be a little more creative. I don't believe in the voting machine conspiracy. Sorry.

We should run on economic populism as Clinton did.

With NAFTA? :eyes:

We should run on what unites everyone in the party.

Which is what?

and that was a huge mistake. I said so on other threads. But his campaign was still based on making sure that people who work hard and play by the rules stop falling behind. That was the basis of its the economy stupid. He also ran on universal health care (not single payer, but still universal). These were the key components to his campaign.

I've never seen where he's repudiated NAFTA. "It's the economy, stupid" was a Carville campaign slogan, not some rallying cry for Clinton's populism. And the half-assed health care attempt? Please.

Bill Clinton is many things, and many of those things are good, but he is no economic populist.

that is a fact. But I guess liberal pollster Stan Greenberg must be a liar. His health care attempt was not half-assed. It would have established universal health care. What's wrong with that? That he didn't try to do it the exact way you would have?

But I guess liberal pollster Stan Greenberg must be a liar.

Cite? I have no idea what you're talking about.

That he didn't try to do it the exact way you would have?

What was wrong is that he barely tried, then pronounced it a dead issue.

Doug Penn-DLC pollster claimed Clinton won because he ran to the center. Greenberg, Clinton's pollster claimed Clinton won because he ran on economic populism. I'll try to find some articles on this tomorrow for you. Incidently, Greenberg is married to Rosa DeLaura of Connecticut.

Clinton tried very hard on health care. It was defeated and then we lost Congress. He then proceeded to get certain part of the plan passed to get incremental reform.

that Greenberg was, if not lying, high as a kite at the time.

Incidently, Greenberg is married to Rosa DeLaura of Connecticut.


Umm...ok. I'm not married to Rosa DeLaura of Connecticut, but I'm sure she's a nice lady.

Clinton tried very hard on health care.

It's your world. Believe as you wish.

is a liberal member of Congress from Connecticut.

That still doesn't prove that Clinton ran on economic populism in '92. Even remotely.

I'll see if I can find some of the articles tomorrow. I promise.

During his campaign. After he got into office it seemed that he abandoned that message. I guess they don't call him slick Willy for nothing.

But I do remember him campaigning hard on the economy and welfare of the middle class.

ticked off at the rest of Democrats about.

without trying to run every dlc member out of the party.

DLC members are in no particular danger of being run out of the party.

I see lots of posts here saying that dlc'ers should leave the party.

saying that progressives are all manner of unflattering things.

Which brings me back to a version of my original question to you - what's it all about if it's not about leftist vs. centrist?

beating Republicans, not each other. I don't believe in saying bad things about other Democrats unless they are complete traitors like Zell Miller.

who are hardest hit by NAFTA policies. It's crazy. It's no wonder folks in the South think that Democrats are untrustworthy when Dems keep running these DLC guys in these Repug areas that should be Democratic areas.

we need to run economic populists in the south. However, I think we can sacrifice the gun control issue in some of those districts.

Many liberals support gun rights. The heck with this BS gun control. IMHO, it's an authoritarian position, which is diametrically opposed to liberal (i.e. civil libertarian) beliefs.

but I don't think we can impose that position in rural areas.

Is the DLC now opposed to Gun Control? The DLC seems to change positions on policy from one week to the next. There not much of a think tank.

I don't any such thing was said.

Is the DLC now advocating anti-gun control for moderate democrats?

I think its the security stuff that they are complaining about. I personally think we lost because we never got around to making an economic argument.

I think another idea is to focus on our common rival - the Neocons. Who really are they? Use Bush as an example. Is he really a pro-lifer? No, he is a forced-birther, who also caused the deaths of many American servicemen and Iraqis. Is he really a Christian? He doesn't act according to the ideology of Christianity. The two guiding principles of Bush supporters are greed and intolerance, which are definitely not Christian values. Is he really a conservative? Conservatives are supposed to be against change, but Bush is trying to drive the country backwards - change in the reverse direction - in almost every aspect. So he is a retrogressive! The Neocons are retrogressive. By exposing the true face of the Neocons and spreading the message, I think we will give our next candidate ammunition to win in 2008.

Welcome to DU :-)

Thank you, greenohio.

I think that we are like cats. We are independent minded and self contained. Dogs are our natural enemy, but when we live in the same household with dogs, we hate each other more than hating the dogs. Is there a way to herd a group of cats?

It's about time the left finally woke up and started to fight back against the mealy-mouthed, sell-out, "triangulators" that have put the party on life-support.

instead of trying to ride the proverbial fence line. They need to be who they really are, repukes. They need to be purged out.

let's urge more people to be Republican. You win elections by getting more voters to join your party, not fewer.

Many good folk are moderates and we need to get their votes to win elections. The party was quite pure in 1984. We won one state.

I have read problems with Al Fromm myself. Rosenberg is much better.

sides of the same coin. The NDN is an offshoot of the DLC, formed because the two men in question had a falling out. Both groups are corporation-friendly at the expense of the middle-class and both are Republican-lites or worse, they are Republican plants in the Democratic Party.

It's just that in 1984, we were running Mondale against Ronald Reagan. Why do you think Reagan was called "The Great Communicator"? Could anyone have won against him back then?

Would he have won? NO. But he would have won more than 1 state. I think economic populism is a must for any Democrat running for President.

Gary Hart ran AGAINST the New Deal-style labor populism epitomized by Walter Mondale. He was one of the original "Atari Democrats", a group that included Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and Tim Wirth. The Atari Dems were in many ways the forerunners of today's New Democrats, especially tech-savvy types like Mark Warner.

I was 12 years old at the time. I think Mondale was too much of a its my turn choice. Bill Bradley always struck me as a liberal Dem.

One side isn't going to be able to force their will on the other without a majority on their side. It's a democracy thing.

May the best faction win.

As for me, I would hope we could find a way to be the inclusive party we're supposed to be. Well, at least that's what being Dem means to me. That's a core value -- the exchange of ideas amongst those who differ. Let the Repubs squelch dissent. That should not be us.

Y'all may just need to find a way to work together.

Kerry, Landreiu, Cantwell..... all start caucusing with the Republicans. Then we can make some real progressive change.

If it leads to a clear answer. Perhaps this is the navel gazing we need. We need to ask serious questions of ourselves, win, lose or draw.

eom

The green candidates, God bless their librul souls, can promise us queers the moon, but the democrats got action (DEAN!). Vote democratic please. But God protect us against the DLC. Say no to big corp, democrats, you're soul is union.

after Newsom Green?

Although former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites)'s bid for the nomination divided liberals and centrists early in 2004, the burning desire to oust Bush united them behind Kerry during the general election.

So is this:

Democrats have now moved back to the barricades, at least in their intellectual circles. The lines of battle evident in these disputes also could resurface in the race for the DNC chairmanship, which will pit liberals Dean and party operative Harold M. Ickes against centrists such as former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer and Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network.

As has been pointed out on this board lately, it isn't a matter of "liberal" versus "centrist."

It's a matter of POWER and a disagreement over tactics.

And the media keep handing us this garbage, over and over again.

a few weeks ago.

They don't want people like Michael Moore to help speak for them. Upon their own statement, they angered MANY Dems. And I hope enough of us have the sense not to vote for these creeps any more.

And when the repukes win big come next election, only the DLC is to blame for breaking the party from within. For they are bought and paid for by the same people who won the repukes.

The democrat party has all the ammunition it needs to go after the GOP and win on jobs and outsourcing, but the democrats are afraid to stand up against corporate intersts and fight. I recall in the second debate that Kerry was asked about outsourcing. He said that he was going to do an immediate study to examine it and in the same breath said that he knew he would not be able to stop it. It was a half measure and it conveyed a message of weakness. He said he would do something, but he wasn't willing to draw blood. This is because of the corporate agenda. Fuck corporate America...they have enough already. This is an issue with two clearly defineable sides. But the democrats won't throw the punches because they are giving over to big business. If they don't fight for us then who is it we are supporting? I am a democratt because the party has always stood for the average persons interests. The impact of our party playing both sides is we lost the white house and became the minority in both houses. We don't need another party to pander to big business. The republicans are doing more than their share and it is all at our expense. The democrats need to stand up boldly for the middle class now or we are going to lose everything.

rather than media manipulation!

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=sirota


This article articulates the actual divide as the different factions of the Democratic Party and how also why they want to go into the directions they want need to go in.

I agree with many that the DLC seems to serve the Republicans more than the people with good reason, the DLC is serving corporations and the concerns of the corporations more than the individual. This needs to change. The major change will come when corporations loose the person-hood status which needs to go immediately. This will put into play the person who can do something for their country rather than a person working for their country who is working for the corporations.

It is about money and power! I don't understand why more people can't see the situation for what it is.

Sirota explains it beautifully.