why do DLC apologists want it both ways?

[Lerkfish]

First, they say that unless we shift rightward we will have no influence. Then, they say we had to compromise to achieve influence on filibusters and other issues.
Then, they say, stop complaining about appeasement, its the only way to power.

um....ok.


then, when the recess appt. occurs, and some of us say: see how little the compromise afforded us?

to which they say.....wait for it....

whaddya expect? its not like democrats have power anyhow or could influence the republicans....


so, which is it, They can influence if they capitulate, or even with capitulation there is no influence?


I'm a little confused here.

[Mass]

1. I'm not sure what you dont follow.

They seem coherent. Wrong, but coherent.

[Lerkfish]

4. true.

I guess i should instead say " I don't understand why speaking out of both sides of their mouth doesn't snap their tongues off at the root"

or something like that.

to be honest, I actually agree with them NOW. I agree with them today, when they say nothing was going to forestall this.
But I disagree with their earlier stance that we need to trust appeasement and compromise to forestall this.

so, I think they may be wising up:

[mike_c]

2. raw selfishness, greed, and addiction to power....

The same motives that get republicans all hot and sweaty. The DLC and the corporatist wing of the democratic party has little interest in the collective good except when that is congruent with their own self-interests.

[wtbymark]

6. yeup! DLC = corperate whores w/democrat clothing (nt)

[HereSince1628]

3. DLC'ers want it EVERYway, triangulation is in their bones

Don't expect them to be different.

[smartvoter]

5. I disagree with them -- our unwillingness to stand up gets us

nowhere -- but I do see their position as making sense.

I don't agree with it at all, and think it's clear that their way doesn't work, but there is method there.

I guess I'm not quite getting where the confusion is...

[Lerkfish]

7. ok...here, I'll try again...

I'm confused why they predict results with with capitulation, claiming it is the only way to influence.

Then, when it fails miserably, they announce there was no way to influence anyhow.

those two statements are contradictory.

First, they adopt a strategy, and not JUST a strategy, they tell us its the ONLY working strategy.
Then, when it fails, they claim NO strategy would succeed.

I'm not confused so much as pointing out their contradictory logic.

[HereSince1628]

9. If they only know one tactic and it fails, why wouldn't they say

there is no way to influence anyhow?

That point of view protects their belief system, and at the same time relieves them from responsibility for the way things turn out.

[Lerkfish]

10. precisely. you got my point.

thanks.

the buck does not stop at the DLC desk.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

8. Shift rightward?

No. Sorry. The vast majority of the DLC arte not asking for a "rightward shift". They're just asking their Green-leaning brethren not to ruin the electability of Democrats around the country by buying into Republican's framing.

For example:

GOP: "We're Christian. You're not."

GREENers: "You Christian Taliban fundies are ruining the country."

DLC: "Actually, most Democrats are Christian. Where's your Christian charity, my GOP friend?"

GREENers: "Shut UP you GOP-liter! Trying to run the country using the Bible is a disaster."

GOP: "See? We're on the God's side. You're not."

Or:

GOP: "We support the troops. You don't."

GREENers: "Well, if you can stop them from committing WAR CRIMES, I might be supportive."

DLC: <sigh>

GREENers: "Can I quote you a passage from World Workers Daily and a Jihadist website about what's going on in Iraq? Our soldiers have been using Iraqis for target practice. It says it right there!"


I could go on. It has nothing to do with "moving to the right"

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lerkfish]

11. thanks. So, you're saying conservative democrats

take responsibility when their admonitions fail?

sorry, don't see it happening, and i don't see it in your post, either.
you're just continuing to rip on "green" democrats instead of admitting that appeasement has not worked.

good luck with that.

[expatriot]

16. appeasement?

For one, some DLCers probably sincerely believe in a middle of the road ideology for example, on public education:

Progressives believe that one of the foundations of a free society is the public education system and that any snakeoil scheme to create an alternative to it is just another scheme to undermine the public school system and the entire public sector.

The DLC, on its position papers, says that they support some of the basic ideas behind school choice, even private charter schools, etc. but that it needs to be well-regulated by the government AND they knock Bush extensively on not funding his educational goals (i.e. NCLB).

Now, is it not possible for someone to hold the second belief sincerely? And should these people be disenfranchised from the Democratic Party? Would you rather they joined the Republicans? Their political ideology would not fit that of the Republican base either.

I have to go now. Respond later.

[Lerkfish]

18. I am not asking DLCers to shift left.

they are asking everyone else to shift right.

yet you make it sound like progressives are the aggressors in this disagreement.

In that, i disagree.

We are being told, quite firmly, by the DLC that as long as we remain the progressive party, we will be unelectable. ONLY by shifting in their "centrist" (read rightist) position, can we hope to win elections, have influence, etc.

Personally, I have no problem with centrist democrats. Why do they insist on telling ME to change? why do they tell ME to forget about rights for gays? Why do they tell ME to abandon abortion rights?

sorry, I have NEVER asked a DLCer to change spots, I've only told them their strategy will not work...and it has not, has it?

[expatriot]

30. Well, I think a DLCer would say the same thing

"I have never asked a progressive to change spots, I've only told them their strategy will not work."

Listen, the only thing I am saying is that if we want to make the party more progressive then the only way we can do that is if we get our leader's attentions.... by electing progressive candidates in the primaries, local PC's and delegates to state and national conventions, we can do this. All this sectarian leftist bullshit will not help.

[Lerkfish]

32. "If you want a leftist party methinks perhaps you should look elsewhere"

yup, no one is telling me to change spots.....


:think:

[expatriot]

38. deletted for the sake of group hugs

:grouphug:

[Lerkfish]

41. okeydoke

:grouphug:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

17. You're welcome.

But no, I'm not saying "conservative Democrats take responsibility when their admonitions fail". I'm saying that strong leftist Democrats don't follow DLC admonitions, and by doing so have handed Republicans victory in many places of the country where they could have won.

Green leaning Dems don't follow DLC advice because they despise the organization - I think this is as obvious as saying the sky is blue. But just because you despise people doesn't mean they're wrong. It isn't appeasement to treat your opponents civilly, while making cogent, persuasive arguments. But if you insist on trying to persuade independent voters by printing a bunch of photoshops of Bush in a Tutu, then get used to losing.

I don't expect any luck in persuading you. I can see you're someone who prefers your happy filter to harsh reality. But I thought at least you deserved an honest answer, since you asked for one.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lerkfish]

20. you've not taken responsibility at all.

you're blaming leftists democrats for the failure of your strategies. Was appeasement a leftist strategy? was not responding to swift boat veterans a leftist strategy? Was Kerry's 24 hour capitulation a leftist strategy/

can you please point out what leftists strategies have been employed?
As far as I can tell, all the strategies adopted have been centrist, DLC ones, with notable exceptions of Conyers, Boxer, et al.

if you can't see that, then perhaps further discussion is moot.

[expatriot]

26. if you want "leftist strategy" you won't find it in the democratic party

We are not a "leftist" party. I am a leftist at heart and will work to keep the tilt of the party leftward all through my days but if you want a leftist party methinks perhaps you should look elsewhere.

Here are four which I belonged to or was closely affiliated with prior to joining the Democratic Party. I have not lost any of my ideals (social justice, equality, etc.) since belonging to any of these groups - just my strategy.

the SWP - http://www.themilitant.com/
the ISO -http://www.internationalsocialist.org/
the CPUSA - http://www.cpusa.org/
the Green PArty http://www.gp.org/

[Lerkfish]

31. "f you want a leftist party methinks perhaps you should look elsewhere"

roger.

notice how no progessives have told you to leave the party.....hmmmm?

[expatriot]

34. funny, i AM a progressive who believes very strongly that DLC ideas are

very wrong for the Democratic Party, but I am not going to sit here in silence when people say things like the DLC does not belong in the Democratic Party or that the DLC are not real Democrats... that they are "Corporate Whores in sheep's clothing." or that the progressives should DEMAND a progressive agenda from the Democratic Party.

I advocate countering DLC influence by exerting progressive influence on the party... by messaging to the american people.

[Lerkfish]

36. then I have completely misunderstood you.,

and if so, I apologize.

[expatriot]

39. i came into this thread with a chip on my shoulder, my apologies

I just got something up my ass lately.
besides I am already going to get into work later than I wanted to. Not late, but latER.

:grouphug:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

45. Wow. Something concrete.

You keep using these words like "appeasement", but don't actually define them. Finally, you came out with a specific example what's actually bothering you... Kerry not responding quickly enough to the swift-boat smears.

Hmmmm.....

First, I'd like to say that Senator Kerry did probably make a mistake not getting out and taking that one as fast as possible. But it wasn't a no-brainier. I could easily imagine his campaign manager thinking that the GOP was shooting itself in the foot.. I mean really, attacking a War Hero over his military record? How unpatriotic can you possibly get? You'd have thought the public would have had the same reaction as it did in the Terri Schiavo - turning away from Bush in revulsion. That they didn't is still appalling to me personally.

But in terms of that being a DLC strategy -- I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. Kerry isn't the most liberal man in the senate as the GOP tried to paint him, but he's still pretty liberal. And he paid as much attention to the DLC as he did to Kucinich wing of the party, that is to say, not much at all.

Insofar as the "leftist strategies" that have been employed, I really can't point out many, because leftists don't seem to have actual "strategies". What they have instead are methods of driving voters AWAY: partisan venting - unmanaged protests that a few troublemakers can use for violence, personalizing conflicts (the focus on 'hating Bush' rather than saying why his policies are wrong), and providing the GOP with ready-made talking points (threatening to move to Canada if you lost the election is both childish AND unpatriotic - a GOP twofer - thanks guys).

And NOW, after the results of your actions have led to the inevitable, you run around screaming that it's the DLC that's all to blame for the state of the party with voters. Sorry. That doesn't wash.

Don't believe me? Try this - post your little theory in some place that ISN'T dominated by Noam Chomsky fans and see how far it gets you. (Maybe it could even do some good. Maybe a Republican will ROTFL so hard, he'll asphyxiate and die - you never know.)

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. If Kerry had taken your advice and "refused to concede", it would have done nothing other than to make him look like a childish ass, and harmed the credibility of Democrats around the entire nation. It wouldn't have changed the outcome one whit. Again, you couldn't get elected in a 50-50 district to save your lives.

[expatriot]

13. I agree with your sentiments but

The DLC does advocate policy shifts that I do not agree with, they are in essence trying to move the policy positions of the party "rightward"

My take is that progressives need to further progressivism in this country by 1)messaging... trying to shift the base of the political spectrum "leftwards" and 2)serving as counter-weight to those in the DLC within the party who want to move the policy points of the party rightward.

What I despise as much (if not more) than the DLC attempts to move the party rightward are the, as you say, GREENers who over-simplify the arguments and the internal politics of the Democratic Party as

The DLC is just as evil as Bush and the Democratic Party is no good anymore because of the DLC's influence and I am going to bolt the party if we don't get rid of the DLC....

The GREENer fringe is very counter-productive in my opinion, we need to stop pointing fingers and stop insisting on a purist progressive platform for the Democratic Party and start talking policy and promoting progressivise candidates and electing progressive PC's and delegates to state and national conventions, etc. that is how we change things, not by bitching about the influence of the DLC. If we want to lessen the influence of the DLC then we have to start winning people over and we are not doing that by ranting that progressives can not be effective in the Democratic Party anymore.

[CWebster]

14. If you were sincere about shifting the center back

to reflect where the great majority stand on the Iraq war, on abortion, on Social security, on health care, on environmental issues for example, you wouldn't be using Right(read:centrist) tactics to marginalize what are really mainstream views as some kooky fringe purity.

For starters.

[expatriot]

19. what tactics are so "conservative" about what I said?

I said we need to elect progressives in the primaries and progressive PC's and delegates and challenge the win the hearts and minds of the DEmocratic rank and file on the issues and thereby isolating the DLC.

What is the alternative to marginalizing the DLC from the Party? My problem is with divisive GREENers like you.

The corporate media is control of messaging in this country. Progressives need to fight back with alternative messaging. Listen, perhaps on an issue to issue basis we do share a lot of interests with the people... but they don't IDENTIFY with us... it's like 18% of America self-identify themselves as "liberals or progressives" where as 36% self-identify as conservatives.... look it up I don't have the link.

they THINK they're conservatives because of the corporate media, GOP's mastery of rhetoric and some underlying American myths, etc. We need to counter that. We can't focus on the DLC as THE problem but instead on it being a PRODUCT of the problem. If we fail to recognize that we won't get anywhere.

[CWebster]

22. there you go

"divisive GREENers like you"

[expatriot]

23. yep, I said that.... now tell me what is so "conservative"

about what I am saying.

[Lerkfish]

24. "those divisive popsicle eaters

have hurt the human race. "

now why would that make me sound anti-popsicle eater-ish?

[expatriot]

27. I admit, I am anti-GREENer... now answer my question. nt

[Lerkfish]

33. I did. you're refusing to accept my answer.

sorry.

[expatriot]

35. oh, my calling you a "divisive GREENer" but that was in the post

you labeled my tactics "conservative" in post #14
My question asking what made them conservative was in post #19. THis is the post I called you a "divisive GREENer"
you response was "there you go..." and then you quoted me calling you a divisive Greener"
Was this your supposed answer?
You called my tactics conservative before I called you a divisive Greener.
What from post #13 is tactically "conservative?"

[Lerkfish]

37. you're confusing me with someone else. reread the thread.

[expatriot]

40. god I always do that! damn it!

I think I need to decrease the resolution on my computer so the author is closer to the subject line!

[Lerkfish]

42. no problemo

when I finally figured out the problem I pointed it out.
I've done the same thing lots of times.

[mrgorth]

21. How about this convo?

GOP: We want war.

Greeners: No. You haven't presented a good reason and frankly I don't trust you.

DLC: Sure, but give us some credit too.

I can come up with plenty more like this.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

46. Your convo proves my point...

Here was the reality:

GOP: "Saddam. WMDs. Mushroom cloud. Bush needs authority to go to war if Saddam doesn't obey the U.N. on weapons inspectors."

Liberal Hawks: "Yeesh. Yup. The President needs the authority to deal with something like that. Saddam is a class 1 A-hole."

Regular Dems: "Well... OK. But ONLY if he gets permission from the UN because Saddam isn't cooperating."

Greeners: "If you vote for this, it's a vote for war."

Regular Dems: "No it isn't."

GOP: "No it isn't."

Liberal Hawks: "It isn't? Hmmm. Guess not. Have you considered making a humanitarian case for toppling Saddam? He's killing an average of 20,000 people a year. If you promise to turn the whole thing over to the U.N. in 6 months, we might even go along with that - anti-Genocide provisions, and all that."

GOP: "Don't be silly. It's the WMDs. That's it."

Greeners: "Warmongers!"

Regular Dems: "OK. We'll grudgingly give you permission. But be SURE to get the U.N.'s OK first."

GOP: "Absolutely."

<Vote passes>

Bush: "YEEEEEEE HAAAAAAWWWWWWW!"

Regular Dems: "Ummmm. U.N. remember?"

Bush: "Yup. I've consulted with them, and they're not cooperating, so I'm doing what I want."

Regular Dems: "What do you mean the U.N. isn't cooperating? You had to get PERMISSION from them!"

GOP: "Did not. You voted for WAR!"

Regular Dems: "No we didn't. We voted to give you permission if there was no other way to force Saddam to cooperate with the U.N. The U.N. says he's cooperating, so you can't."

Greeners: "Yes you did, you traitors! You voted for WAR."

GOP: "Yeah! What THEY said."

<BOOM>

Regular Dems: "NO. Go back and read what we signed. We wanted Saddam out of power, but this is the wrong way to do it. We did not give you permission under these circumstances."

Greeners: "Crimes against humanity! You sold us out!!"

GOP: "Yup. You VOTED for WAR and now you're Against it."

Regular Dems: "No. We didn't."

Greeners: "YES. YOU DID. F----CK YOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!"

GOP: "Yeah! What THEY said."

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[CWebster]

12. Because they want to maintain power

uber alles

[bornskeptic]

15. What is the connection?

What is the connection between the judicial compromise and the Bolton appointment? The judicial compromise was among seven Republican senators and seven Democratic senators. It didn't involve diplomatic appointments, and Bush wasn't a party anyway. The Democrats did everything they could to stop Bolton, and Bush still appointed him. I understand your objections to the compromise, although I don't really know myself whether it was good or bad. But the only way to stop Bush from making a recess appointment that he wants to make is to impeach him and remove him from office.

[Donna Zen]

25. Tactic 101

Calling anyone who doesn't support the DLC a fringe purist. I'm not part of a fringe, nor am I a purist. I am a Democrat who doesn't support the DLC wishy-washy crap.

In the example of the DLC moving to the right on education, that is not the issue. The issue is treating schools as corporations, which they are not. NCLB is bad policy... really bad policy, plus it is a Trojan Horse meant to take down public education. The DLC keeps yammering about fully funding this bad policy, as if that will somehow magically make it good policy. Furthermore, when the next round of bogus educational fixes comes along, what will the DLC moving-to-the-right policy be then? Maybe they can embrace funding of vouchers for Christian Schools? Logically, that can set up a move to just close the damn schools anyway, since the bad policy fixes that they managed to vote for will make the schools so much worse by then, we get the nation to gang-up and bash them.

Ah...but then all the corporate schools can turn out little lemmings. Bingo! See. Liberal ideas like public education just don't work. The DLC hates large scale social programs.

You have to know where you stand, and take a stand. This wishy-washy crap sounds to the average voter like wishy-washy crap.

[Hidden Stillness]

28. "D"LC is Not Mainstream Dem Party--Middle Class Union Workers Are, or Were

I've come to believe that the one and only reason for the existence of the "D"LC, and its only mission, is to confuse people with advertising "framing" to induce a fake sense of agreement and Democratic cohesion on the issues. Then when things don't turn out the way you thought they were going to, (any improvement of the economy for the middle class and poor, for example, as opposed to the DLC's stockholders), they trick you with more corporate stats and spin (lauding CORPORATE PROFITS being up, for example), or attack you as one of the horrible "too-liberal-for-America" types who are destroying Party unity--even though anti-corporate and anti-rich-capitalist attitudes on behalf of workers and ordinary people are as old as the hills, and used to be considered mainstream common sense, until the "D"LC came along.

[mazzarro]

29. IMO DLC = Democratic "Losership" Council

They are a bunch losengers who will not bate an eye in conniving with reThugs to cheat the lowly common worker.

[wyldwolf]

43. what have they "lost?"

[election_2004]

44. It should be a matter of "pick your compromises"

The filibuster is a tricky matter, because of the irreperable reign of terror that the GOP would achieve if they manage to eliminate it completely.

The Democrats must use the filibuster when it's an issue that the wishy-washy public will clearly be behind them on.