Before going after Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, Dem think tanks threatened Bill Clinton.

[madfloridian]

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 12:03 PM - Edit history (2)

It was in the mid 90s. They warned him they would withdraw their support if he did not mend his "liberal" ways.

Maybe that is why he told Robert Reich he couldn't be taking sides against corporations. From Reich's book, Locked in the Cabinet:

Bill's Labor Secretary Tells All

Picture this. Reich and his wife Clare, and Bill and Hillary go to Kinkaid's, an elegant restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue. It's a good-bye dinner for Clare, who is going back to Cambridge with their two sons. Over dessert, Reich can't help himself.

'After all, we're balancing the budget and sacrificing public investment so that corporations have more money to invest. At the least, we should expect them to invest with their employees and communities in mind.'

There's an awkward pause. Have I overstepped the line?

'It seems to me,' says Clare, weighing her words carefully, 'that corporations are downsizing not only themselves but also a big part of the middle class.'

She's bailed me out. I want to kiss her on the spot. I throw caution to the winds and ask B, 'Would you be comfortable saying what Clare just said?'

'I have to keep myself from saying it everyday,' he says softly. 'I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing.'

Here is more about the warnings from the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute, which really wasn't progressive at all.

The DLC warned him in 1994 and in 1995 to follow their goals...or they would withdraw support.

(2nd edit: The link below leads to several various articles at different sites. The ones linking to the DLC website must be found at the Wayback Machine if at all. )

Party centrists issue stern warning to White House

The DLC's blunt warning was delivered in November in response to the Democrats' midterm election debacle, which shrank the party's congressional membership and shook whatever remaining confidence they had in Clinton's political viability. The DLC's criticism followed some bitter remarks by its chairman, Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, who, after losing his Senate bid, complained that his defeat was due to "a visceral anti-Clintonism" among the voters.

..."I think for President Clinton there is a pretty blunt message in this poll," DLC President Al From told reporters this week. "It's `Get with the program or you'll have to pay the consequences.'"

Will Marshall, who heads the group's Progressive Policy Institute, said the poll showed that swing voters who helped elect Clinton were sending the president and the Democrats this message: "We are disappointed in what you've done, but we haven't given up on you. You have one last chance. You govern as a New Democrat, unequivocally as a New Democrat, and you can win us back, and you can win back the vital center of the electorate. But if you don't, you're in big trouble."

Al From, the group's leader, made their threats even clearer.

Al From himself embodies John Maynard Keynes' warning that the real difficulty in changing any enterprise lies not in developing new ideas but in escaping from old ones. "The problem for us and him," says From, "is that Clinton promised to be different. He's been that a bit, but the whole is less than the sum of the parts. The fundamental change he pledged hasn't come. We've been consistent in articulating the ideas he won on, but he hasn't been consistent in advancing them. We were at this before Clinton, and we'll be at it after he's gone, because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions. Most people are politically homeless now. They're our target. We'll work to get Clinton to pursue us, but we're damn sure going to make it hard for him to catch us."

Did you get that about the labor unions?

These groups have been issuing threats long enough. Tired of hearing them.

On edit to clarify:

Yes, I know Bill Clinton was in on the founding of the DLC, and that he also helped found The Third Way with Tony Blair. I found it odd then that the DLC had to lecture him and warn him about doing things their way. I should have made it more clear that I knew that. It's like they were keeping a tight rein on him. I have written many posts about the DLC/Third Way hijacking of our party through the years.

[Laelth]

1. Interesting. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[madfloridian]

2. When the DLC turned things over to the Third Way...they scrubbed their website completely.

I have not been able to find anything in cached format either. But no fear, I saved a whole lot.

[hootinholler]

45. Should be on the wayback machine

Here's one from 2006

http://web.archive.org/web/20060713110410/http://www.dlc.org/

[madfloridian]

46. Aha I had forgotten about that.

I do remember finding a couple there a couple of years ago. Thanks so much for the link and the reminder.

[hootinholler]

48. The best part of the archive is

When you run across something that you want to reference in the future, you can schedule it to be archived.

[KoKo]

49. "Mainstream Keeps Shifting, Ambitious Democrats Find" (Article from 1990)

(Kind of fascinating reading in retrospect)

-------------

Mainstream Keeps Shifting, Ambitious Democrats Find

March 25, 1990|By Steve Daley (Chicago Tribune)

NEW ORLEANS — Five years ago when Ronald Reagan was at the height of his powers, a group of prominent and ambitious national Democrats stepped out on their own, forming a rump organization immodestly dubbed the Democratic Leadership Council.

These Democrats, a number of whom harbored White House dreams, had surveyed the gloomy electoral legacy of Walter Mondale and his predecessors, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter.
They had watched Jesse Jackson wrap up his first presidential bid and were panicked by his vote-getting skills and his ability to dominate debate.

Mostly young, mostly white, mostly from Southern or border states, Democrats such as Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri saw their party tilting left of center.

They felt themselves branded as soft on communism, weak on defending the country, prone to coddle crooks and welfare chiselers, quick to reward the unworthy with governmental entitlement programs, and obsessed with raising taxes. Republicans, they believed, had defined them for the voters.

In 1985 the architects of the Democratic Leadership Council lusted for long-gone Reagan Democrats and pined to end the party`s tax-and-spend image.

Beyond pure ego, the notion behind forming the council was to lead the party toward what the founders viewed as the political mainstream. The middle of the road was where they longed to be.

Nunn and some others called for ``resolve in defense of freedom,`` all the while endorsing new and expensive weapons systems. Other council voices called for a voluntary national service program for youth, for narrowing of entitlement programs that benefited traditional Democratic constituencies, for what the council members kept referring to as ``mainstream values.``

Unfortunately for them, the mainstream keeps shifting.


More at:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-03-25/news/9001250215_1_reagan-democrats-democratic-leadership-council-mainstream

[madfloridian]

71. Thanks for that article link.

I had not seen that before. I will add it to my saved stuff.

[NCarolinawoman]

3. and Howard Dean came and inspired the base to take back the Senate and House in 2006.

He inspired people to give small donations that really really mattered, and to do the leg work. The North Carolina legislature became one of the most liberal legislative houses in its history--full of environmentalists.

I remember attending local meetings full of Deaniacs, Clarkies (I was one), Kerryites, Edwardians, and the wonderful Kucinich people. We all became friends and worked together. Wes Clark had visited Howard Dean at his home and told his supporters how much he personally liked Howard Dean and how he wanted him to lead the Democratic party.

WE had the POWER and they were heady times! We didn't need Wall Street.

[madfloridian]

5. It was a time when we really thought we could make a difference.

Realistically in our area of Florida with all the centrist Democrats, we should have known better. But for a while there was true progress. I guess we lost heart for a while.

[KoKo]

50. They were good times...full of hope and activism.

Sad to look back on it...sometimes. Especially in my state where we are now run by Alec/Koch Repugs after going blue for Obama. It all fell apart.

Now we are digging deeper to try to counter what the Repugs are doing. But, its Foundation Money and a Church Leader who are doing the rallying. It's not coming from the Party. But, I'm hopeful that "we the people" can do it and not depend on party. Probably the best way in the long run.

[warrant46]

4. The DLC warned him in 1994 and in 1995 to follow their goals

These people are still around like bullies in the school yard

[madfloridian]

6. I have wondered...

if their threats contributed to his support of NAFTA?

[NCarolinawoman]

8. I have wondered that too.

It does seem like he eventually became a true convert to the NAFTA way of thinking.

I DID believe Hillary was against it at first--there were so many people from that administration saying so. David Gergen and Stephanoplis come to mind; but she obviously changed on that.

My cousin knew them at Yale. He said they were big time liberals at that time. My cousin was, as well. He also told me that even then, Bill Clinton was telling people he would be President some day. I think that ambition took over and pragmatism won out in his second term. They both seemed to have become a bit removed on the realities of what it's like to be in the real world.

[blm]

62. BushInc made sure Clinton won WH. Clinton couldn't have been threatened by

any of the powers that be had he chosen to highlight the discoveries that were being exposed by the release of the BCCI report. Instead, he urged the nation and congress to 'move past' IranContra and BCCI, didn't he?

Jackson Stephens and GHWBush had exactly who they needed in the WH.

[merrily]

13. I call bs. He was a founding member of the DLC in the 1980s.

The DLC philosophy did not change during that decade and he was the DLC candidate for the Presidency in 1992.

[madfloridian]

18. You don't need to call BS. I agree with you.

He and Hillary were DLC/Third Way from the get go. I just wonder if he might have made other decisions in office if it weren't for the DLC threat of pulling support.

[merrily]

24. Couple of things.

First, I called bs on another poster, not you.

Second, I am saying I don't believe that the DLC threatened to pull support or that he feared the DLC. In the beginning, the DLC was the minority in the party. The only reason it had any cred at all in the early 1990s was that Bill, the first Presidential candidate endorsed by the DLC, had won the Presidency. Of course, that was due more to Perot than to the DLC. Clinton was their one big success story. And his victory was what got other Democrats with Presidential aspirations jumping on the bandwagon.

If anyone could credibly threaten to pull support then, it would have been Bill, Hillary and Gore pulling it from the DLC, not vice versa. Who the hell ever heard of Al From or Will Marshall before? What power did they have on their own?

(IMO, they were both only front men, but I admit, that is my speculation.)

[iamthebandfanman]

27. liberals dont

sign DOMA.
they don't help repeal glass-steagall.
sign DADT.
sign the welfare reform act of 96.
sign NAFTA.


there hasn't been a liberal, beyond just being labeled one by the right, in office since FDR.

[cascadiance]

67. The Telecomm act was another MESS that should never have passed.

... which has given us the crappy media mess we have today.

Even McCain voted against it then along with Feingold and Leahy.

[cascadiance]

68. Not clear when the Kochs became a big part of the DLC, but they've also made a mess of it too!

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Clinton championed low-wage union-busting policies as governor

I'm not sure if he needed to be coerced to the right as President.

[madfloridian]

11. Maybe not. But then look which state he governed.

[merrily]

14. He and Hillary were founding members of the DLC.

And being first lady of Arkansas did not require Hillary to be on the board of directors of WalMart.

[madfloridian]

16. And also founding members of the Third Way.

From BBC 1999:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/458626.stm

So what is this Third Way embraced by Blair and Clinton and now by a number of European leaders, most notably Gerhart Schröder in Germany? One observer described it as the Loch Ness Monster of British politics - everyone's heard of it , there are occasional sightings but no-one is sure the beast really exists. Or as another remarked the third way is ethereally defined. One supporter writing to The Independent claimed it was a form of benevolent pragmatism - a philosophy that asked of each policy - is it good, does it work? For this reason he argued it was hated by the old left and the new right - the new right because they never did anything that was good and the old left because they never did anything that worked .

Put at its most basic the Third Way is something different and distinct from liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the free market and democratic socialism with its demand management and obsession with the state. The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepeneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about. So in the words of one of its gurus Anthony Giddens of the LSE the Third Way rejects top down socialism as it rejects traditional neo liberalism.

That bunch got us the Blair Democrats who were then praised for supporting the Iraq invasion.

Yep the Clintons were all that. But I wonder if sometimes when he was prez he might not have taken so many right turnings if it weren't for the threats.

[merrily]

19. But DLC was founded (formally) in the mid 1980s. So, that goes against the coercion in the 1990s

theory. And, as I posted elsewhere on the thread, he defended lobbyists even after he was out of office.

[madfloridian]

21. I am not arguing with you. He was centrist through and through.

It's just that though he was one of them, they still felt necessary to threaten him. Which is strange.

[merrily]

15. He chose to govern Arkansas. He could have lived anywhere after Law School.

[iamthebandfanman]

28. there hasnt been a liberal president

since FDR.

I dunno why people kid themselves about Bill....

[hootinholler]

47. Kennedy wasn't liberal?

I thought he was.

[whathehell]

51. Kennedy certainly was liberal, not as much as FDR, perhaps, but far more than any prez since.

He fought U.S. Steel, supported unions, and, even though he cut taxes on the rich from the 91 percent they'd been

in the Eisenhower administration, he did it ONLY with the provision that the "loopholes" being employed being employed

by the rich be cut.

Can anyone even IMAGINE a tax rate of 70 percent on the Uber-Rich now, even WITHOUT closing the loopholes?..That's the big

difference between the happier America of "then" and the meaner, stingier one of "now".

[WillyT]

9. K & R !!!

[polichick]

10. Fascinating stuff...

How corrupt it all is! It's going to be a heavy lift to get the party back for the people.

[merrily]

12. Bill and Hillary Clinton were founding members of the DLC, which incorporated

in the mid 1980s. The DLC has always been corporatist.

And, in his post-Presidency, Clinton was going on about how important lobbyists were.

Only two possiblities.

He either believes in corporatism or he betrayed his own principles and American workers (not to mention American gays).

Either way....

[madfloridian]

17. And see above my post about their being there at the founding of Third Way.

[merrily]

20. All of this makes the coercion meme hard to swallow.

No pun intended.

[madfloridian]

22. My point is why did they feel they had to threaten him?

That's all.

[merrily]

25. Maybe they never threatened him.

[madfloridian]

31. So you are saying what?

?

[merrily]

37. That I don't necessarily believe Reich.

He has been dishonest in his writing in the past.

It's in his wiki and I posted the quote somewhere on this thread.

(I am assuming that a lot of your OP is based on Reich's book.)

[closeupready]

23. this is quite interesting; so why, I'm asking myself,

why did Reich decide, knowing this, as Clinton's Labor Secretary, to help Bill sell NAFTA if he knew that the sausage-making behind it was not just ugly but downright dirty? ???

Further, I'm not sure why Reich has never retracted his support for NAFTA when, in fact, none of the silver lining prognostications ever came true.

[NCarolinawoman]

26. and Al Gore supported it, too.

You would think Al would say something now, about the environmental laws not being enforced.

[merrily]

33. I think the Secretary is making excuses for himself and his boss because the

tide is turning on the center right (at least, I hope to heaven it is).

Interesting (from Reich's wiki):

At Yale, he was classmates with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Michael Medved and Richard Blumenthal.

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

Come on. It was circa 1970. Someone at Yale had to be liberal.

Also from his wiki, about a different book he wrote:

In 1996, between Clinton's re-election and second inauguration, Reich decided to leave the department to spend more time with his sons, then in their teen years. He published his experiences working for the Clinton administration in Locked in the Cabinet. After publication of the book, Reich received criticism for embellishing events with invented dialogue. The paperback release of the memoir revised or omitted the inventions.[18]

[merrily]

29. I don't have Reich's book and won't buy it.

So, all I can go by is your Op.

'I have to keep myself from saying it everyday,' he says softly. 'I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing.'

That does not say anything at all about a warning from the DLC. Yet, the next line of your OP is:

Here is more about the warnings from the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute, which really wasn't progressive at all.

The next two things are From and Marshall saying that the poll is a warning from the people.

The final thing is not a warning either. From is saying we are going to be center right corporatists, regardless of what Clinton does.

We've been consistent in articulating the ideas he won on, but he hasn't been consistent in advancing them. We were at this before Clinton, and we'll be at it after he's gone, because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions. Most people are politically homeless now. They're our target. We'll work to get Clinton to pursue us, but we're damn sure going to make it hard for him to catch us."

So what? People are always warning Presidents that the Preisent will lose the people unless the President does what they want him to do. Some Republican or other does that to Obama at least every 2.2 minutes. That doesn't mean the President has to listen to all of them. In fact, no President could possibly listen to all of them.

Clinton was not born in the 1990s. He'd been in politics all his life. So was Reich, for that matter--and the first President Reich worked for was Ford. (The second was Carter, who did a lot of deregulating himself.)

Reich seems to be excusing both Clinton and himself. I'm not buying it.

[madfloridian]

32. I am backing off. Not responding anymore.

It seems you are trying to pick a fight...and I am not going there with you.

[merrily]

35. You are mistaken.

If I were trying to pick a fight, I would do a much better job of it.

I am saying--and having been saying-- that I don't believe that Clinton (or Reich) changed behavior on the basis of being warned.

I posted:

Reich seems to be excusing both Clinton and himself. I'm not buying it.

I have no idea how you construe that as picking a fight with you.

However, if you don't want to respond to my posts, that is not a problem. I don't expect a response to every post.

[zentrum]

30. When Clinton created the DLC....

...I felt at the time, that he had done more to hurt the Democratic Party than FOX news. That's how upset I was and now, given where we are----I think it may have been true.

Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

[madfloridian]

34. It was like creating a monster to win at all costs.

Even at the expense of the traditional constituents of the party like minorities and labor unions.

[zentrum]

36. I think this background.....

...is one of the reasons O beat Hillary back in 2008.

[merrily]

38. The DLC all but disappeared the Democratic Party.

Fox could not have done that. No Republican could have done that.

[Laelth]

39. FYI

You can get an Elizabeth Warren 2016 banner for your DU sig. line here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265876



-Laelth

[Enthusiast]

40. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.

Thank you, madfloridian!

[Eleanors38]

57. Thanks for the post. Did you know where the last Pop Party covention was held?

Ocala.

[Enthusiast]

59. I did not know that.

There is so much subterfuge going on in Florida that it makes for a great setting for a novel. I'm stuck on Florida books, John D MacDonald, Carl Hiaasen and Randy Wayne White

[Eleanors38]

65. According to T.D. Alman in his "Finding Florida," the state IS subterfuge

He makes the case too grandly, and ignores some good stuff lest it disrupt his thesis. But it's a good read. Zora Hurston said you can see the future of the U.S. in South Florida. Quite true 80+ yrs ago, just as true now.

Most peoples views of Florida come from 1984 -- not Orwell, but "Miami Vice."

This old saying sums up the state's raison d'ete:
"If it ain't been tried, it be tried in Florida."

[madfloridian]

61. Ocala?

Now that surprises me a lot. Not a very "populist" area really.

[Eleanors38]

63. A partial goof: the Party became Populist in name

after the Ocala Demands (a manifesto of sorts) were adopted in 1890.

There is a photo out there of a Socialist Party rally of some 10,000 (maybe much more). In RW Tyler, Tex, over 100 yrs. ago. A socialist newspaper of 50,000 was smashed during the Palmer Raids a century ago. The paper was published out of Halletsville, Tx.

The next revolution will not spring from Berkeley or Boston. It will rise out of Jacksonville.

[madfloridian]

64. "The next revolution will not spring from Berkeley or Boston. It will rise out of Jacksonville."

You just may be right. Looking forward to the day.

[Eleanors38]

66. A log line for a screenplay no one wanted.

[xchrom]

41. du rec.

[JHB]

42. Better to say they acted to prevent a populist pivot by one of their own

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Bill was a founder of the DLC, they were "his" crowd. It also meant that they were his base of support in terms of national exposure, support, and fundraising. What you're describing is a group making sure one of its own stays that way.

The neoliberal think tanks are still a threat, but there are a lot of differences in the situation.

[madfloridian]

43. I assumed people knew I had written about the DLC takeover for years. Some links.

I assumed too much in my OP, I should have posted some links to previous writings.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/4188

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/8511

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6188

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/4710

That's just a few. I guess I should have made it more clear in the OP.

Never assume.

[JHB]

53. I think I read most of those, but had forgoten who'd written them...

...and there's simply a lot of people around who don't know that sort of thing, either because they weren't paying attention at the time, or they were too young at the time.

Never hurts to remind people that just because a Democrat is in office it doesn't mean you can kick back and stop paying attention. It cuts down on "why would a Democrat do XXXX?!?" shock, which feeds disillusionment, disengagement, and falling into naderite "not a dime's worth of difference" myopia.

[madfloridian]

55. You make some very good points.

In reality a rather small group of Southern white men (literally true) hijacked the party. Money and influence can do that easily. And we weren't paying attention.

[madfloridian]

44. Agreed about the populist pivot...same thing happened to Gore and his campaign.

They were all over him when he said anything out of line.

[riqster]

52. I really wish they wouldn't call themselves "centrists".

They are right-wingers who are not as far right as the Repubes. That ain't the Center.

[JHB]

54. Marketing

If you call yourself "centrist", you paint yourselves as the reasonable people in the room, as opposed to everyone else, who are automatically defined as "extreme". And reasonable people want reasonable policies, right? So the policies that "reasonable people" want must be reasonable! Q.E.D. (separate agenda? what agenda?)


It helps when the major media is part of the same crowd, and so isn't inclined to take issue with the implication of reasonableness.

[riqster]

56. Interesting logic. Thanks!

[Eleanors38]

58. It's da no-label approach.

[madfloridian]

60. It's the same with the word "moderate".

Many people when asked if liberal or moderate, they will chose the latter because of the bad connotations with "liberal" through the years.

[dreamnightwind]

69. Al From was on MS-NBC yesterday talking up Hillary for POTUS

It apparently never ends. I think the interview was yesterday, though it might have been the day before, Ari Melber interviewing From. These old ghosts never seem to die, nor do their failed ideologies.

[madfloridian]

70. I have a low tolerance for that man.

I am glad I didn't see the segment. It's a shame they are still using him like that. I thought he was out of the picture.