Best way to win without the DLC.

[LoZoccolo]

[Radical Activist]

1. How about having an economic populist message

that people will care about so they stop voting on issues that don't effect their lives like gay marriage.

[Julien Sorel]

2. Has this strategy ever worked during a time of prosperity?

[Radical Activist]

4. Harry Truman, LBJ

I would say so.

[Julien Sorel]

14. The New Deal was not economic populism.

It was about saving capitalism. And LBJ's appeal dried up after he got the Civil Rights Act through Congress. What issues killed him? Vietnam on the left, and civil rights on the right: social issues. He was never an economic populist anyway, but the last of the old school New Dealers.

[Radical Activist]

15. You can argue that about motives

but I don't believe any reasonable person can read the speeches of FDR and conclude that he was not appealing to the economic interests of the working class both in style and content. If FDR's message was not economic populism then economic populism does not exist.

[Julien Sorel]

20. Of course he was appealing to the interests

of the working class. That doesn't make him a "populist." He was running in an era of 25% unemployment. Anyone who didn't talk about putting people to work would have been nuts.

Part of the problem with these discussions is the terms have no definition. What's a "populist?" Well, it depends on the situation, it seems. Someone here claimed that Clinton was a populist. I don't think many people agree, but since the word has a slippery definition, anyone could be a populist. During FDR's era, Huey Long was considered the populist, not FDR. But whatever.

[Radical Activist]

21. Huey Long was considered a socialist

If someone used the kind of language today that Roosevelt used the Republicans would scream Class Warfare so loud their heads would explode.
All the same, I think we win by focusing on the economic principles that defined the Democratic Party when the winning New Deal coalition was formed. The DLC has advocated moving away from economic issues and "class warfare." Using that strategy has put us on a long loosing streak. We win without the DLC by being Democrats again.

[Julien Sorel]

22. Huey Long was the prototypical populist.

Without even going further in to it, I would bet if you did a Google search using the term "Huey Long populism" you would come up with enough reading to keep you busy for weeks.

Then New Deal coalition included the South. The South left. They stayed Democrats just as long as Democrats let them have their segregation; as soon as it was gone, so were they. Segregation was primarily a social, not economic, issue.


The DLC never advocated "moving away from economic issues." Their approach to economic issues is simply different than the one you would prefer. As I recall, the Democrats who ran for president before the DLC was around as a whipping boy didn't do so well. Shall we dredge up their names? Dukakis? Mondale? McGovern? All New Deal-style candidates. All losers. But not just losers: big losers. Huge losers. Losers by the biggest margins in history. What happened to that "populism?"

[Ken Burch]

23. Here's part of the problem, Julian...

A lot of people in the party would be ok with working with the DLC if it was willing to work with progressives as equals. But it isn't. You guys settle for nothing less but absolute control of the candidates and the platform and the convention(the Clinton era demonstrated this). You ask us to accept the abandonment of everything we believe in(the way Clinton abandoned all progressive ideas other than a very weak environmentalism and a timid, apologetic defense of reproductive choice.) In exchange for this, DLC Democrats are completely unwilling to give any ground on your part. You simply expect us to obey in exchange for your cooperation. Well, this year and 2002 AND 2000, the Democrats lost precisely because we DID do it your way.

All of the above factors explain the level of hostility and distrust
currently directed at the DLC.

[Julien Sorel]

27. First, who is "you guys?"

Second, the platform of the party is that way because it represents a compromise between what gives the party the best chance of winning on the one hand, and values on the other. Just as any political platform does, and has throughout history. Well, any political platform that is aimed at actually winning does, which I suppose eliminates the Greens and the Libertarians and the like.

I'm not sure what the "Clinton Era" was supposed to mean. Successful presidents have a lot of influence over a party's platform, and always have. Clinton learned the hard way: he tried being liberal and got pounded for it in public opinion polls and in the 94 elections; after that he announced the era of big government was over, and watched his approval ratings soar. Curiously, (or not), the 94 elections are somehow used as evidence of the "failure" of centrism here, when they actually represented segments of the public rejecting old-style liberalism in favor of conservatism.

As for losing in 2000 and 2002, The Democrats gained 4 seats in the Senate in 2000, 1 in the House, and won the popular vote in the presidential campaign. How is that something to be blamed for? It's just part of the mantra of this place, like 1994: The Democrats got whooped in 2000 because of the DLC. Both statements are false, but who cares about accuracy when you have an ax to grind?

Finally, I'd like to see what you think would have staved off defeat in 2002. Because of the far left, Americans don't trust Democrats on the issues of security and patriotism, and in every losing race I know of that year, those were the two central issues. What exactly should the Democrats -- I'm sorry, the DLC's puppets -- have done differently?

[Zhade]

29. You did happen to notice the prevalence of rightwing media then, yes?

Perhaps the public rejected liberalism because the media helped the Republicans make "liberal" a dirty word?

In the time of Lewinsky and Filegate bullshit rightwing attacks on Clinton, is it at all possible that the same media that lied about Clinton also lied about liberals in general, thus turning the American people away from something that was defined (wrongly) as useless, corrupt, and all the charges leveled at all liberals en toto thanks to guys like Richard Mellon Scaife?

[Julien Sorel]

30. A crash dive to the safe depths

of a conspiracy theory. "Is it at all possible." "Perhaps."


So, if there is this conspiracy that has poisoned the minds of the public against liberals, exactly how is running as a liberal going to lead to electoral success? It would seem not to add up.

[w4rma]

45. Remember that Roosevelt instituted broad reforms of the media once

in power. He created the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine and checks against media conglomeration. He, and the Democratic Congress at that time, did that because the media back then was run by the oligarchs, much like the media of today is run.

[Zhade]

74. Richard Mellon Scaife is a "conspiracy theory"?

The Filegate/Lewinsky/Travelgate attacks were "conspiracy theory"?

The attempt to bring down a sitting Democratic president over consensual sex acts was "conspiracy theory"?

What's next? Will you claim that the stolen 2000 election is "conspiracy theory"?

I'm very surprised to find you discounting the very real rightwing attacks on liberals and Dems in general and Clinton in particular. Since most DLC fanboys claim (wrongly) that the DLC "made" Clinton, I would have expected more anger at the rightwing noise machine that tried to destroy him.

[Ken Burch]

90. First, by "you guys" I meant the DLC and its rich white supporters

or those who, while not rich, foolishly identify with the interests of the rich even though they have nothing to gain by doing so.

Second, on the 2002 race, I would have done several things differently

1)I would not have focused on recruiting centrist-to-conservative millionaires as the U.S. Senate candidates that year. I would have tried to find candidates who could speak to working class voters with empathy and without condescension-something both moderate and "limosine liberal" Dems have had trouble with

2)(and related to 1) I would have stressed working class economic issues, even though this would have meant talking about class. Republicans have waged continuous class warfare on behalf of the wealthy, what has it gained Democrats to not wage it back on behalf on the workers?

3)When "liberalism" was attacked by the Republicans, I would have actually encouraged the candidates to vigorously defend it. Even if they weren't necessarily running as liberals, Democrats drew from variants of the tradition and always left themselves weaker when they allowed it to be attacked without response. Voters never trust or respect candidates who act as if their party's core values(and like it or not Julian, liberal values are the only core values the Democrats have that are worth defending) are shameful and to be discarded when inconvenient.

4)I would have given Jesse Jackson enough funds to actually get the nine million unregistered black voters registered and to the polls. If we had managed that, 2002 AND 2004 would have taken care of themselves.

5)I would have worked out "vote swap" arrangements with Greens and other minor parties(of the sort that sprang up spontaneously during the 2000 race between some Greens and some Democrats) and committed Dems to supporting electoral reform as a means of ending the whole toxic "spoiler" debate and giving the party sources of new ideas.

All of these would have done more to get out the base, and even you, Julian, will have to agree that Congressional and Senate races are won by rallying the base.

With these steps, we would have at least held our ground and probably gained much more.

[Radical Activist]

48. Yes, everyone was playing populist at the time

not just Long. If anyone used the kind of language on economic issues today that FDR used the DLC would shit a brick. Dennis Kucinich is proof of that.

Dukakis was anything but a populist.

If a Democrat would go to a small town in the South that was destroyed when their factory moved to Mexico and told them we were going to do something serious about NAFTA and the WTO exporting jobs, we would win. No matter how much the people in that town hate gays and abortions they would vote for the person who understands their needs and will actually do something about it. Half-assed proposals to change the tax code like Kerry made don't seriously address the issue. No DLC Democrat will do that because they represent the interests of the corporations that designed our current trade system. That is how we win without the DLC. The DLC has told us to ignore some of the biggest issues of our day that working people truly care about.

[Julien Sorel]

50. Wait a minute.

If a Democrat would go to a small town in the South that was destroyed when their factory moved to Mexico and told them we were going to do something serious about NAFTA and the WTO exporting jobs, we would win.

How many small towns in the South like this are there? Enough to make up for the double-digit losses the Democrats suffer down there? I don't hink so. Moreover, I seem to remember a story a few months ago of a town that had lost its major employer to outsourcing, and they were still supporting Bush.

[Radical Activist]

51. Millions of jobs lost. How many were in Ohio?

Yes it could have made a difference in the South, and more importantly in Ohio where we have lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. That issue alone would have won Ohio for us, and the election.

Of course those Southern towns are still voting for Bush. This election wasn't about economic populist issues. We didn't engage them on trade and outsourcing of jobs. Kerry making a rare comment now and then about changing the tax code to stop job loss does not engage people on this issue. Most people were probably never aware that he ever said anything about it. When we take other issues off the table we allow Republicans to make the election about gay marriage and abortion. That's the problem with the DLC approach.

[Julien Sorel]

63. Kerry did talk about outsourcing.

Again, the unemployment rate in the country is about 5.4%. In Ohio, as I recall, it's about 6%. Exactly how many people are out there who have actually lost jobs to outsourcing, who didn't replace them with jobs as good? Income is on the rise. It flat out can't be that many people. Of course, in the end, you are positing something that can't be proven or disproven. We know that the protectionist politicians, people like Gephardt, have gone no where on the national stage. We know that Mondale talked about jobs going overseas; he lost. Kerry talked about it, he lost. You're saying they should have talked even more about it; I believe it's a minor issue. Except for the small number of people who can hear the wolves at the door, people don't think about it much, except in the abstract, when they're sort of against it. But it sure hasn't won or lost any elections that I know of.

[IrateCitizen]

64. Can I move into your bubble, Julien???

Exactly how many people are out there who have actually lost jobs to outsourcing, who didn't replace them with jobs as good? Income is on the rise. It flat out can't be that many people.

Income is on the rise? In what regard? Are you breaking that down per income bracket? Are you using a mean or median value for your statistical analysis?

Let's say I'm in a room full of 20 people, and each of us makes $60,000 per year. In walks Bill Gates. So, if we evaluate the mean income, it goes from $60K to $1.76 Billion. However, if we evaluate the MEDIAN income, it remains at $60K. The median properly indicates that the true average income did not rise even as inequities in wealth did substantially.

Furthermore, it is a FACT that in instances where people lose manufacturing jobs and have to take service jobs to replace them, those new jobs pay an average of 60-65% of what their previous job did, often with reduced (or non-existent) benefits. Considering that OH is a state with a hard-hit manufacturing base, why on earth would we think that this phenomenon skipped them by?

Unemployment rates only count those actively seeking work. For people who have been out of work for an extended time and have given up on finding jobs -- or who have only been able to find menial, part-time work -- they are not counted in the unemployment average. While the unemployment rate may be deceptively (and falsely) low, the reality is that there is a vast increase in underemployed people out there.

Finally, wages have been stagnant (or declining) in this country for the lower 3 quintiles for the past 30 years, the lone exception being the late 1990's when the gains of the top quintile finally started to "trickle down" to the lower brackets. Yet, you consistently contend that wages are rising. I find this to be a fallacious argument, flying in the face of the facts.

You seem to repeatedly state some rather contentious propositions here, Julien. I think the least you could do is to provide some factual background to back them up.

[Julien Sorel]

66. The lower quintiles don't vote.

They never have. That's political reality, my friend. You can cherry pick for statistics trying to prove that these are unprosperous times, but that's about all you're doing.

By the way, the most recent income and wage info is here.

Personal income increased $61.7 billion, or 0.6 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $53.6 billion, or 0.6 percent, in October, according to the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $61.2 billion, or 0.7 percent. In September, personal income increased $19.1 billion, or 0.2 percent, DPI increased $14.0 billion,
or 0.2 percent, and PCE increased $51.4 billion, or 0.6 percent, based on revised estimates.

...

Private wage and salary disbursements increased $27.7 billion in October, compared with an increase of $22.1 billion in September. Goods-producing industries' payrolls increased $3.2
billion, compared with an increase of $3.5 billion; manufacturing payrolls decreased $1.1 billion, in contrast to an increase of $1.7 billion. Services-producing industries' payrolls increased $24.5
billion, compared with an increase of $18.6 billion. Government wage and salary disbursements increased $2.0 billion, compared with an increase of $2.2 billion.

[IrateCitizen]

67. So I take that to mean that you're using the "mean", rather than "median"?

Thanks for the clarification. It lends credibility to my argument.

Furthermore, the middle quintile is not "poor", nor is it representative of people who don't vote. Rather, it is representative of the working class in this country, many of whom DO vote.

These are prosperous times if you're in the top 20%, extraordinary times if you're in the top 2%. But for everyone else, it's either a wash or you're finding it harder to get by, given rising health care costs and such.

Enjoy your life in that bubble.

[Julien Sorel]

70. Median and mean income are up

from the data I can find. I'm not sure how that supports your argument, but then, I wasn't aware I was in some kind of "bubble," either, so what do I know. I always thought being in a "bubble" was akin to promulgating, as though they were facts, theories about what would and wouldn't win elections, totally unsupported by evidence. But again, what do I know.

[IrateCitizen]

71. Your information says nothing of the sort, Julien

Your data deals only in total aggregate income changes, from which one can only obtain a mean value. A median value would require this aggregate income to be distributed throughout the sample, taking the median as 1/2 above and 1/2 below. Your data provides nothing of this sort.

[Julien Sorel]

73. What can I say...

Debating you people is a waste of time. You have no facts of your own, and refuse to look for any (afraid of what you might find?) but whine for other people to produce them, then invent bullshit as a reply, or go off on irrelevant tangents to obscure reality.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

This is the most recent data on median income. It held stable from 2002 - 2003. Historically speaking, median income is near the all time high reached in the year 1999 (You know, those years after NAFTA and the WTO destroyed the economy). Income overall in 2004 is up quite a bit; it is reasonable to assume, then, that median and mean are also up. Even if median isn't up, but holds constant, the data demonstrate that these are prosperous times, and telling people they aren't when they can look at their wallets and purses and know otherwise hardly seems like the way to win elections.

Now, you can parse through this and find areas where income isn't on the rise (and I have no doubt you will try to do this, given your record). And you could do the exact same thing in 1999, and 1988, or any other year in the history of this country. A rising tide doesn't lift all boats equally, contrary to the maxim.

By the way, I used to teach economics, so the lesson on "mean" and "median," while good for a laugh, was hardly needed.

[Ken Burch]

87. If your analysis was correct, there'd be no point in the Dems even trying

You can't shape a Democratic message to appeal to people who hate the poor and who won in the 1980's economy. People like that will always be right wing on everything.

And, no Clinton didn't really try to be liberal before 1994. He started moving to the right as soon as he was elected. He left the Haitian refugees to be beaten to death by the Tonton Macoutes because letting them would've made a few Florida racists angry. He refused to defend Lani Gunier, when she was RIGHT about racial justice and electoral reform. He sold out on gays in the military, when the polls showed the public supported it. His major economic idea was pushing free trade through when free trade has always been strictly for the benefit of the enemies of progressive politics and working people in this country. He made no effort to present a positive and progressive alternative to the welfare status quo(jobs programs, for example)and allowed that issue to be defined strictly by Ruch and Newt. And Hillary wouldn't even allow single payer health care to be considered.

Even on abortion, he sold out by backing parental notification laws, which, let's face it, were about the idea that you could stop Darlene Mae from getting it on if she knew Daddy would find out and beat the tar out of her when she got in trouble.

Cliton never defended the poor, never seriously stood up to the militarists, never backed the unions. This is the man you call a liberal.

Then, when the '94 congressional campaign took place, most of the seats that were lost were lost by Dems running to Clinton's right and bragging how much they loved executions. Big liberals they were.

Clinton and the DLC further compounded the problems they caused by refusing to campaign for a Democratic congress in 1996, when the anti-Gingrich backlash should have guaranteed massive Republican losses.

2000 was a failure given that it should have gone without saying that the Democratic candidate should have been able to beat Dubya in a landslide, considering that Dubya was a total doofus.

And 2002 was a failure because the party used the DLC strategy of not confronting Republicans on issues and not campaigning aggressively or passionately. There was no other explanation or excuse for the Democrats as the out party losing seats in the off year Congressional elections.

[Radical Activist]

65. What planet do you live on?

New York? California?
In the past two years I have lived in Ohio and two Southern states. I have seen entire towns destroyed when the one major factory in town was shut down. Real wages for the average worker have dropped. I have met many families where someone had a good union job but now they're on welfare and wal-mart. I've been to the small towns where half the people are on welfare after the factory moved to Mexico, there are many of them. Yes, millions are unemployed. The promise of new job growth due to NAFTA and the WTO was a lie because the new jobs were lower paying with fewer benefits. They were McDonalds and Wal-Mart jobs, not good paying union jobs with benefits. Now the problem is reaching the upper-middle class where computer programmers are seeing their jobs sent to India.

That is the reality. The fact that you are unaware of that reality is probably representative of the urban DLC leaders who are clueless about what is going on in the midwest and south and are thus clueless about how to win elections in those areas.

Yes, there are enough towns in Ohio that have been hurt or destroyed by NAFTA and the WTO to change the outcome of the election. I have been to those towns. Yes, there are millions of people who remember what it was like when they had a job good enough to support a family on.

As I said, talking about changing the tax code once in a while is not a serious discussion of the issue. Kerry rarely brought it up and didn't propose anything that would have changed what is happening. You may think this is an abstract issue, but it isn't to millions of Americans who are not having their most important issue addressed by either major party candidate.

And before you use Clinton as an example remember that in '92 he promised not to sign NAFTA until changes were made to protect labor and environmental. Yes he backed out of his promise and signed it without changes. Maybe Clinton selling out the most organized constituency in the party had something to do with Democratic losses in '94. Of course you won't read that analysis in the corporate media because it is owned by the same companies that own the DLC.

[Julien Sorel]

68. I posted economic data above.

You have posted your own observations, and a conspiracy theory, which would tend to vitiate your value as an observer.

[Radical Activist]

69. What conspiracy theory?

and what economic data? You've just run out of arguments.

The fact that the same corporations that own the media are contributing to the DLC and it's candidates is not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact you can verify anytime you like by visiting opensecrets.org. Get a grip.

[Julien Sorel]

72. I've run out of arguments?

Holy Toledo.

Of course you won't read that analysis in the corporate media because it is owned by the same companies that own the DLC.

The "corporate media' is "owned by the same companies that own the DLC."

You are telling me you don't mean to imply some kind of nefarious connection here?

As to "arguments," I haven't seen one thing in this thread that tells me "populism" has ever worked in this country when the economy is relatively healthy. We have one fellow claiming the economy isn't healthy, but he has no real data demonstrating that, and now you talking about corporations "owning the DLC and the media," but denying you mean to imply some conspiracy.

I'm still waiting for my original question to be answered: has populism, as a movement, ever won an election in this country during times of prosperity? The answer would appear to be no, judging by some of the bizarre replies. Huey Long wasn't a populist, but FDR was (leaving out the Depression as a motivator, of course) claims one person. LBJ was a populist claims another. Neither was considered a populist during his time, and neither fits the textbook definition of a populist, but hey, somebody needed a successful populist, and out they flew. There are, according to someone else, "millions of people" who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and haven't replaced them with jobs as good. Where are these people in the economic data? Or is their absence some kind of manipulation by the corporatists, too?

It's silly and dishonest and absolutely par for the course of this place. Out of arguments? Right.

[lojasmo]

79. The "populace" isn't currently prosperous, so....

your original question "has populism, as a movement, ever won an election in this country during times of prosperity?" is a straw man, and needs not be addressed.

[Geek_Girl]

94. I find it odd that the Edwards had

a strong populist message during the primaries and people in the south responded to that. When he was picked as Kerry's running mate Kerry's numbers went up. But it seemed once he was put on the ticket that message stopped and Kerry's numbers went down. I personally know Bush supporters that were thinking about voting for Kerry just because of Edwards populist message, but that message was stifled through out the campaign and in the end they could not see any difference from Bush and Kerry on economic issues so they voted for Bush.

I think if democrats want to win in the south and the Midwest they need to turn back to their democratic roots and have a strong populist message. When Clinton ran in '92 I he had a populist message that appealed to southern voters and that helped him win.

[IrateCitizen]

53. This has broader appeal than you realize, Julien...

Many conservatives I met in the military who were reasonably well-informed are against NAFTA/WTO.

People in the town you mentioned who lost their jobs voted for Bush because Kerry didn't offer a clear alternative. I would bet you that if Kerry came out and clearly said that NAFTA wasn't working, and that he was going to pull the US out, and that he was going to pull the US out of the WTO until these kinds of issues are addressed, he would have won a lot of their votes.

When Kerry talked in platitudes and vagaries, he might as well have said nothing to these folks. He lost their attention from the word, "go".

[w4rma]

43. President Roosevelt First Inaugural Address - March 4, 1933

"The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
http://www.multied.com/documents/Roosevelt.html

Looks like economic populism to me.

[Radical Activist]

49. Can you imagine anyone saying that today?

Everyone is too afraid of being accused of class warfare.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I think so

As he says below, LBJ, LBJ declared the war on poverty in a time of prosperity. I personally think we need to work with all the wings of the party together.

[salin]

8. Whose prosperity?

Been to hard pressed urban neighborhoods? Been to ransacked rural areas? How about all those record breaking months of forclosures and bankruptcies? For many this as a time of prosperity is an "urban legend."

[ulysses]

9. for some, those neighborhoods, areas and bankruptcies

are urban legends.

[JohnKleeb]

10. well they ain't theres a poor neighborhood near where I went to middle

school.

[Zhade]

28. Since this isn't one of those times, why is that relevant?

Honestly, I don't understand your comment.

[Julien Sorel]

31. You "don't understand."

Perhaps it is possible that the unemployment rate of 5.4% is about the historical average. Perhaps it is possible personal income is on the rise. Those are two rather common measurements of prosperity. Is there some other we should be considering, or do you understand it now?

[xchrom]

33. i understand crap when i read it.

you don't hold the objective high ground here.
don't propose that someone else describe huey long as a populist without doing your own damn google.

perhaps the middle class isn't being squeezed out of existence -- but then why is this a lack luster christmas retail season?

your notion that democrats didn't go backwards from clinton on is laughable -- hello? we lost control of the senate and not because moderate/conservative democrats were blindingly bright for the short time they controlled it.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

91. Deleted message? all I can say is

either 1)RIGHT ON, BROTHER! or
2)HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING SO VULGAR AND JUVENILE!

..depending, of course, on exactly what the %!@&#@ the son of a
#*&^@+!! said.

[Zhade]

75. You actually believe we're in good economic health in this country?

Are you kidding me? Did I misinterpret what you said?

[Protagoras]

46. Are we in a time of economic prosperity?

The homeless people and jobless people I see very day don't seem to think so.

Or do we believe the Bushco jobless, homeless, and economic numbers?

[Zhade]

76. "Or do we believe the Bushco jobless, homeless, and economic numbers?"

Unfortunately, it appears some do - and that adds to the burden of helping those who are in the dire straits that some refuse to see.

It's bad enough to have Republicans lying and clouding the issue, but to have to fight fellow Dems' (?) ignorance of the suffering going on is terrible. It's the same kind of willing blindness that's getting innocents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[eridani]

86. What 'prosperity,' white boy?

Record levels of homelessness, loss of access to health care, McJobs instead of real jobs--this is reality for a lot of people. They are far less likely to vote because neither major party wants to do anything about their situations.

[Geek_Girl]

88. No that's not right

Dems have to be more like Republicans that's the answer and ban gay marriage don't you know anything.<sarcasm>

[MercutioATC]

3. I voted for option #3 even though it had nothing to do with your question.

Dean (or some other leader able to motivate large groups of people) has to take a leadership role.

In Dean's case, whether it be DFA or the DNC (a better choice due to its established base) I feel he has to take a leadership role in changing the party.

[zeemike]

5. My answer was 3 but I voted 5

Ranked ballots and runoff is the way to return to democracy but it is only a dream, the system will never allow it.

[greenohio]

98. Are you saying we need a ranked ballot on DU?

Great idea.

[ulysses]

7. what, are you crazy?

We can't win without the DLC! They've got this stuff down. They understand the deepest needs of the electorate and how to assuage those needs. Not like that crazy Dean, who's really a moderate, except when he's not, so stop saying that!

[kodi]

11. sun shine. we're talking process here. transparency is essential

we had better first discuss the lay of the land

the dlc has power because of the things they do behind the scene, making deals for cash donations, influencing legislators with fruitful contacts in the private sector, private/private sector good-old-boy networking. all of these are a part of the architecture that is their power base.

they peddle influence.

no grass roots movement can fill the vacuum if the dlc disappears. there will still be those in the private sector who want to influence the way government does its business.

until a grass roots movement can fill the power gap at the highest places of decision making, it will always be rolled back by insiders.

taking the leadership from the dlc types is not simply a matter of changing rail road conductors on the train of freedom. the only way a grass roots movement can truly succeed is to alter the way government itself does business. in opposition is institutional inertia, and active counterattacks by those who's power and influence is threatened.

the dem rank and file are going to have to trust an individual who will lead them against the current leadership. it will take a lot of money, and the ability to articulate the message that we need to go in a different direction as democrats.

do i think dr dean can do it? yeap. but i think al gore can do it better. because, let's face it, al gore is a lot more progressive and liked than dr dean.

[salin]

12. None of the above...

call for a mutual moratorium (they stop attacking us/progressives, and visa versa) and we go back to the big tent and each pull in votes and monies for the cause of voting in democrats and voting out republicans.

[JohnKleeb]

13. Yeah that would be fine

A big tent yes, I think both sides act obnoxious, I think From and the DLC top brass is just as wrong to lump all progressive dems in to one batch as some are to do the DLC.

[Guaranteed]

16. Personally, I think the way to win is to just go around telling

people that the neo-cons are right about everything.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. LOL

Good answer!

[Kenneth ken]

17. yes

Simply put, the best way to win is without the DLC.

I will never understand why any progressive embraces the COINTELPRO wing of the GOP.

[Ken Burch]

18. Several good ideas here, but a holistic, integrated approach needed

sorry for the "fifty cent words", but I'm just saying we need to tie the populism, the electoral reform and the return to grass roots control of the party together.

Continued dominance by the DLC means there will be continued growth of the Greens or other parties, which will always make it harder for Dems to win before electoral reform is achieved.

Another factor is that the Democrats need to keep doing more to make young voters welcome. For a very long time, the Dems did everything possible to drive youth away(couldn't forgive them for McGovern, I guess), and this is one of the main reasons why the GOP grew in the late 1970's and 1980's.

[LimpingLib]

19. We were winning with the DLC? I must have missed that election.

They have fucked us plenty of times.

Infact , I dont see how we can win again till we manage to put progressive issues on the table.

Will it happen? Considering the medias "premier liberal magazine" the New Republic and its 24/7 noise machine is constantly telling the nation where we Democrats go wrong (hint hint Peter Beinhart just said today that his 3 favorite Democrats were Liebermann , Biden , and Holbroke), we are sure to get more DLC compatible candidates in issue positions.Combine the medias favorite "leading liberals" with the corperate donations and you can tell we are in for an uphill fight. Most of our incumbants are DLCish especially high office holders.

This Beinhart is unreal.Listen to the C-SPAN interview. You had conservatives calling up yelling at him for being no different from the Republicans lol.There were self described "Christian patriots" who said they couldnt stand either party and when the conservative "Christian Patriot" was asked who he voted for by the C-SPAN host the caller said "I didnt vote this time because Nader had no chance but I voted for him in 2000".

Beinhart and the Democratic party is so corrupt and rotton that conservatives right wing cross over voters (they DO exist lol) skip Democrats in disgust and go straight to Nader UNLESS he is undermined.

That was the funny part.

The part of the show that had me pissed to no end was the other right wing types (the Hannity , O Reilly types), who called in just trashing the party as a bunch of socalist nuts who are a danger to the free world in our naive weakness.They sounded just like Hannity and the right wing 24/7 noise machine. GUESS WHAT that fuckin POS Beinhart said after they got off the line. "These are the types of Republicans we Democrats need to reach out too"!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He gets calls from disgruntled Conservatives and "Christian Patriots" who vote for Nader (2000) in disgust at BOTH partys war mongering (among many other issues Im sure , but wars we all they were talking today)and he simply argues with them THEN he gets calls from partisan GOP jerks making canned attacks on progressive values (and the "modern Democratic partys pink panty waistes" or something like that ) and Beinhart has the audacity to say that we need to be reaching out to the Hannity-esque anti cvil liberty Pro war callers????

Fuck, I cant stand this crap anymore.

Beinhart and the DLC have to be GOP moles. They know if we move center (ie piss on workers, bomb more nations , burn the bill of rights,etc.) we will just loose more elections pissing off our base and EVEN WORSE (and this is clearly what Beinhart, DLC , etc. does)it will basically be an admission to the voters that by us moderating that our issue positions are wrong and the GOP is the correct party with all the correct issues and policys.DLC and Beinhart want us to loose more elections. Im positive of it.

Ive had it folks.

[LoZoccolo]

35. I have pictures, as a matter of fact!

[IrateCitizen]

37. Are there also pics of crushing House and Senate losses? (nt)

[lastliberalintexas]

82. Not to mention the loss of several

state houses, governors' mansions and untold local races/officials. Yep, the 90s were a lovely period of Democratic ascendancy.

[LimpingLib]

89. Both got around 42% of the vote. Anyway............

........ 1984 and 1992 were very different years.

In 1992 the office was ours for the taking. Bush got 37% of the vote , the lowest of any incumbant ever.

Both Gore and Kerry got more votes than Clinton did in his best year. Clintons average percentage of the vote was the same as Dukakis.

The difference was circumstances.

[ShaneGR]

55. The DLC won in 92, 96, & 2000

The the pendulem turned.

[IrateCitizen]

58. Seems to me the pendulum turned in 1994...

Wasn't that the year that we lost the House and Senate, and have been unable to gain it back since, outside of one Republican Senator going Independent?

It was Bill Clinton and his incredible charisma, not the DLC, that won in 1992 and 1996. In fact, Clinton ran a centrist populist campaign in 1992, and faced an inept opponent doomed to lose from the start in 1996. Nor did he win a majority in either of these contests.

As for 2000, the very fact that the election was so close and able to be stolen was largely a failing of the Gore campaign, IMHO.

[LoZoccolo]

59. All I've heard about 1994...

...has to do with Rush Limbaugh, gay and lesbian people in the military, and nasty rumors about universal health care.

[IrateCitizen]

60. And I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with...

... the failure of the sitting Democratic President to stand up for what he supposedly believed in on those issues?

I've always been a believer that Clinton should have taken the same tactic on gays in the military that Truman did on integrating the forces -- do it by executive order, and then publicly state that this is the policy and that anyone who tries to subvert the policy will be subject to court martial.

On the health care plan, the problem was that it was overly complex due to a desire to allow the insurance companies to keep their hands in the cookie jar.

I'm a big believer that the surest way to respect is to stand up and fight for what you believe, regardless of whether or not it is popular at the time. This is what got people like Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold votes from all over the political spectrum. It's hard to respect someone who's willing to sell out their beliefs when the suddenly look "unpopular".

But hey, that's just my opinion. Maybe twisting in the political wind whichever way the breeze blows is the true key to victory, in which case I'll abandon a desire for politicians with backbone and convictions.

[Selatius]

24. I say it's time to democratize the Democratic Party itself

The party should not be run by the "good ole boys' network" any longer. It should be run from the ground-up the way any democratic organization should. Why should we allow an organization such as the DLC or any politician for that matter buoyed by corporate cash to exist inside the party? Because the ones with the money say they should?

Every Democrat should have a say in the affairs of the party. No one should have anymore influence than any other person. I've said it repeatedly, but the size of one's wallet should not decide one's clout in this arena. Why should they always have to vote for the corporatists when their interests collide with the interests of the working men and women of America?

It is not their party. It's ours. We're the ones that had to do the foot-work in the last election. We should be able to run the party as people run a democracy. Preferably, I'd want that things operate as close to a direct democracy as humanly possible where leaders could be subject to recall if they disobey the mandate given to them.

[Ken Burch]

25. Yes, Yes, Yes...

And that means standing up to the DLC, who always reject the idea that the Democratic party should actually BE "democratic".

[Crunchy Frog]

26. None of the above.

Talk about false dichotomy, or quintotomy.

[quaker bill]

32. I didn't see "run on core democratic values" so I took a pass.

But none the less, that would be the obvious and correct answer.

The message is as important as the messenger. Selecting the messenger with the best resume then formulating a message that will offend as few as possible does not work.

Formulating a message that is true and principled and placing it in the hands of someone that can deliver it with passion and conviction is a far better choice. It is markedly better even when it irritates some people.

[IrateCitizen]

38. Absolutely! See: Wellstone, Paul; and Feingold, Russ.

Feingold won WI by a much larger margin than Kerry this year. Is it because he was more "centrist" in a "heartland" state? Not at all. It's because he, like Wellstone, takes principled stands and sticks to them. Even if people don't agree with him, they still respect the hell out of him.

It all reminds me of another WI Senator, Robert LaFollette, when giving his initial speech for his re-election campaign in 1920. He started out by saying that many had advised him to move away from his vote against US entry into WWI. He then pounded his fist on the lectern and thundered, "I would not change my vote for any man, living or dead!" After his speech, an opponent of LaFollette's was seen in the back of the hall, with tears streaming down his cheeks. He said to a nearby reporter, "You know, I can't stand the man -- but my God, what guts he has!"

[ulTRAX]

52. that's because

There are no core Democratic values. The Party is even AWOL on promoting democracy itself.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Move out from under Ronald Reagan's shadow...

I'm certain that not everyone will agree with me on this, but the political climate in the United States is STILL largely influenced by the legacy of Ronald Reagan. And the DLC represents the faction of the Democratic Party that is most comfortable with continuing this trend.

Reagan's long shadow over the political scene is best seen in the way that market fundamentalism is taken largely by BOTH political parties as an unchallengable fact. The reason that Bill Clinton is labelled by many on the left (including myself) as "the best Republican President we ever had" is because he embraced the philosophy of free-market fundamentalism on behalf of the Democrats. While he wasn't quite as ruthless about it as many on the right, and did push for some modest measures that increased quality of life in lower income brackets, the fact remains that he did by and large endorse the overarching philosophy of Ronald Reagan -- that government involvement in the marketplace should be minimized, and that it should be left to its own devices.

In a sense, this was a repudiation of the legacy of FDR and the New Deal -- the idea that government MUST be involved in the marketplace in order to provide a safety net for citizens and to stop the worst excesses of capitalism. As John Maynard Keynes said when he set out to produce his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), his goal was to save capitalism from itself. This line was further advanced and refined by figures like John Kenneth Galbraith in his important treatise, The Affluent Society (1957). The shift to the adoption of monetarist policies like those advocated by Milton Friedman indicated a newfound willingness to allow capitalism to eat itself once again. The policies promoted by the DLC have done little to recognize not only the value, but the necessity of government intervention in the marketplace -- and instead have been aimed toward complicity with the right's goal of reducing government intervention and allowing the market's worst features to rise to the surface (i.e. the rising wealth gap, the erosion of the middle class, job outsourcing, etc.). Of course, "free-market" capitalism was fine in the time of Jefferson, when businesses were small and numerous -- but in the modern-day workplace of mammoth transnational corporations, it is a recipe for disaster.

IMHO, the grassroots Democrats need to repudiate this message. We also need to advocate government involvement in the marketplace in a way that doesn't imply people being dependent on the government, but rather in a way that shows that the government will stick up for and reward those who work hard and live by the rules, as opposed to allowing their job to be shipped to China just so CEO's and shareholders can make a few extra bucks.

Of course, this kind of path will produce an irreparable schism within the Democratic Party. The DLCers will attempt to oppose such an effort at every turn. But, unless we really want to repudiate the excesses of the modern marketplace, this is a chance we have to take. One thing that should be coming clear is that the narrowing of differences between Democrats and Republicans on economic matters is not helping Democrats, because it signals to the electorate that the real ideas are on the other side, and that our side is simply interested in massaging those ideas rather than providing a true alternative.

[bemildred]

36. Best way to win: without the DLC. nt

[Cheswick2.0]

40. I agree

check out this poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430393

[bemildred]

83. Thanks, I voted for infiltrate ... nt

[greenohio]

97. Does that include donating money to em?

Cause funding evil doesn't work for me.

[bemildred]

102. Never. nt

[bemildred]

84. .

[Finding Rawls]

57. agreed

But do we have to vilify them? How about we just ignore them? Whatever votes they pull in for the party, fine. Let's just make sure that they aren't the "face" of the Democratic Party.

[Zhade]

77. I'd be fine with ignoring them.

Unfortunately, they hold a lot of power due to their corporate funding, and they insist on denigrating and attacking liberals and progressives like Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich.

I mean, if they merely disagreed with these two examples, hey, that's what America's about, the right to disagree. But when they go out of their way to compare Kucinich to Rumsfeld (which happened) or call Moore "un-American" (which happened), then AFAIC they've declared war, and just as it is with Republicans, one must fight back when wrongfully attacked.

Do I wish I didn't feel the need to attack the DLC? Yes! I have no issue with moderates - I AM one. But their damaging influence on the Dems, plus their belligerent attitude of (false) entitlement and arrogance make that quite difficult.

And yet, honest discussion can happen. I've had civilized exchanges with Wyldwolf before. If only some of his compatriots could do the same as he has. Not that he's perfect, but it was nice to actually have an exchange with him that didn't just involve cries of "far leftie!" and "Vichy Dem!" from both sides.

[lojasmo]

80. You stole my answer! N/T

[bemildred]

85. Great minds think alike.

And so do word freaks.

[greenohio]

101. Think small tent. This big tent garbage is for losers.

Once we get rid of Feinstien, Dodd, Landreiu, Rendell, Kerry and the gang...then we will be on top of the world.

[bemildred]

103. I don't care about the "tent".

You have to have some goals, some principles, some integrity,
and some other political purpose than retaining the trappings
of power. You have to have a better message than "we're not the
Republicans" or "we won't screw you as fast as the Republicans
will". I'm not interested in "getting rid" of anybody. People
don't get "expelled" from political parties, they leave or lose
interest.

[Forkboy]

41. Isn't satire supposed to be funny?

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

42. Not if it's "gallows humor".

Then there's that level of dread underneath it, such as in this subtle creation of mine.

[Forkboy]

47. heh...you got me there

[Zhade]

78. I must admit that the "Free Mumia!" choice made me giggle.

Of course, I agree with looking at his case, and enjoy hearing him speak on KPFK (and on Immortal Techinque's Revolutionary Vol. 2, a *ahem* revolutionary album).

[ShaneGR]

54. I believe freeing cop killers will win for us in 06 & 08

Sure thing@!

[ulysses]

81. when we can gather three Mumia folks on DU

we'll send them your way.

[demokatgurrl]

56. So I take it this poll is entirely hypothetical????? n/t

[John_H]

61. Advocating "kicking out" the DLC is exactly like

Grant discharging all non-abilitionist union soldiers just as the Stonewall Jackson lauched an all out charge.

We need every dem fundraiser, voter, activist, and organizer. Not to mention the fact that, like it or not, moderates and conservative make up a significant proportion of the party. I have no idea how old you are but that fact is as old as the party.

[greenohio]

96. But the DLC killed Kennedy. Don't you read the blogs?

[ChiciB1]

62. Chiming In...

Clinton knew how to "play the game" and did it superbly!! That's why the Repukes HATED him so much. He out-gamed them!

For what it's worth, I agree with Kodi, Ken Burch & Selatius and have long felt the DLC was far too CONSERVATIVE for me. We need to be DEMOCRATS only, not "specialized" Democrats!

If we stand firm and quit letting the Right Wingers make the word LIBERAL into some kind Nazi love fest, then we might have a chance to LIBERATE ourselves. I have 2 bumper stickers on my car that say one word and one word only.... LIBERAL! You should see how some people cringe! It's total IGNORANCE! I just tell them to get out the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

I feel most "true" Democrats ARE liberals, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in responsibility and want to let it "all hang out!" So we tried some policies that didn't work, at least we're BIG enough to admit it. The Repukes have made a mess of things and our state of affairs are in WORSE condition than when any Democrat was in control.

But what we have to put down is the Theocracy we have now become. I say make that the dirty little word!! It's not going to take very long for those rural idiots who voted for the Repukes to see how it has affected their pocketbook. When they don't have food to put on the table, maybe then they'll see things differently. Trickle down... ain't happening and yes, Armageddon IS coming. Just not the RELIGIOUS one!

So I say, Tongue In Cheek... It's The Economy Stupid! Things tend to run in cycles, but I remain a Liberal Democrat and have written to Congress many times telling them that I won't donate to their campaign until they start getting some "shit in their necks!"

[CreekDog]

92. That poll is so bogus, I couldn't find a decent answer to choose

Maybe Dean could have won, but I would bet that it's because he had a smarter campaign organization and was able to straight talk issues pretty well.

But the recipes in the poll that begun this thread (and the responses). All I gotta say is this:

You all smoking more crack than Whitney and Bobby!

Oh sure, Kucinich would have pulled up our poll numbers, surely!

I imagine the Republican do better each time they dump on their moderates --I don't think so!

We have to win with the DLC on board and all the other Dems, but in fact, we have to go beyond that, and not only convince the DLC, but a whole bunch of Republicans and conservative Independents too (not just the liberal indies).

You win by expanding the tent, not closing the door and taking out a whole bunch of poles.

[greenohio]

93. We need to be bitterly divided to win. Can't you see that?

Great Post. Ahhh the Hate DLC engine here rolls on and on. Some cling to this belief that if we demonize Kerry, Feinstein, Dodd and Rendel that we can win again.

[greenohio]

95. We need to all donate money to the DLC.

Like people on the threads are promoting. This way we will infiltrate them and weaken their power.

[AntiCoup2K4]

99. What's up with the DLC ops doing standup routines today?

You guys are slightly funnier than your bosses From & Marshall, but I wouldn't consider it as a career option.

[greenohio]

100. That is probably the nicest post anybody ever said about the DLCer's

Wow. Maybe we can all come together.

:grouphug:

[Walt Starr]

104. Listen to everyting the DLC says, then do the opposite

We'd win every election hands down!

[UpsideDownFlag]

105. oh, for goodness sakes. nt

on second thought, why am i even bothering to kick this?

[Forkboy]

106. Because it's fun to expose stupidity

:)

[UpsideDownFlag]

107. i suppose so. nt