DLC and Diminishing Returns

[Don1]

Many people here apologize for the DLC by saying that there are some progressives within their ranks. While I criticize the DLC, I just want to say for the record (and I said it before), that these people are right. There are some good guys in the DLC.

However, mathematically, non-DLC is better than DLC on average. I showed this before by sampling important legislative votes. The DLC trends to voting along with the Republicans more often than non-DLC'ers do. Do all DLC'ers do this? Nope. Do all DLC'ers do this all the time? Nope.

Are there bad members of the DLC organization? Yes. Do they have a bad philosophy? Yup. Have you ever heard of the Third Way? It is something that the DLC invented. They say it is not left and not right, but something else. So what is it? "Centrism."

However, if one is to say on average who is in your corner, representing you, the non-DLC Democrat is representing you better. On average, a non-corporatist is better than a semi-corporatist.

[SaveElmer]

1. Doesn't this then put the lie to the notion of a powerful DLC...

I mean if they can't even exert any control over their own members...what kind of control do they have over the party?

[Don1]

2. How do you know "they" are not

exerting control? whoever "they" are...

You're sounding a little paranoid, too. Can you be more specific?

[SaveElmer]

6. I thought the whole problem with the DLC...

Was this pernicious controlling influence they had over the Democratic party...which they have parlayed into 7 straight electoral losses according to one anti-DLC poster. In fact one even suggested the DNC sue the DLC to wrest back control of the party.

I'm glad to see you are not of that ilk anyway.

[Don1]

13. Here is what I think...

The majority of the "bad apples" in the Senate are in the DLC. It's about half of the 18 DLC Senators. 9 of them. Lieberman is approximately in the middle of the 9 with voting record.

The DLC in the House is worse than non-DLC, but not by too much. The bigger problem in the House is the Blue Dog coalition. Check out my DiNO post on this subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2303592

As you can see, Clinton and Kerry are not in the list. As you can see, DLC in the House as DiNO are very sparse.

Also, if you consider the DLC as a group, it is worse than non-DLC. This is mathematically objective. Here is the analysis that I did:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1971055

Also, here is the analysis that someone else did and was brought up in this thread:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/30/132626/843

Now, getting to my "DiNOs" thread, I took scores from a website and listed some of the bottom of the Dems in the House to get the bottom 26 Reps. This other website lists 25 as bad. Pretty close count. What is the overlap of DiNO reps between what I came up with and what Brian came up with? Roughly 85%.

The 25 listed on the mydd website all vote with Dems less than with Repubs. So, I think these observations make A LOT of sense.

Some say the answer goes to red districts. It's true sometimes maybe a little. But look at the funding, too. Research it. These guys are voting for their donors, not for ideology. Why would blue-collar workers in red districts be for the Bankruptcy Bill? Think about it...

[radio4progressives]

21. Excellent post...

i never say enough about the Blue Dogs, but that's because the blue dogs are never hailed as our 'saviors' and/or as our "presidential hopefuls" for 2008. most of them are bit obscure nationally, and are rarely spotlighted but they do enough damage - because they have a vote on every bill that is introduced - and I dare say, too often vote for the bush lickers.

this house version of the patriot act, is just plain too idiotic for words.

we really need to throw our support big time to Feingold, Reid and other Senators tomorrow.. with a spit and a prayer we might get this evil doctrine to die.

[Adelante]

24. Chris Bowers did an earlier study

http://chris-bowers.mydd.com/story/2005/4/23/152121/713

He concluded then:

"The 39 DLC members in the House stayed with the Democratic Party majority 76.6% of the time on the eight important, party differentiating votes so far in this session of Congress. The 164 non-Republican and non-DLC members of the House stayed with the Democratic Party majority 82.8% of the time on the eight important, party-differentiating votes so far in this session of Congress. So, while DLC members were somewhat more disloyal than the rest of the party, they were not dramatically more disloyal."

You might want to include this one in your considerations :hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

3. I really only see a few true DLC apologists

They just post a ton. :)

[Don1]

4. True.

Must be campaign workers or something.

[LincolnMcGrath]

5. That is an outrageous charge!

;)

Elesha Gayman for Iowa House

[Don1]

8. ROFL. n/t

[Hidden Stillness]

7. They Destroyed Party Structure, and Left Us in Shambles

The "D"LC started to unravel and destroy the Democratic Party as soon as they infiltrated it, and to sow the seeds of future defeat, because as soon as they got there, they dismantled the structure of State Party organizations, cutting staff, not addressing the concerns of different parts of the country, not contacting State and local officials of the Party, not financing their campaigns, etc., etc. Instead, they just poured all attention into the personality campaign of Bill Clinton, basically, running away from everything that Democrats had ever stood for, and turning all of it to a totally isolated Clinton personality campaign. Their tactics have spelled losing campaigns ever since, as they still do not refer to issues, fund local races and candidates, and fight back against Republican attacks. Get rid of them, and be Democrats again.

Also, they are not "moderates," of course. They are corporate lobbyists. There is nothing moderate about them.

[anaxarchos]

9. I don't think the DLC is all-powerful...

or all-evil, or all-pervasive...

BUT... It is very hard to ignore that the DLC is at the center of the fight for conservatism in the Democratic party. They give cover to many of the worst tendencies in the party and offer endless apologies for them. Opportunism, personal careerism, pandering, lack of principle, or lack of spine are all excused in the name of "political realism".

For those trying to move the party in a progressive direction or simply to cause the party to define its program in a way that creates a very clear alternative to the Republicans, it is difficult to NOT see the DLC as the opposition. They stand in the way of "reform" and were explicitly organized to prevent it.

[enough already]

25. They may not be all-powerful, all-evil or all-persuavise

But they HAVE managed to move this party away from its progressive roots. They are a cancer that must be excised before allowed to spread any further.

[anaxarchos]

28. Yes, that's what I said....

Worse, they provide cover for the worst shit possible...

[LSdemocrat]

10. Actually DLCers are NOT the most disloyal Dem group

The most disloyal group, according to Chris Bowers of MyDD.com is the Blue Dog Caucus, which only votes with the party about 59% of the time.

DLCers, on the other hand vote with the party about 80% of the time.

See more at:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/30/132626/843

[Don1]

11. Your stats apply to House of Reps only.

I have noticed this, too. The Blue Dogs in the House are much worse than the DLC in the House.

However, in the Senate, there are no Blue Dogs. They are a Rep only caucus. Half the DLC in the Senate acts like the Blue Dogs in the House. Half. I can't say it enough and DLC apologists will always accuse me of over-generalization.

Now, take a look at the DiNOs list I came up with. It was definitely Blue Dogs in the House and DLC in the Senate, right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2303592

I named 9 DLC Senators as DiNOs. That's only half of them. I named a bigger percent of the Blue Dogs in the House.

So, let me ask you a question. If you take a look at the people named, what's their percent matching the party line?

[LSdemocrat]

14. According to Americans for Democratic Action

http://www.adaction.org/sen.htm

To analyze the 9 Senators you listed as DINOs I looked at the ADA's lifetime voting records through 2004 - Note: their lifetime voting records only go up to 2000, but using their annual voting statistics (available through 2004), I recalculated each of the Senator's Liberal Quotient by taking an average of each Senator's annual LQ from 1990-2004. For those Senators who had records going back before 1990, I counted their pre-1990 average as one year.

Average Dem Senator 1990-2004: 83.2% Liberal Quotient (LQ)
Baucus: 79.8% LQ
Bayh: 84.2% LQ
Byrd: 75.8 LQ
Carper: 85% LQ
Conrad: 83.1% LQ
Landrieu: 79.4% LQ
Lieberman: 77.7% LQ
Lincoln: 81.7% LQ
Nelson: 57.5% LQ
Pryor: 77.5% LQ

The only one that really jumps out to me as bad is Nelson's, but then again he's from one of the reddest states in the nation.

[Don1]

17. ADA selects 20 specific bills to look at

such that the majority of these guys are still good.

[LSdemocrat]

20. What rating system would you recommend?

[Don1]

22. Good question.

Tough to answer. I would analyze it myself with a sample for a good basis on which other sources can be trusted. I have done that before. Also, you may want to analyze ALL legislation in some objective way. I am going to do that one, too, soon. Will keep you posted in coming weeks...

[FreedomAngel82]

19. I also don't trust Lieberman either

Of course he's not my senator so if the people he represents don't trust him they can get rid of him and work at it. I can't stand how he's a Bush apologist.

[radio4progressives]

23. gotta watch out for ADA 's stats - they're supposed to be "progressive"

but you can't take that for face value either - i found out the hard way. I won't go into details here... yes generally a lot of the individual members are very progressive, but if the SCADA is representative of how the ADA works as a whole, it seems to be more as party functionaries than anything else, as far as I've observed.

[bvar22]

12. That's because the DLC does not prescribe a "Social" Agenda.

The DLC is about ONE THING....Increasing the Power and Influence of the Corporate Owners inside the Democratic party.

The DLC does NOT care who gets or does not get an abortion.

The DLC does not care what god you pray to of if you attend church.

The DLC does not care who does or does not own a gun.

Some members of the DLC are Socially Liberal, but when their Corporate Masters call in the votes on ANTI Labor and Anti-Working Class legislation, the DLC MoneyMen make SURE that ALL their legislation passes.

That's ALL they do!

[MrBenchley]

15. Many people here demonize the DLC with smears and falsehoods

"mathematically, non-DLC is better than DLC on average. I showed this before"
You mean the enemies list you drew up using the crap from those three bozos in California? The list that omitted John Murtha because you were afraid the other cool kids would yell at you? The list that showed Robert Byrd was a DINO.

"Have you ever heard of the Third Way? It is something that the DLC invented."
Then it must be pretty fucking sinister all right. Otherwise you might have given us a link to it, or something, so we could see for ourselves instead of taking your description as th ebe-all and end-all......

"The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of the 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. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=185&contentid=880

"So what is it? "Centrism.""
Ooo-oooh......

[The Judged]

16. The "The Democratic Leadership Council" Agenda:

1). See Progressive Policy Institute:

http://www.ppionline.org

Or read a profile on the PPI:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

"Using language that mirrors that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in October 2003 PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its founding documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declared that “America is threatened once again” and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation--“like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades”--mirrors both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. In its words, PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq, “because the previous policy of containment was failing,” and Saddam Hussein’s government was “undermining both collective security and international law.” (9)"

2). See Third Way Foundation

http://www.third-way.com

"The Third Way National Security Project is designed to address one of the most serious problems facing progressives today – our lack of a compelling vision for protecting this nation and its interests both at home and abroad. In election results and opinion polls dating from both before and after 9/11, progressives are viewed as weaker than conservatives on the main qualities it takes to protect our nation: maintaining a strong national defense and prosecuting the war on terror."

"The Third Way National Security Project — with Senator Joe Lieberman as its Honorary Chairman — is using The Third Way Idea Network to draw upon the best minds in government, think-tanks, academia, the military, the business community and political professionals to move beyond anecdotal discussions of the problems that beset progressive leaders when they address how to best provide for America’s safety and security."

3). See The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

http://www.newamericancentury.org

Statement of Principles:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Let us not forget that the DLC is a not-for-profit corporation.

Here are a few lists of their Governors, Senators, and Representatives:

New Democrat Governors

Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin
Gov. Michael Easley of North Carolina
Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware
Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa
Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia

Members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusets
Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Democratic_Leaders...

Here is a Wikipedia list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats#Members_of_t...

Members of the House New Democrat Coalition

Rep. Jim Davis of Florida
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington
Rep. Tom Allen of Maine
Rep. Joe Baca of California
Rep. Brian Baird of Washington
Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois
Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada
Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas
Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon
Rep. Lois Capps of California
Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California
Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii
Rep. Ben Chandler of Kentucky
Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee
Rep. Bud Cramer of Alabama
Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York
Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama
Rep. Susan Davis of California
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois
Rep. Anna Eshoo of California
Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez of Texas
Rep. Jane Harman of California
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa of Texas
Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey
Rep. Mike Honda of California
Rep. Darlene Hooley of Oregon
Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington
Rep. Steve Israel of New York
Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island
Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington
Rep. John Larson of Connecticut
Rep. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota
Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York
Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York
Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York
Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine
Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald of California
Rep. Dennis Moore of Kansas
Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia
Rep. Grace Napolitano of California
Rep. David Price of North Carolina
Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas
Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas
Rep. Steve Rothman of New Jersey
Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California
Rep. Adam Schiff of California
Rep. David Scott of Georgia
Rep. Brad Sherman of California
Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas
Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan
Rep. John Tanner of Tennessee
Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California
Rep. Mike Thompson of California
Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico
Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida
Rep. David Wu of Oregon


This list does not pretend to cover all of the DLC membership throughout the federal government's three branches.

Also, local politics are not exempt from the influence of the DLC either, though I lack the links at this moment to illustrate the #'s.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. My opinion of the DLC

is as a group I'm not a huge fan. They're too "in bed" with corporations for my liking, but as individuals I go on their records and their personal actions. What one does the other might not do. Some might even be apart of the group because they just agree on certain issues and want to work together or they might not consider themselves liberal but more moderate or whatever. I've also heard Kerry hasn't been to any DLC meetings since 2003 or so. :shrug: Last time I looked (a few months ago) on their site he was still listed and he's pretty progressive as an individual person. I just think you should judge a person on their specific voting record(s) and/or how they do things.

[Adelante]

26. I agree absolutely

Judge individual pols on policy, not what club they may join.

[Lone_Wolf]

27. DLC are Token Democrats...

They are corporatists who are liberal on a small smattering of issues. The overall affect of the DLC and its policies is creating cheap labor for corporations. If you look at their record, the general voting trend for the DLC is greater rights and freedoms for the Corporate Class which ultimately hurts the working class. NAFTA and CAFTA are prime examples for this.

We need to get working class candidates into office.