It really isn't about DLC vs. progressives

I think the debate is really about political leaders vs. moral leaders.

A political leader is one who directs all his or her actions with an eye to how they make him or her look. Their goal is to stay in power and they will vote however they feel they need to in order to be successful.

Most Democrats, IMHO, when they voted for IWR, they did so not because they favored the war, but because they were nervous about the next election, and certain people worried about their presidential campaigns.

A political leader votes for the Bush Agenda after 9-11 not because they like the agenda, but they feel the need to do so for their political survival.

DLCers tend to like this type of leader. Their organization was created as a means to put the Dem party back in power, and that is their obsession. (not a bad obsession)

They trashed Dean (who was once DLC) because he failed to take the position that they felt was the most political - support of the Iraq war. Dean did not act for the purpose of maximizing his ability to win, he instead acted as a moral leader.


A moral leader is one who advocates for positions they truly believe, regardless of how it makes them look. I think most Americans appreicate a moral leader, as opposed to someone who is trying to pander to them.

Bush was so successful because he was seen as someone who was sraightforward and honest, while Gore (wrongfully) was seen as a panderer.

The moral leader isn't worried about winning, he or she knows that if his or her positions are what people want then he or she will win.

To a moral leader, power is a means to accomplish what he or she believes in. Contrast a political leader, where power is an end in itself.


Joe Lieberman is in fact a moral leader. His morals do not match with ours, however, and that's why he's not popular here. Joe's beliefs are legitimately held, though. Contrast that with Daschle, who didn't want the war, but voted for the IWR because he thought it might help him and us politicially.
---------

When the issue of Lieberman comes up, the political people on this board say: get us a majority, then we can do good.
But the problem is, for political people, power is an end in itself. When the first issue of importance to the progressive moral people comes up, it is very likely they will say "we can't vote for this, because next election we will lose the majority if we do. And you know we can't do anything without a majority."

So moral progressives don't buy the "get us a majority" argument, they will fight to get people like Lieberman removed because they like politicians who want to accomplish what they want to accomplish. They believe power is useless if you are too afraid to exercise it for fear of losing it.

The point of representation is that the leader reflects the wishes of the constituents. If he or she doesn't then he or she is replaced.

This is the real state of the debate IMHO.

There are many members of the DLC who believe it is important to encourage the economy by enabling business and corporations, who believe that hand outs have to be linked to personal responsibility and who think it is imporant to maintain a strong and effective military - so maybe its not progressives vs DLC but differences in political leaders regardless of affiliations.

However, with your definition can a case be made for Bush being a moral leader but with morals that progressives disagree with.

Lieberman is a big DLCer but is also very moral. I think the reason he is so popular in CT is because of his moral conviction. People will respect people who disagree with them, as long as they are honest in their views.

I would vote for Lieberman for governor of CT. He is a great contrast to Rowland/Rell. A morally upstanding and honest leader. and he wouldn't influence foreign policy anymore.

Those who bash the DLC are frustrated with leaders who seem to have no positions that they're not willing to sell for political advantage, although the coddling of corporations is also a problem for many, myself included.

that was my biggest problem with John Kerry. We KNOW that he knew the war in Vietnam was a sham. He KNOWS the impact of wars on people. He voted against the first gulf war, which I didn't agree with, but respected. It just boggled my mind how he could vote for IWR after that experience and voting history.