A Discussion of the DLC

Can we have a rational discussion of the policies of the DLC and how they effect our party? I believe their policies adversely effect our country and want to make others aware of these policies. I would love to hear a discussion on why some on DU find what I see harmful they see as virtuous. I am not looking for flame bait but a serious discussion.

I would like to point to a thread by marmar who posted an excellent piece on the DLC here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=296777&mesg_id=296777

from the article:

"Led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the DLC was the raucous cheerleader for Bush's war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. They lauded the corporate trade policies that have left us with the largest trade deficits in the annals of time, and contributed to stagnant wages, growing inequality and a declining middle class. They championed fiscal austerity—even when the budget was in surplus—leaving us with a looming deficit in vital investments from new energy to modern schools to basic infrastructure. "Inequality doesn't matter," they argued, even as we moved into an economy in which the wealthy few captured all of the benefits from growth. One of their first policy papers was an attack on the minimum wage, which went a decade without being raised.

-snip

"We're all populists now," says the DLC's Will Marshall, but the organization still scorns the populist economics that was central to Democratic election victories across the county last year."

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/wrong_right?tx=3

that poured money into what it determined were key elections and neglected to fund many state parties, leading to several states with nearly bankrupt Democratic Party organizations. Dr. Dean's 50 State Strategy has finally turned this around and has gotten all state parties back into the black while increasing contributions from individuals.

Going to a state party headquarters to volunteer while the DLC was running things meant being asked for a check, don't let the door smack ya... The DLC relied on large donations from organizations rather than small ones from the party's base and neglected the grass roots, door to door campaigning that had always been successful for the party of ordinary working people. That completely alienated the base over time and made them suckers for GOPs promising tax cuts. At least tax cuts offered them something. The DLC had only offered business as usual.

The DLC came to power within the party by promising to counter Nixon's Southern Strategy. They failed miserably and it's time for the party to try something else for a change.

Repy #1 for example.

fabrications?...

differing views of the DLC vs grassroots. To simply say that the anti-DLC posts are lies, without backing it up, does not further the debate or convince anyone of anything.

How do you see those statements as 'fabrications'?

The DLC was also responsible for an election policy that poured money into what it determined were key elections and neglected to fund many state parties, leading to several states with nearly bankrupt Democratic Party organizations. Dr. Dean's 50 State Strategy has finally turned this around and has gotten all state parties back into the black while increasing contributions from individuals.

This flies in the face of all established fact. Battleground or swing state campaigning has been around since at least the 19th century when the swing states of Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey and New York were key to the outcome of the 1888 election.

No one, despite repeated calls on DU and other places, can provide names, events, and stats to back up the assertion that many state parties were "bankrupt" and Dean's 50 State Strategy turned it all around. There is simply no evidence of it.

The DLC relied on large donations from organizations rather than small ones from the party's base and neglected the grass roots, door to door campaigning that had always been successful for the party of ordinary working people.

The Democratic Business Council, under the umbrella of the DNC and still thriving under Dr. Dean, originated the organized practice of contributions from organizations a half decade before the DLC ever had their first pow wow. And Democrats have always done grass roots, door to door campaigning. The practice didn't stop or slow down once the DLC was created.

That completely alienated the base over time and made them suckers for GOPs promising tax cuts. At least tax cuts offered them something. The DLC had only offered business as usual.

The "base" is not alienated because of the DLC or otherwise. Now, a small faction is, but they're ALWAYS alienated.

The DLC came to power within the party by promising to counter Nixon's Southern Strategy. They failed miserably and it's time for the party to try something else for a change.

The DLC gave us our only twice elected president since FDR. :shrug:

I live in red state hell and until Dean implemented his 50 state strategy, the Dems didn't even have an office here except for a few months before presidential elections. Now we have a permanent office manned by a fulltime employee of the DNC. That is a significant change and it helped us triple the number of Dem seats from this county in our state capitol. So here in Kansas, you most certainly do have evidence that Dean's 50 state strategy has indeed, as you say, "turned it all around".

I believe there needs to be a level playing field. Cheap imports from countries without labor regulations or environmental laws are hurting American businesses and should have tariffs applied to force those countries that want to sell to the US to play fairly.

The Democratic Party has been the party of Free Trade since the days of Roosevelt. Like Al Gore said on Larry King Live last summer, NAFTA was a wonderful idea to counteract an economic crisis in Mexico and create more jobs south of the border - to curb the rising tide of illegal immigration. Other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries, made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. But without the agreement that was made and without the shoring up of their economy back then, it could have been much worse still.

The negative effects of NAFTA haven't gone unnoticed which why DLCers like Hillary Clinton didn't vote for CAFTA and are calling for structural changes in existing trade policies.

Next?

Other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries

You present the movement of jobs to ever-lower-paying markets as an incidental development, but didn't NAFTA enable that job movement?

Trade liberalization has also brought some powerful anxieties, of course. In some areas these are misconceptions which need calm rebuttal. The US is not 'losing' jobs overall: since the early 1990s we have added 20 million private-sector jobs; since the 1970s, 50 million. The U.S. is not 'de-industrializing' -- our manufacturing sector is growing and has a stable real-dollar share of the US and global economies. Nor are factories fleeing en masse for poorer countries: as U.S. manufacturers invested $56 billion in foreign plants and acquisitions last year, foreign manufacturers invested $67 billion here. The dismal experience of shoe and clothing industries -- where job loss has been fastest -- shows that hopes in trade barriers are false hopes.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=206&contentid=254256

The Results of Free Trade

Three million jobs lost since 1994.
Slowed global economic growth.
U.S. trade deficit in goods hit an all-time record of $549 billion in 2003.
$20 billion reduction in trade surplus in services between 1999 and 2003 and deficit in high-tech trade.

AUTHOR :Lee is the Chief International Economist for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/1669

NAFTA wasn't designed to shore up the Mexican economy, it was designed to rape it. Labor is/was much cheaper than in the US, and NAFTA facilitated the easy transference of American jobs south of the border, at least in the manufacturing sector. In addition NAFTA killed the Mexican agricultural sector, knowingly and willfully. It through hundreds of thousands of Mexicans out of work, much more than the NAFTA generated manufacturing could absorb. This is why we have seen ever increasing rates of illegal immigration, people are simply following the work which is now north of the border. Furthermore, NAFTA, with its very lax enviromental clauses, allowed corporations to pollute in a way that is no longer possible in America. In fact this polluciton has turned many places along the border into toxic wastelands.

NAFTA is simply another huge benefit given to corporate America at the expense of the working man, both north and south of the border.

One last thing, do you think that Chapter 11 of NAFTA was really such a wise thing, you know, giving up part of our sovereignty and all. Seems rather foolish and another burden for the American taxpayer.

That is not possible.

on the dlc and it is very scary...google dlc...

There are others who would be interested in a raionale discussion. We can't have one if you keep making posts that accuse but not provide any information.

With the clubs waiting in the wings.

I'm done. These threads always become a pile-on with no one offering any realistic alternative to what they're bitching about. Rather, they insist you dig deeper and deeper into the motivations of the DLC.

Like I said, I'm done.

The ballot box, as always, will be the judge.

There will always be those that need a boogeyman. I stay out of the DLC discussion because I have seen what happens. A pile on.

and now you're done? :eyes:

:)

This one of the reasons why I do not support Hillary Clinton. She is still a prime leader of the DLC and its glory days and future dominance(by raw power, not by quality). I still like and support her as my Senator. Oddly she is beset by nothing but unfairness, but if this party is to purge its destructive past, the critical turning point is defeating her nomination. She has not abandoned them, although she has tried to rein in their lusty GOP tendencies on occasion. But they will abandon and war against us, destroying the only heart the party has for the future, and kill the future as surely as the current madmen have done in their botched dreams of extreme greed.

So today we have not only a legitimate banner carrier of the DLC, but the THE leading DLC hope and leading(currently) Democratic candidate. Any hope that she will move beyond the ideas and practices of Bill is based on what? More NAFTA. Weaker unions despite some of the wish list. Weaker health care than can be done. Entanglement in neocon ME nightmares and oil Armageddon. Weaker response to global climate catastrophe. Weaker everything except herself. She is no Joe Lieberman and that is a profound tragedy on many levels.

She has given us a key opportunity to reject the past, short of self destructive organizational struggles and purges that would destroy the party in the time of its nation's highest need.

It all happens now. The moment of choice. If she is the candidate, presumably with the backing of the voters, then we will deal with first consequences and defeat the criminal empire. Just because it will be all the harder does not mean it we should not begin. I will work for her in 2008 if she is the one. She is far better than the sum total of the DLC leeches that cling to the Clinton coattails.

Yet, call me greedy. The greed for hope and greed for freedom and peace. I want it all, but I will not destroy to make it happen. And I am sorry for the Clintons who have taken up so much of the poison, have won so much hope for us in these deals with corporate madness. Because we are so afraid of losing this election we have barely begun realizing that the debate CAN shift to various sane alternatives. Fear distracts us into betraying the best beginning.

WHAT IS POPULISM:

Populism is a political doctrine or philosophy that purports to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite. In their 2007 volume Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as "an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice".

Recent scholarship has discussed populism as a rhetorical style; as such, the term "populist" may be applied to proponents of widely varying political philosophies. Leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, while some populists claim to be neither "left wing," "centrist" nor "right wing."<1><2><3><4><5><6><7><8>

Leaders of populist movements have variously tried to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, fight for the "poor people of the country", and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes espouses, especially among the right wing varieties, nationalism, jingoism, racism or religious fundamentalism.<1> Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority of the people. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers or simply "the poor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

DLCer WILL MARSHALL BLAMED GORE'S "LOSS" ON POPULISM

A key factor in that defeat was Gore's peculiar decision to discard the New Democrat formula that had worked so well in 1992 and 1996. Instead of proposing a second wave of modernizing ideas intended to build on the New Democrat successes of the past eight years, Gore recast himself as an old fashioned populist fighting big corporations on behalf of working class families and his party's traditional interest groups.

-snip
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=128&subsecID=187&contentID=3361

YET NOW HE STATES:

"We're all populists now," says the DLC's Will Marshall, but the organization still scorns the populist economics that was central to Democratic election victories across the county last year.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/wrong_right?tx=3

GORE WON IN 2000 BUT THE SCOTUS REVERSED HIS WIN. INSTEAD OF STICKING UP FOR OUR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE THEY DISMISSED HIS WIN FOR LEAVING THE DLC AND BECOMING A POPULIST.

Populism can take many forms. But can you name ONE candidate who has ever won the presidency based on the type of economic populism you just described. Hint: FDR didn't.

Angry "us vs. rich folks" populism is a losing proposition. Why? Because poor people want to be rich. When Al Gore (or John Edwards) tries to paint rich people as the enemy, the common man has to believe that if he attains his goals, he'll be the enemy, too.

Bill Clinton ran on a populism of "lift all boats," and under him all economic classes improved.

Next?

Al Gore and John Edwards are NOT attempting to paint rich people as the enemy-surely even you know this, but point out CORPORATE GREED is bad for America.

Rising American economic inequality has received attention by Senator Jim Webb, presidential candidate John Edwards, CNN’s maverick Lou Dobbs, and others. The middle class has not shared in rising national prosperity, because the nation’s wealth has been siphoned off to the richest Americans. Some elites are nervous. They have attacked what are pejoratively called “neopopulists” – people who say the middle class is under siege.

Surprisingly, the attack and economic propaganda have come from the relatively unknown Third Way group that is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. Why would self-proclaimed progressives and centrists put out a report that says the whole economic inequality story is bogus?

They favor continuation of the free trade globalization policies of recent Democratic and Republican administrations. They want no restraints on international trade, despite mounting U.S. trade deficits and loss of manufacturing and many professional jobs to low wage nations. Of Third Way’s 18 board members, 14 are current or former CEOs or investors, including several hedge fund managers and the co-head of global equity trading at Goldman Sachs.

-snip

http://www.culturekitchen.com/statusquobuster/forum/economic_inequality

Al Gore.

From his acceptance speech:

“They're for the powerful. We're for the people. Big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters,
the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, sometimes you have to be willing to stand up and say no,
so families can have a better life.”

Gore shot to a 6% lead over Bush after the convention.

(Lieberman immediately undermined Gore's success, referring to his populist words as a "rhetorical flourish")

A overwhelming majority of the US electorate supports the position of the Democratic party as it stands. The DLC is interested in moving the idealogy of the party to the center....towards that of the republican party.

Given that a large majority supports the Democratic party as it stands, the function of the DLC is counterproductive to the goal of keeping and increasing support for the democratic party.

The further Right they triangulate us, the less our Party is ideologically different from the Republican Party. So you can vote for a DLC candidate, or you can vote for the Republican. The ultimate outcome will eventually wash out to be the same.

This is only my opinion.

TC

Why would they use the word "monopoly" when referring to schools?

That is one of the things they have done such a good job on....convincing people that public schools were failing. I remember when it started...and many of us who were teaching thought to ourselves that the schools we knew were not failing.

:shrug:

But propaganda is very powerful indeed. They were among the groups who talked the public schools down until people believed it.

DLC refers to public school system: "monopoly power of failed traditional schools"

One of their main pushes is for Charter Schools...which are not public schools. They want to completely overhaul the public school system.

One of the things they are planning to do is transform completely the public schools by forming charter schoos.

National Conversation



Children should be learning and not put in such a competitive environment just so businesses and corporations can get their sticky fingers on the public school system. They do get public money but are exempt from the rules public schools follow.

Are there advantages? Yes, there are. But why not pump the needed money into a first class public school system which treats all the same? Our country was built on that.

If you don't like the way someone thinks, put a neo in front of their name. Neo-Populist...that's what Will Marshall and Al From call us.

Now they are calling us old style left wing "populists" who hate free trade.



"Allegedly better past"....well, yes it most surely was better. We were not so afraid of our food in the past. Now we read the recall section of the paper daily. Better in many ways.



How right you are, Will and Al. Why do you think Charlie Rangel was trying to slip the trade bill in under the radar?

Rangel..."bam, seal it and catch hell" ...about the trade deal

DLC affiliated candidates don't get my vote. Period. No compromise, no more discussion necessary. Read DU the last 3 years; it's been discussed ad nauseum. I'm done with it.

Edited to add: the best thing the Democratic Party could do to motivate voters to come out in force, IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE, would be to publicly divorce the DLC.

knows about just who/what they are voting for-the better.

I just don't "get" why people are so willing to take things at face value; why they are willing to believe someone's "spin," or what "everybody says," etc. without looking in to it themselves, without analyzing, without THINKING.

It makes me grumpy. :blush:

Edited to add: I will post something for the OP.

Why not start a discussion of the DLC with a look at the political/social philosophy behind them? From the DLC website:

<snip>

Overview | June 1, 1998
About The Third Way

The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age.

<snip>

The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.

The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895

That doesn't sound bad, does it? Of course, any organization who wants to gain power will make their goals sound good on paper. Let's take a look at an analysis of this philosophy at the Monthly Review. It's a long article, going into history, and variations from other regions. I've just snipped a bit, but I encourage you to read it all. The bolding is mine:

<snip>

What is the Third Way? Both historically and in the contemporary world, there are numerous examples of political leaders and movements that declare their allegiance to a Third Way—defining alternatives in opposition to what they perceive to be dominant paradigms. In the contemporary world, the best known exponent of the Third Way is British Prime Minister Tony Blair, though a number of other political leaders in Europe and elsewhere have expressed sympathy or support for the rhetoric or substance of Blair's version of the Third Way.

<more snips>

The Third Way ideologues and leaders speak to a social system based on a meritocracy—the elimination of class-based inequalities in favor of inequalities based on merit (presumably knowledge and skill). Scholars and journalists, however, point to the growth of inequalities based on old and new wealth—particularly the vast and growing socioeconomic inequalities between the super-rich of the City of London and Wall Street and the growing army of workers in the low paid service sector. The increase of social inequalities is related to another flawed argument in Third Way ideology: the end of class struggle. Contrary to the ideology, a sustained and far-reaching class struggle from above has been engaged in and has successfully weakened labor, diminished trade union membership, reduced living standards, worsened working conditions, and strengthened ruling-class control over the state and its allocation of expenditures and collection of tax revenues. The claims of Third Way ideologues that class politics are no longer relevant is belied by longitudinal studies of budgets, state policies toward crisis management, and state economic commitments to domestic markets and overseas expansion. Budgets have become heavily skewed toward tax reductions for the rich, cuts in health, welfare, and education, and sharp increases in expenditures for overseas expansion, military intervention, and bailout of overseas speculators. The winners and losers reflect the class nature of the state, the politicians who administer it, and the close ties between politicians, bankers and public policy.

What is most striking about the connections between Third Way rhetoric and New Right politics is that where the ideology is most deeply implanted—in the United States and England—social programs have suffered the worst and capitalist class prosperity is greatest.

And one last <snip> makes 4 paragraphs:

Third Way theorists argue that their goal is a more competitive and open economy shaped by the market. In reality, Third Way regimes have approved and aligned themselves with the greatest merger movement in history—leading to greater concentration of economic power among a decreasing number of monopolistic giants. The size of the conglomerates has grown, while the number dominating markets has shrunk. Third Way ideologues have argued for greater efficiencies and competitiveness—but productivity has stagnated and markets are shaped by a few market-makers. Moreover, selective protectionism, massive state subsidies, and the sell-off of public enterprises to private monopolies has homogenized the market and made entry of new participants more difficult, except in specialized market niches. Secondly, capitalist prosperity has largely been confined to the speculative-financial and real estate sectors of the capitalist class—not to the productive, innovative sectors. The economic boom has been, in large part, a phenomenon of the stock market and related domestic and overseas speculative activity in which illicit activity—multibillion-dollar money laundering—plays a prominent part. In the productive sphere, the arms industry still plays a key role in the export sector, despite the fatuous moral posturing of Third Way leaders. Finally, the claims of Third Way ideologues that we are entering a new economic epoch—a postindustrial, high-tech information era—are patently false. In the United States, computer industries represent less than 3 percent of the economy. Their impact on productivity has been negligible and they have been greatly hyped in stock values by Third Way ideologues and stock market speculators. High-tech information systems are a subordinate element to a predominantly financial-industrial economy rather than a independent, dynamic force. The attempt by Third Way ideologues to provide a technological gloss on their linkages to super-rich financial magnates just doesn't hold water. Economic realities belie the ideological claims once again.

There's much more of interest:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/300petras.htm

I don't know anybody who thinks like they do on individual issues. They wanted to go after the upscale voter, free capitalism and socially liberal, but that has traditionally been a country club Republican voter and they are never going to put their racism aside to join the Dem Party. Most real upscale Democrats I know are very socially conscious, quite liberal in their economic views, and not willing to compromise on social issues. I don't know who the DLC thinks their courting. They're fishing for bass in a trout stream. Now the Blue Dogs, otoh, I get them; but they need to know the reason their voters think the way they do is because they've been LIED TO by the Republican majority.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=295260

American Prospect
April 22, 2001
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_dlc_does_it

>>
Representative Gregory Meeks, an African-American lawyer and assistant district attorney elected to Congress in 1998 to represent a middle-class black neighborhood in Queens, New York, was undecided last year on the divisive issue of trade rights for China. Lobbyists for big business were battling the AFL-CIO and environmental groups on Capitol Hill for every vote, and Meeks, who'd previously voted against granting fast-track negotiating authority to President Clinton, was a prize.

Sensing an opportunity, Representative Cal Dooley, a moderate California Democrat closely allied with that state's high-tech sector, moved in. As co-chairman of the House New Democrat Coalition, a bloc allied with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), Dooley was targeting fence-sitters to vote aye. Along with fellow New Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., of Tennessee and Bob Matsui of California, Dooley hooked Meeks up with a stream of corporate officials from Silicon Valley and the New York financial district. "My boss made sure there'd be support for Meeks from the business community," says a Dooley aide. "He spread the word, through groups like the Business Roundtable, that here was a guy who deserved their support."

"Congressman Dooley helped bring in businesses who otherwise Congressman Meeks would not have known, and didn't have a relationship with, to knock on his door. As a result, scores of meetings were held with the congressman," says an aide to Meeks, citing sit-downs with the CEOs of American Airlines and New York Life Insurance Company. High-tech executives helped ensure that Meeks would be one of two undecided members to accompany President Clinton on his high-profile trip to China before the vote, the aide said; and Meeks also won significant backing from industry political action committees, which ended up nearly matching labor's donations to Meeks's campaign treasury. Included were $5,000 PAC contributions from American Airlines and New York Life. And in the end, Meeks voted business's way.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."
>>