Bloggers, the DLC, and a Progressive Consensus

[wyldwolf]

Excellent post over at NewDonkey.com:

There's a big ol' battle going on in the blogosphere sparked by a Jon Chait column on the war to purge Joe Lieberman, the reaction to Chait from a variety of would-be purgers, and his reaction to the reaction. I'm not going to bother with links here: just go to The New Republic's blog The Plank, and read Chait's several posts over the last couple of days, which provides plenty of links to the dialogue, or successive diatribes, if you wish.

I'm not going to wade into this battleground at present, but do feel compelled to respond to a direct question from Kevin Drum based on an Atrios post about the consensus policy views of progressive bloggers. After citing Atrios' list, Kevin says: "I'm not an expert on the DLC's positions on everything, but it doesn't look to me like there's an awful lot there they'd argue with. (Though if anyone from the DLC wants to set me straight on this, I'll stand corrected.)"

As a bit of an expert on the DLC's "positions on everything" based on 12 years' experience, let me go through Atrios' list and respond.

1. Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration.

The DLC took no position on the bankruptcy bill; I opposed it, as did Marshall Wittmann.

2. Repeal the estate tax repeal.

Totally, absolutely, adamantly, that has been the DLC's position.

3. Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI.

Check. A longstanding DLC position.

4. Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)

Check, with devilish details involving the DLC/PPI's dissent from the single-payer approach.

5. Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation.

Yup. We've offered an alternative approach involving a tailpipe emissions cap-and-trade system, but the urgency of better fuel efficiency standards is Holy Writ in these (DLC)parts.

6. Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.

Yes again, if "getting rid of abstinence-only education" doesn't mean getting ridding of any abstinence education.

7. Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code

Totally, and in excrutiating detail.

8. Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.

No to the first sentence, yes to the second.

9. Reduce corporate giveaways

Oh yes, for many years. The DLC/PPI helped popularize the very concept of getting rid of "corporate welfare," dating back to a late-1980s event we did with Ralph Nader. This principle has undergirded everything the DLC has said on the budget, the tax code, and state economic development policies.

10. Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan

Nope. We opposed the current plan, but think the problem is cost and complexity, not the basic idea of offering choice and competition, a la the federal employees' plan.

11. Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.

Not a subject the DLC specifically has addressed, but I have no problem with it.

12. Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.

No specific DLC position, though I can't imagine anyone here having a problem with state licensing of medical marijuana, and while not embracing "decriminalization" of drugs, we have long opposed the "mandatory minimum" drug sentencing that stuffed the prison system with non-violent offenders in the 1980s and after.

13. Paper ballots

If this means outlawing electronic voting, no, but we've supported a requirement of paper receipts for electronic voting machines to ensure against fraud.

14. Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.

Totally, and again, in ridiculous detail.

15. Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.

As part of a more comprehensive Social Security/Medicare reform package, definitely.

Then Atrios offers a few toss-offs:

Torture is bad
Imprisoning citizens without charges is bad
Playing Calvinball with the Geneva Conventions and treaties generally is bad
Imprisoning anyone indefinitely without charges is bad
Stating that the president can break any law he wants any time "just because" is bad.

Agreed on all points. Maybe nobody in the progressive blogosphere actually reads New Dem Dispatches or other institutional DLC utterings, preferring to rely on stereotypes, myths, or a few notable disagreements, but it's all there on the web site.

Now, by my rough count this represents something like 80% agreement--totally aside from the much higher percentage of agreement between left-bent bloggers and the DLC about the vast number of bad policies, terrible politics, and sheer incompetence associated with the Bush administration and the Republican Party. I guess this raises Chait's pointed question about the attitude of progressive bloggers to those Democrats who agree with them most of the time, but not all of the time.

[xultar]

1. No need to shatter the myth when the made up shit will do.

[BillZBubb]

2. Uh, what's the DLC position on Iraq????

Just askin'. What's the DLC position on NAFTA and trade in general?

[madfloridian]

3. Well, they did take a position for the bankruptcy bill.

I can only find the cache version now, but here is the page from TNR

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4hblfTL2O1YJ:www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml%3Fpid%3D2584+bankruptcy+bill,+tnr,+new+democrats,+letter&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

It is the letter signed by the New Dem Coalition
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=3869

supporting the bankruptcy bill, and asking it be brought up for a vote.

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

We write to encourage you to bring bankruptcy reform legislation to the House floor as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The New Democrat Coalition has backed common sense bankruptcy reform in the past and helped in passing the bankruptcy reform bill by overwhelming margins in the House of Representatives during the 108th Congress.

Over the last several years, we have worked to advance reasonable and balanced legislation that would require individuals who have the ability to repay their debts to do so, while preserving the important safety net of bankruptcy under Chapter 7 for those who truly need it. We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling.

It is our hope that the House of Representatives will consider this important piece of legislation in an expedited manner. We stand ready to work with you and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.

Sincerely,

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher
Rep. Adam Smith
Rep. Ron Kind
Rep. Artur Davis
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Stephanie Herseth
Rep. Dennis Moore
Rep. Mike McIntyre
Rep. Joe Crowley
Rep. Jay Israel
Rep. David Wu
Rep. Diane Hooley
Rep. Melissa Bean
Rep. Jim Davis
Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Rep. Ed Case
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Shelley Berkeley
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks

[Solon]

4. Oops, caught in a "misstatement" I see. n/t

[madfloridian]

5. That was snide, but it was a statement not true.

I know because I worked hard for them not to pass the bankruptcy bill.

[Solon]

7. Not you, I was referring to the OP...

As in, you provided evidence that CONTRADICTED him. But what is to be expected, he says "The devil is in the details" a few too many times for my taste, he should have been concise and detailed as to what the plans for certain policies are. Like, what does he mean by simplifying the tax code, they oppose Single Payer, but what alternatives do they propose, etc.

[wyldwolf]

6. if they did, it isn't evident by your links

Some members of the House NDC supported it, but your links do not indicate the DLC organization supported it.

It would be like saying Democratic Undergound supported something if only some of the posters here did.

[madfloridian]

8. I linked to the DLC page and the leaders who pushed for the bill.

These are the leaders of the Coalition, and yes they pushed it.

[wyldwolf]

10. I don't deny that

but individual elected politicians who are members of the DLC do not speak for the DLC as an entity.

[madfloridian]

11. Come on, they sent the letter as a group. Even TNR called them on that.

.

[wyldwolf]

13. Did every member of the House NDC sign it?

Did every member of the DLC support it?

The answer is no.

Then how can you paint the whole organization with the votes of only some of it's members?

[acmejack]

9. Please

The dlc is against it but their members all vote for it? You have to do better than that.

[wyldwolf]

12. please yourself

1. The blogger didn't say the DLC was against it. He said they took no position on it. But he and Marshall Whittman (both of the DLC) opposed it.

2. Not all the DLC members voted for it.

[acmejack]

30. The DLC is about subverting the Democratic Party to corporatism.

It is that simple and it is blatantly apparent. The voting patterns of your DLC membership, which is now no longer available on the DLC website, incidentally, clearly demonstrate it, as do the sources of your contributions. You in the DLC have sold your souls and subordinated the interests of your true constituency, the people, to those of the deep pocketed lobbyists of the corporations.

[wyldwolf]

39. diversion

[SaveElmer]

44. They always fall back on the well trod talking points...

When the main point cannot be proven...

[MrBenchley]

37. Furthermore, it's not at all clear

that what the New Democrats were talking about there was the bill that was passed. In fact, there's every indication they aren't talking about any specific bill, but about the need for reform,.

[eridani]

47. WA state citizens lobbied Inslee, Dicks and Smith on that

We turned them all into NO votes.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Bust up the war profiteering corporate news monopolies.

Bust up the oilgolopoly.

Bust the military budget, down to a true defensive posture--say a 90% cut--no more wars of choice!

Bust the Bushites and get our money back. Sue their butts and the butts of every one of their no-bid contract pals. Find the missing billions. Community service and BIG fines for all the war criminals and thieves. (Jail I don't care about. Get our money back!)

Bust up the insurance monopolies and the medical monopolies.

Bust up the credit card companies.

Bust predatory capitalism, period.

Ban all money in political campaigns. Free air time for candidate access to voters.

DISAVOW torture.

DISAVOW secret prisons and detention without charge or access to lawyers and family--for ALL people.

DISAVOW domestic spying.

DISAVOW government secrecy.

DISAVOW wars of choice.

DISAVOW unconstitutional government, with the president making up his own laws.

ACKNOWLEDGE the stolen election of 2004 and RESCIND all Bush junta court appointments as illegitimate; or, add progressive members to the Supreme Court; or, term limits/ elections for the Supreme Court; or Special Prosecutor for the Supreme Court to dog them on every hunting party. Similar curtailment of the Bush-appointed federal lower courts.

AMNESTY and rehab help for all non-violent offenders in the country, and restore their voting rights.

PAPER BALLOTS HAND-COUNTED AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL, until the filthy swamp of Bushite-controlled electronic voting is cleaned out.

-----

And this is a MILD progressive program, my friends--if it's progress we're talking about. This is MODERATE--in view of what these Global Corporate Shit-heads have done to us.

Don't let them namby-pamby around about corporate PREDATION. This country is sick unto death. They've looted us blind. We have a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, that has mostly gone into THEIR pockets with NO RETURN to us or anyone else (ask the Iraqis!). Pigs! War criminals! Thieves of our future! Simple order and progress must be restored, and what I have outlined above will take us back to square one: a decent, pre-Reagan democracy.

[glitch]

36. Another excellent post, Peace Patriot. Like a hot knife through buttah.

I think Americans are getting sick of weasel words from any side, even their own.

[Solon]

15. Questions plus some clarity please...

OK, your Number 4 stated that Single Payer is opposed, as you say the devil is in the details, I would like to see some of those details myself, I just hope it isn't another scheme in Private/Public Health mixes, that has already been an unmitigated disaster in this country, so what is the proposal, in detail please.

Also your number 5, the cap and trade system you talk about, is that where some companies buy off the government and each other so they do not have to follow certain laws? Just asking, cause that is what it sounds like to me.

On number 7, what do they mean by "simplify"? Is it just getting rid of loopholes, or is it something more fundlemental?

On your number 10, I have a question about the choice and stuff, will this include price controls of any sort?

On number 13, if we are to have computerized voting, I suggest you specify that paper ballots be printed, receipts would have no legal weight, ballots, on the other hand, do. Just a clarification on this, also, what type of regulations should be placed on the manufacturers of the machines, should their sourcecode be made publically available? What about the databases? Its more than just sticking a printer on the machine.

As for the ones I didn't specify, I generally have no problem with them, as a matter of principle, and they are good first steps for more comprehensive reform.

Also, what is the position on free trade? Should it be reformed, good as it is now, or pitched entirely?

[wyldwolf]

16. you're asking the wrong person

Go to the blog in question and ask him. He's been good in the past in respondng to emails.

[Solon]

17. OK, I went over to New Donkey, and let me just say...

I'm not really impressed, the post above the one you posted was talking about the War against Jihadism. I really don't understand that, I mean, seriously, a war on "personal struggle"? I didn't know he was so ignorant of Islam to frame it that way. How can I take someone seriously if they can't even properly educate themselves on those percieved by too many people as the "enemy"? All a Jihad is is a personal struggle to reflect on God, no more, no less, the fact that some extremists mix in violence doesn't mean anything. I mean, its not equivalent to a Crusade, as Christians use the word, that word implies violence, going on a Jihad is more like reflection, fasting, prayer, that type of stuff. Really, why should I pay attention to someone that ignorant about something that SHOULD be today so fundamental to our political thinking?

[Solon]

18. Read more of New Donkey, the guy is an asshole...

From his post on March 14 Titled "In Defense of Religious Outreach":

Excerpt:

I have less sympathy for Chris' argument that the progressive future lies with cultivating a "non-Christian coalition" based on demographic projections that conflate (a) increases in non-Christian but religiously affiliated voters, who are often likely to welcome the same religious outreach that might help Democrats with "conservative" Christians, and (b) indications that young voters aren't religious, which ignores life-stage patterns of religious observance and non-observance that have gone through predictable cycles among the baby boomers and Gen-Xers who are now flocking to megachurches. Maybe Chris is right that something more fundamental is suddenly going on, but the idea that Democrats will flourish by flouting their credentials as the Party of Baal, or whatever, strikes me as implausible, and more to the point, irrelevant. Are irreligious voters really in danger of defecting to the theocratic GOP, or for that matter, refusing to vote, if Democrats open a dialogue, without sacrificing their principles, with religious voters? I don't think so.

OK, no offense to him, but he is full of shit, turn the Democrats into a lesser shade of Theocracy than the Repuke party, go ahead, I'm never voting for them if they do that. Why the fuck should I vote for a party that would marginalize MY religion in this form?

[wyldwolf]

19. I think he's spot on.

But whatever. I'm off to bed. Early morning. Carry on with your search through the newdonkey archives.

[Solon]

20. Then neither of you are better than the Religious Right...

Really, maybe this whole concept of Relgious Freedom is on the way out in this country. Seriously, fuck the DLC.

[slay]

34. You nailed it

He is an ass - and he argues like a Republican - all business and no soul or compassion. Just because non-religious voters won't vote GOP doesn't mean the Dems should ignore or forget about them/us. Jeez. :(

[LoZoccolo]

21. RECOMMENDED.

:thumbsup:

[Solon]

22. So you are making a recommendation on a post from another blogger...

who doesn't know what the word Jihad actually means, either through willful ignorance, or stupidity, and would prefer Democrats to ignore all religious minorities while courting Christian Conservatives instead, and that's admirable?

[LoZoccolo]

23. Oh let's not get into this whole association game.

[Solon]

24. I'm talking about words, Kucinich did NOT say Bush was a great Pres...

Look at their faces, neither look happy at that meeting, but they acted civilized, that's called decorum, but saying that we should concentrate on Christian Conservatives regardless of the feelings of other Religious Minorities that are traditionally solid Dem because they don't have the option of voting Republican is simply Repugnant.

[LoZoccolo]

25. Stick to what's contained in the post...

...and don't hijack the thread, because that's against the rules.

[Solon]

26. The Credibility of the offsite author is an issue...

and I doubt that credibility, in regards to the OP itself, I already questioned the too many generalities already in it, and was deflected and directed to the site. As far as I can tell, the author of the post on NewDonkey.com has little to no credibility in regards to commenting on political issues with authority.

[LoZoccolo]

28. Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

It doesn't prove or disprove anything, but maybe is a heuristic that helps people manage the time they'd spend listening or not listening to somebody. I do it all the time when I put people on ignore for putting asinine things on DU (I'm over 700 people by now I think). But it doesn't make everything they say incorrect.

[Solon]

29. I agree with that...

But then again, I do question the intellectual honesty of those who are willfully ignorant of even one issue, but that could be considered nitpicking. I'm slightly urked that he posted this here without even bothering posting a link, just a reference to the site in question. If you read it too fast, it seemed like he was the one that wrote it, as I took it on first impression, but I have a tendancy to skim the intros, so to speak.

[TankLV]

27. More outright DLC LIES and bullshit, as usual.

Nice try - need to try again - but don't bother.

I have read what they have said.

FUCK THE DLC!

They specifically don't want progressives and liberals - the base - and kiss bunkerboy's butt.

[PassingFair]

43. You win the Ted Rall Award for today, Tank!

Congratulations! Here is your cartoon:

[killerbush]

31. Excellent post Wyldwolf, the DLC is the way to go. Recommended

I always said the DLC is not the bogeyman everyone is making them out to be. The main reason progressives don't like the DLC is because they're a threat to the liberal establishment.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. the DLC still stands for neoliberal economics and militaristic global heg

hegemony. The are not are not the right-wing of the Republican Party. And their version of these core principles are somewhat more moderate than the Republican Party version. There is no denying that.

Many liberals and progressives make the mistake of thinking that the DLC is "right-wing" the same way the right-wing of the Republican Party is right-wing. This is not correct at all. If you check the voting record of leading DLC members of the House or Senate you will see that their voting records on such matters as pro-choice, gay rights or other social issues are about the same as the voting record of leading liberal/progressive members of Congress.

My main problems with the DLC is:

1. The attempt to marginalize progressive voices within the Democratic Party and to represent mainstream opinion regarding trade issues, single-payer universal health care and matters of war and peace as extreme positions. When the evidence shows that it is they if anyone who is out of the mainstream on some very important core issues.

2. They embrace an albeit modified form of neoliberal economic ideology and believe it should be imposed on the third world who do not want it because of the devastating consequences it has on the third world fueling inflation, dispossessing the peasantry from their land--creating a new commercial class for the benefit of the few at the cost of the vast overwhelming majority. The only place where the Orwellian named "free trade" is less popular than the rust belt of northeastern United States is in the developing world -- the very people who would be the greatest theoretical beneficiaries.

3. On foreign policy they just don't understand that the world does not want and the American people do not an imperial America that is in a never ending series of military conflicts while the social contract and social fabric of American society disintegrates on an over-bloated military budget that as as former President Eisenhower described as "so wasteful it weakens the nation". I am very much afraid that America could be led astray into an even more disastrous imperial war in the Middle East or elsewhere not by a Republican President but by a DLC Democrat President.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. About the best summary I've seen

:thumbsup:

[slay]

33. DLC has had their chance - WHERE WERE THEY ON ELECTION FRAUD?!?!

It's time to let real progressive Democrats have a chance. Republican-lite, corporate ass-kisser DLC types need not apply. IMO.

[klook]

35. Pre-emptive invasions? Warrantless surveillance? Immigration?

What's the DLC position on these issues?

[Adelante]

38. This looks interesting

If I get some time later, I will follow this discussion around and return here to comment further. All I will say for now is that I view the DLC PAC like any other Democratic PAC, including WesPAC, DFA PAC, etc. They are made up of Democrats with a viewpoint and an agenda to push. I may agree or disagree on certain points, but I would never say the PAC in question, whether it is left, right or center, has no business existing and pushing their agenda points or candidates that reflect them. That's democracy for you.

[madfloridian]

41. DLC is a 501 that does not have to account for their donations..

or expenditures. They are a think tank in reality. They have some good ideas, and some that are not.

However, they have totally taken over the agenda, which I guess they can if they want to do so and nobody stops them.

In fact I posted about that agenda here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/100

[madfloridian]

42. And the PAC for their candidates is NDN, New Democrats Network

run by Simon Rosenberg.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=894

The New Democrat Network (www.ndn.org), a political action committee founded in 1996, which gives financial support to New Democrat candidates and elected officials. The NDN's president and founder is Simon Rosenberg. The NDN is not affiliated with the DLC.

[tavalon]

40. Well, If I didn't have to pack all day

I would grab two bags of popcorn and pull up a chair. It's a weird part of the human makeup to want to stare at a train wreck and trust me, defending the DLC on DU is a hell of a train wreck.

:popcorn:

Have fun, kids. I can't believe you put this one on the greatest page.

[SaveElmer]

45. You're on a roll lately...

Another excellent post...

[eridani]

48. Fucking cheerleaders for the Iraq war

How's that working for ya?