Without personal attacks, here is my problem with the DLC:

[Selwynn]

The DLC doesn't represent me.

There it is, plain and simple. There is virtually no position held by the DLC that I can agree with. And, I never felt like I was an "extremist" or "outsider" or on the "far left" of the Democratic party until Bill Clinton and the DLC "New" Democrats came to town.

So my resentment from the DLC comes from the fact that it feels like a betrayal of the base principles of the Democratic party that I believed in. To me there is no significant difference between the DLC's positions and positions of mainstream (note mainstream) republicans. And I believe mainstream Republicans are tragically wrong on most of their stances.

To further explain my problem, I don't believe that simply "winning" is the ultimate objective. It doesn't matter if you "win" if you are not in the right when you do win. If my party takes as its own all the positions of my opponents, then it matters little if we "win." My problem is the DLC is that it takes the easy path toward "success" defined as winning elections by navigating the gutless center than rather than taking on the harder task of changing the hearts and minds of the public, standing up as an opposition party and truly heralding a genuine alternative to conservative politics.

So even if it was conclusively pr oven that taking on a conservative agenda is the way to win elections, I would still rather lose elections (in the short run) while continuing to boldly speak out for what's right. To me, its kind of like imagining Dr. Martin Luther King if he had become an apologist for segregation, coming up with a rationale for why those in the Civil Rights movement should support the status quo. If that concept sounds absurd to you, then you understand how the DLC feels to me. We are a nation in need of people to stand up and speak out on principle - and principles are always considered extreme to the mainstream. Principles are not about the middle ground. Principles are about what's RIGHT and what is NOT right. Conservative politics in all its forms is not right. Moderates are enablers to political atrocity. That's how I feel.

So, my problem with the DLC is that it feels as though they are trying to steal the party I belong too out from under me and "revamp" it into a party which I want no part of.

I don't believe the difference between conservative politics and progressive politics is a difference of perspective only. I don't see political differences as simply two (or more) equally right different approaches to the same problems. Not at all. I see the difference between conservative politics and progressive politics (which by the way, are virtually non-existent in Washington anyway) as the difference between a kind of fundamental wrong that is destructive to the foundational ideals on which this nation was founded, unjust, inequitable, invasive, exploitative and a kind of fundamentally just stance that is truly for the people, pursuing honest equity, preserving liberties, and affirming of the basic rights and status of every human being.

To me there is little distinction between the unjust evil of the republican agenda and the complaisant unjust evil of the DLC.

That's my problem.
Sel

[jpgray]

1. Not to bring this into primary fights, but no candidate represents the DLC

Some folks are members, but the DLC's boy in this was Joe, and he's no longer with us. So feel as lucky as I do. Take a look at the compass and breathe deeply--any Dem is a nice big shift to the left and away from authoritarianism. :D

[rockymountaindem]

2. So, according to your compass

Kerry is the best option out of the remaining main candidates. I kinda thought so.

[jpgray]

4. No, that would be Kucinich or Sharpton. And it's not my compass, either

Here's how various world leaders stack up:

[Selwynn]

3. Heh, I can't respond, cause it'll get the thread locked --

-- but I don't agree.

[jpgray]

5. Well, here's the site where the compass is based

Without naming any specific candidates, I would still say that they all represent a shift left. You can't move the country left by validating the right.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html

[Selwynn]

6. I don't believe there is any significant shift, except for rhetoric.

[jpgray]

7. Well, I'm willing to fight for even the most insignificant shift left

Because I believe in leftist values, I'm willing to take even teensy steps forward. It's much better than standing still or moving backwards. The idea that a leftist revival can only come by electing perfect candidates is pretty ridiculous. Historically, we have only elected imperfect candidates. :)

[nankerphelge]

8. Exactly

I'd also point out that the DLC doesn'r have a very good track record at "winning." Other than Clinton winning twice, which arguably had nothing to do with the folks at the DLC, the democrats have been pretty dismal in elections for a long while. There is a reason that Dean's line about representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party resonated so well. Also, I believe that voting for a DLC candidate that gives in to the right wing zealots incrementally in the false hope of appealing to the centrist votes is actually more damaging than letting the zealots do what they want unfettered. Why can't I vote for a candidate that is not afraid of a progressive message? How much longer do we have to listen to the right wing dump on everything that made this country a decent place to live before we fight back?

[Kanary]

9. Those very principles mean the matter of life and death to some

I'm so glad that you posted this thread, Selwynn, because I have enough to be discouraged about right now, without all this stuff now about how the DLC is just wonderful, and we should all be warm and "inclusive".

To bring it right to the point, the policies of the DLC mean some people who are already on the edge simply won't make it. Some of us are hanging on by our fingernails, just hoping to keep breathing until we can get a regime change, and yet.... if the DLC policies are instituted in a different regime, we've still lost.

I keep saying it, but I'll say it again.... if these cuts get me, it doesn't matter whether the cuts come from a Dem or a Repub..... I'm just as dead either way. What is it about that they don't get? Or, are they so simply immune that it just doesn't matter what happens to lives?

You have delineated the differences quite eloquently, and I appreciate that. But, it's not "your problem"... it becomes the problem of all of us who are determined to move this country forward towards justice.

Thanks...

Kanary, who is going to lose it with all the accusations about "communism"

[IkeWarnedUs]

10. The DLC - who they are and what they stand for

on edit - I realize the majority of the posters in this thread do not seem to support the DLC. This is directed at readers who do.

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

It's one thing to be a centrist Democrat and another to sell out to corporate interests and support the neo-con agenda. I consider myself to be a centrist, but not a DLC'er. If you want to support the DLC, at least know who you are crawling into bed with.

The top of the DLC home page has a link to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which was formed to create policy for the DLC. The DLC and PPI are very intertwined. Al From, DLC founder, is the chairman of PPI. The DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC). The press e-mail for both DLC and PPI is [e-mail] Right now the headlines on the DLC website include two press releases from the PPI.

Will Marshall is the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Before that he was the policy director for the DLC. He is also one of the select people who actually signed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) statements on post war Iraq, along with a few frequent Blueprint authors (the DLC magazine). He is also an advisor to the Committee to Liberate Iraq (CLI), who's mission is to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people. Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda, which it does very well. CLI is loaded with PNAC'ers, including 3 of the board of directors.

In case any of you are not aware, PNAC was created in 1997 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Jeb Bush (to name a few of the major players of the Bush administration). They issued a report in September 2000 titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses; Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" which is pretty much a blueprint for the National Security Strategy released by the Bush administration in September 2002. More to the point, it lays out exactly what we are seeing - the defense budget raised to 3.8% of the GDP, multiple, simultaneous major theater wars to show the world our power, removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq, attempts to replace organizations like the UN and NATO as the world's political leadership and "constable" - and much, much more.

Although Will Marshall (and the rest of the DLC/PPI) has been pushing a slightly sanitized, politically correct neo-con-lite agenda for years, it is just recently that he came out of the closet with his official PNAC/CLI affiliations. The PNAC statements were released in March 2003 and CLI was formed in the fall of 2002. Like many of the neo-cons, he seems to be more brazen and open than ever before.

But the DLC agenda and alliances are not news. I encourage you to read this article from the April 23, 2001 issue of The American Prospect, "How the DLC Does It."

<snip>

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

<snip>

Though the DLC offers a nominal $50 membership to anyone interested, its mass base is minuscule. "There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman. And with a nonexistent grass-roots presence, the DLC is generally unknown except to practitioners of "inside baseball" politics. Yet the affiliation of scores of members of Congress has enabled the DLC to establish alliances with Fortune 500 corporate supporters, particularly along the so-called K Street corridor of Washington-based lobbyists and in high-tech enclaves such as California's Silicon Valley.

<snip>

In 1996 Lieberman, Breaux, and Simon Rosenberg founded the New Democrat Network political action committee. "Our role is to add political muscle," says Rosenberg. In the 1997–1998 reporting period, its first full cycle, NDN raised $1.4 million directly, and another $1.2 million in so-called "bundled" contributions, gathered at fundraisers for individual candidates and funneled through NDN. In the 1999–2000 period, NDN more than doubled its take, raising $4 million directly and bundling $1.45 million more, plus $450,000 for GoreLieberman. Nearly $2 million of NDN's take in the last cycle came in large, unregulated soft-money chunks from companies such as Aetna, AT&T, and Microsoft and from trade groups such as the Securities Industry Association, who helped sponsor a $1.2-million fundraiser honoring Lieberman on February 13.

NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

Much, much more: http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

In case anyone thinks that this 3 year old article unfairly illustrates the DLC allegiance to its corporate sponsors, I suggest you read page 20 of PPI's Policy report dated February 2004, "A Return to Fiscal Responsibility - A Progressive Plan to Slash the Deficit." This section talks about forming a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to decide what corporate subsidies to cut and what to keep:

<snip>

The commission idea is based on the recognition that there are legitimate differences of opinion as to what constitutes a "corporate subsidy" in the budget or tax code - not to mention powerful pressures on members of Congress to defend subsidies with a special impact on their states or districts. Like the highly successful Defense Base Closing Commission, the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission would be an independent body required to submit a package of budget and tax subsidies to be eliminated, after presidential and congressional review, on an up-or-down vote in Congress.

In essence, the commission approach would provide political "cover," and an opportunity for involvement, for many members of Congress who oppose all subsidies in principle but support some subsidies in practice.

more: http://www.ppionline.org/documents/deficit_plan_0104.pdf

Centrist Democrats? Or lapdogs for corporate special interests?


Here are some samples of the PNAC influence from The Blueprint (note the dates):

America's New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3916


The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3926


Why it's Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980


They were laying the groundwork for the PNAC agenda just prior to and after 9/11.


Want some more? How about the DLC Agenda published in the 7/27/03 issue of The Blueprint. Again, it is a more politically correct, slightly sanitized version of the PNAC agenda. Huge defense budget, tax breaks to those who can build businesses (in other words, the wealthy DLC contributors) and American domination of the world.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251925&kaid=128&subid=174


The DLC was founded in the mid 80's to counter the perception that the Democratic party was too liberal. Early DLC'ers included Clinton, Gore and Carter. The first year's budget was only $400,000. By 1990 the combined DLC-PPI revenues were $2.2 million. The good idea had been hijacked by special interests. Note that Gore endorsed Dean and while neither Carter or Clinton officially endorsed anyone, they unofficially got behind Dean and Clark - neither of which are DLC. Why?

I'm sure many of the New Democrats (what DLC members are called) joined on for funding support and without really understanding what the DLC's agenda really is. Most of the DLC's message is spun to sound like it challenges Bush, but look at the core messages and you find them more closely aligned with the neo-cons than it appears on the surface. When you realize this, and check voting records against NDL membership, Congressional Democratic support for the Bush administration's policies (out of control military budget, tax cuts and war, war, war) makes more sense.

Chances are most of the DU'ers who support the DLC didn't understand the devil they were aligning themselves with either. Knowing all this, is the DLC still an organization you want to affiliate yourselves with?


Links for more info:

DLC website: http://www.ndol.org/

New Dem Directory: http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

PPI website: http://www.ppionline.org/

CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml

PNAC Iraq statements: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm


More info on PNAC:

The President's Real Goal in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02 By Jay Bookman

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html


Of Gods and Mortals and Empire
By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Friday 21 February 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm


Blood Money
By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Thursday 27 February 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml


A copy of the Project for the New American Century's September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses; Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

A copy of the National Security Strategy of the United States dated September 2002 can be viewed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Thanks for that post...

I'm going to bookmark it and use the information in a future report.

It's a sad day when Democrats have to fight enemies within, as well as the GOP.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. Sel, thank you thank you thank you!

I'm so very glad that you brought this up, as well.

When someone lays out what being a "New Deomocrat" or DLCer means, I can't help but see two things:

20-30 years ago they would have been called old-school Republicans, plain and simple.

Their agenda rejects almost everything the Democratic Party has come to mean in the last 100 years.

When you say no to CORE Democratic values and beliefs, don't expect me to play nice and welcome you with open arms. I will fight you as I fight any other who would endanger my highest truths.

[Q]

13. Very well said!

"We are a nation in need of people to stand up and speak out on principle.."

- And the need has never been greater. This is what disturbs me about the 'mushy middle' playing politics as usual as the Bushies turn our beloved country into a Banana Republic.

[Az]

14. The Process

If you do not vote for that which represents you then your voice will become ever increasingly diminished.

Consider. At first the DLC suggests that the liberal Dems tone down their liberal arguments in order to win more elections. The idea being that once you win you can act on your liberal ideas.

This may work for a time. But its net effect is that instead of running liberal candidates with toned down messages, eventually you get nonliberal candidates running moderate to conservative campaigns. Then when they take office there is no liberal windfall.

Another net effect. As they attempt to placate the moderates they have no message of their own. They simply become an echochamber to the middle of the road. The right can take advantage of this in numerous ways. By championing ideas they can appeal to those looking for real leadership instead of just hearing their own voice echoed back at them. By having already silenced the left this means the entirety of the campaign slides to the right. Each year the damage increases as the DLC has to run with more and more Republican tactics.

Without a strong voice championing liberal ideas the right is able to control the message. The DLC is forced into a reactionary/me too position. It cannot take the argument into our own turf. As the left becomes increasingly disenfranchised 3rd party groups gather up the lost members and the entire reason for attempting to appeal to the center is lost.

The goal is not to run after the moderates. The goal is to make them realise they need to run to us. You cannot change people by repeating what they say. With no ideas we are stagnant. Stagnant is dead.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. Excellent point...

"The goal is not to run after the moderates. The goal is to make them realise they need to run to us. You cannot change people by repeating what they say. With no ideas we are stagnant. Stagnant is dead."

I have never understood why the Democratic Party should bend to the right when it should be our job to move the country towards our position by showing it to be the SUPERIOR position.

Good heavens, imagine how the 60s would have been changed if the Democrats had kept bending to the right -- we would be an entire party of Zells! Instead, we stayed with our principles and moved the country, and it is a better place for it.

THAT is truly "progressive".

[Jose Diablo]

16. Competitive Strategy

A basic premise in business strategy is called "Product Differentiation". It is the foundation of a competitive strategy and stated like this: to succeed the product or service offered must somehow be different than what the competing business is offering.

Simply stated, "My product is better because <fill in the blanks>."

Presumably, the Democratic party is different than the Republican party, although from where I sit I cannot see any difference whatsoever.

The reason I see no difference is because the core beliefs of the DLC are no difference than the core beliefs of the Republican party.

The failure of the Democrat party to address the needs of its constituents, i.e the people, is because the vision that differentiated it from its competitors has been diluted.

Bring the party to where it belongs and let the voters decide what they want.