A question for DLC defenders - can you rise to the challenge?

[Zhade]

Today, there have been a couple of lengthy threads regarding the viability and efficacy of the DLC, with the expected recriminations and defense from both sides.

I'm known as an anti-DLC guy, but today I'm going to take a different tack: what will DLC politicians do to advance democratic principles if elected to office?

This question assumes that merely voting for such a candidate in order to gain a Conyers as chairman is not enough to explain the positive effect a DLC candidate would have on Democratic policies. Instead, I ask those who defend the DLC - what will your support for that organization buy all of us in the long run?

How will the DLC fight the ongoing destruction of our civil liberties under such things as the Patriot Act and b*s*' extraconstitutional signing statements, as well as rights-restricting legislation like the anti-choice bills in states like South Dakota? Or, for that matter, what will the DLC do with regards to the War on Drugs?

How will the DLC stop the increasing destruction of the environment?

What steps will be taken by DLC candidates to end the occupation of Iraq? To cease the ongoing torture?

What will they do to deal rationally with Iran, North Korea, and other countries that may decide to increase weapons production (likely due to the desire not to be illegally invaded, like Iraq)?

How will DLC candidates increase the buying power of average Americans, the ability to save more than we spend, to purchase affordable necessary prescriptions, in short to stay healthy?

What about corporate accountability? What DLC proposals will, in your mind, have a significant positive impact on the cessation of corporate abuse, and how will these proposals actually work?

Others can likely add to my questions, but I think this is a good start. What does the DLC advocate that will enable people here and abroad to live in greater freedom and be afforded more opportunity to create a better world?

(My word may not be believed, but I am sincerely asking this in the interest of soliciting serious responses.)

[Zhade]

1. So not a single DLC proponent will answer the questions?

NT!

[Zhade]

2. So all the bluster WAS hot air.

That explains why no DLCers in the "praise for Jesus the DLC" thread could actually answer questions like this - no answers, I guess.

[JNelson6563]

3. I hope there are some replies

I too would be interested.

Julie

[Blue_Tires]

4. ttt n/t

[Blue_Tires]

21. ttt n/t

[DancingBear]

5. There are no answers

The only raison d'etre for electing them is to retain control of the House and/or Senate.

That is the their rationale today, it will be their rationale tomorrow, and it will be their rationale next Wednesday.

Note: this is not a discussion of "moderate" vs. "progressive" Democrats - I'll buy (for now) the logic that in places like where I live (VA) we're just not yet ready for a Russ Feingold.

What I will not buy is the DLC roadmap for viability as a party.

Oops,sorry - there isn't one, at least not that I can see from the lack of responses here.

[LoZoccolo]

6. How will the DLC stop the increasing destruction of the environment?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=116

Try getting that from the Republicans that the third-party splinterists want to elect.

Actually, I'd encourage you to find what you're looking here: http://www.dlc.org

Then, if you find a specific thing you have a problem with, take this challenge:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2678181

[Greyhound]

7. Read it,

Nothing but the usual vauge, pro-corporate, clap-trap.

Next.

[LoZoccolo]

9. In ten minutes you read three articles?

I take it you didn't watch the 45-minute video there as well.

Indeed, this week's study was the first of 21 assessments planned by the Climate Change Science Program, which was created by the administration in 2002 to address what it sees as lingering climate uncertainties. In the meantime, the administration intends to hang its hat on a laughable set of voluntary emissions-reduction recommendations for industry.

Yes, criticizing the Bush* administration for letting industry police itself is pro-corporate.

People wonder why I have so many people on ignore; some of it has to do with sifting through the people who are willing to make baseless arguments. It's really about reclaiming my time and fixing the signal-to-noise ratio here.

[Greyhound]

10. 3 articles in 10 minutes is hardly Evelyn Wood speed. No I didn't

watch the video and don't intend to waste any more time pointing out the obvious fallacies and distortions of this group of jackals.

If you think they're great all I can say is that I hope you're right and I'm wrong, History, however, is on my side.

[Zhade]

20. See? I just KNEW you'd take me off ignore.

Maybe you realized I didn't mock you after all. That's good. (I honestly wasn't.)

That done, please rest assured that I've already perused those links. My intent with this thread was to ask DLC fans why and HOW DLC policies will actually work.

[DancingBear]

8. But, but... where are the DLC people?

Oh, they started their own thread, probably because they can't answer your questions

Yes, that's it -they have asked YOU for answers, while specifically refusing to provide any themselves!

What a concept - if only the Republican party would use the "when in doubt, attack!" strategy.

Oh, wait a minute - they do.

But they do it because they are devoid of answers.

Interesting..........

[ulysses]

11. what I think we're seeing (again)

is that the DLCers aren't interested in participating in a discussion unless they initiate it and control the questions. Not the best way to heal intraparty rifts, but probably not a bad example for us to emulate when dealing with the GOP.

[ulysses]

12. a wee

:kick:

[thatsrightimirish]

13. yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn

Over 4 hours and counting

[ulysses]

14. more like over 16.

:)

[thatsrightimirish]

15. oops

it was posted yesterday hahaha

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

16. What is their position (DLC) on the invasion of Iraq? n/t

[w4rma]

24. The DLC leadership were huge supporters of the invasion.

They supported Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic primary until it was obvious he would lose it, bigtime.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[ulysses]

17. get up there.

Gotta make sure the intended audience can find you, y'know.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. A kick back to the first page

I've asked for a defense of specific policy positions of the DLC many times on this board and have never received a response. Yet the pro-DLC crowd says that it's people like me who don't want to discuss the issues, and instead just wants to bash the DLC. Go figure.

[alvarezadams]

19. I tried to deal with those folks...

on a couple of threads. I've asked about neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policies in half a dozen ways and the response is avoidance followed by ad hominem.

Their mindset is so similar to that of conservative posters on public boards to be almost scary. The same cogdis traits.

They proudly point to PPI "policy papers" which are full of shallow rhetoric and no actual plan. That's about all they have.

And they don't own-up to the DLC trait of bashing DNC progressives at every opportunity.

As far as I'm concerned they're the GOP, down to the Olin/Bradley funding, the signing of PNAC letters... a few token progressive stances to appease the liberal DNC base just won't cut it for me.

[The Magistrate]

22. Several Points, Mr. Zhade

Fiest, the simple gaining of a majority should not be dismissed lightly. Nothing can be accomplished so long as the Republicans control the national government. Given the actual state of politics in our country, gaining a majority is going to require a number of Democrats who can carry states and districts that cast their Presidential, and often their local votes, for a Republican. A large portion of the D.L.C. line does appeal to the sort of voter who needs to be reached in order to achieve this.

Second, a large portion of the "defense" of the D.L.C. on this forum is not so much a product of whole-hearted support for the organization and its proposed policies as it is a reaction to the degree of vituperation directed against it, and exaggerated claims regarding the degree of its influence, and its actual character. This strikes some as divisive and damaging; the proverbial "circular firing squad" that helps no one.

Third, the question of whether the best course for the Party is to bid for the center or to raise its standard on the left is very much an open one, with good cases to be made for either side. The D.L.C. certainly inclines to the former side of this question, and its opponents here certainly incline to the latter. But neither side is in a position to state with certainty the course it urges will definitely succeed, and unfortunately, some who uphold the raising of the standard on the left as the proper course incorporate in their arguements the claim that success does not really matter, that what counts is the upholding of a proper ideological position, whatever the consequences of doing so might be. This is certain to raise some hackles in a venue where the nearest thing to a unifying principle is a desire for victory over the Republican administration.

[alvarezadams]

23. Comments

"Nothing can be accomplished so long as the Republicans control the national government."

Might it not be said that nothing can be accomplished as long as corporations control the national government? If there is a uniting factor in this country I believe that true reform would probably be it.

" large portion of the D.L.C. line does appeal to the sort of voter who needs to be reached in order to achieve this."

Ah, political expediency. In order to have progressive legislation we need to rely on non-progressives to get our feet in the door. No matter that this is tantamount to giving the DLC the ammo it needs to say "I told you so, liberalism is dead".


"as it is a reaction to the degree of vituperation directed against it, and exaggerated claims regarding the degree of its influence, and its actual character. This strikes some as divisive and damaging; the proverbial "circular firing squad" that helps no one."

Yet DLC members are quick to dismiss DNC members that are liberal. What goes around comes around.

"This is certain to raise some hackles in a venue where the nearest thing to a unifying principle is a desire for victory over the Republican administration."

Many of us that have studied the DLC would believe that support for the DLC is support for the Republican administration.

[The Magistrate]

25. To Address Your Comments, Sir

The question of "corporate control" strikes somewhat deeper than electoral politics can readily reach. Business interests, and the concentration of wealth attendant with them, are going to have a profound influence on political life so long as our economy is a Capitalist one. That is not going to change, and it is not going to be changed in any election. A certain curbing of excess, and a somewhat greater sharing of the wealth produced, is all that can be contested for through the electoral process. These things certainly cannot be done while Republicans are in control; they are sometimes done when Democrats are. It is certainly true that there is a wide-spread and traditional distaste for "big business" among the people of this country, and it could serve as a useful line for political agitation. To my mind probably the greatest flaw in the D.L.C. position is its economic line, which certainly forecloses this. But the commonly proposed link here, that the D.L.C. is bought out by corporate interests, and seeks to make the Party a tool of corporations, seems to me to simple by half. For better or worse, the economic line pressed by the D.L.C. is the common wisdom of current economic thought, and is therefore the recieved wisdom of most who comment on economic matters without seriously studying them, a group which would certainly include most working politicians. Thus it seems to me that most who espouse this line are likely sincere in believing it to be a good and promising thing, though in my view they are misguided to do so. To be misguided is different from being malicious, and different from being corrupted.

Political expediency is neither a bad nor a good thing: it is an absolutely necessary item, without which no degree of progress or success is remotely possible. It remains a fact of our political life that even a nominal majority in the Senate will require the votes of Democratic politicians well to the right of what we here would prefer on many matters, and that even a nominal majority in the House will require the seating of many Representatives from districts that are unlikely to vote in "whole hawg" liberal leftists. There are some sound underpinnings to the D.L.C. position that "liberalism" is, if not a spent force, a weakened one in present circumstances. It is certainly an unpopular label, with only a smallish proportion of our country's population willing to describe themselves by it: since most voters do not delve more deeply than labels into political thoughtm this is a factor of great importance. It does not matter that, if questioned in neutral terms on a variety of policy issues, people indicate by and large that they agree with the "liberal" postion on a great many of them, for it will suffice to label persons proposing them "liberals" in an election campaign to turn a great many people to voting against that person, because they do not consider themselves "liberals" and they do not like "liberals", and their vote is determined by their likes and dislikes and their view of themselves rather than by consideration of policy questions in rational terms.

That figures in the D.L.C. have denounced Democrats to the left of them is certainly true, but my comments on this were aimed only at our discussions here on this forum. It is certainly true here that acrimony comes from both sides. But there are a couple of features of what can loosely be described as the attack on the D.L.C. that bear note. Figures clearly in the mainstream of the Democratic Party are routinely denounced as not being "real" Democrats and not representing the desires of Party members, even though they win selection in Party primaries and election to office with the votes of Democrats. Just about every Party electoral organ is denounced routinely as working against the Party and its members in some manner or other. The effect is often surreal, for someone browsing through the forum.

That some believe what you suggest, that the D.L.C. is interchangeable with the Republican administration, is certainly true, but it does not seem to be a fact, for all the fervor with which the belief is sometimes held. Many of the figures routinely denounced here as "D.L.C. sell-outs" and "DINOs" actually have voting records considerably to the left of even the most "moderate" Republican office-holder. It is unlikely this would change if the Democrats held majorities in the houses of the Legislature.

[alvarezadams]

26. Bait & Switch

"Many of the figures routinely denounced here as "D.L.C. sell-outs" and "DINOs" actually have voting records considerably to the left of even the most "moderate" Republican office-holder. It is unlikely this would change if the Democrats held majorities in the houses of the Legislature."

There "progressive" stances are usually limited to areas where their corporate funders have little or no interest.

Remember that it's the Bradley's and Olin's and AEI's that are behind the DLC. These certainly have an agenda, one that has nothing to do with abortion, gun rights or gay marriage. It is quite feasible in this market-driven "democracy" that we suffer throught, to have an excellent "liberal" record while supporting the most egregious neoliberal economic or neoconservative foreign policies.

And that's the point I have tried to make regarding the DLC from the begining, and whi I had tried to have DLC supporters actually address the neolib/neocon aspect of DLC policies.

[The Magistrate]

27. That Does Not Seem The Essential Element, Sir

It seems to me that at the root of your views is a desire to overthrow the economic system currently in place. As it has numerous flaws, such a desire is understandable, and were we viewing the matter as one of abstract hypothesis, we would be largely in agreement concerning it. But this desire is not widely shared among the voting populace, and whether or not it should, or by rights ought to be, widely shared among the voting polulace is immaterial to assessing the presrnt state of political life from the point of view of crafting an effort to secure victory at the polls for one or the other of the contending parties.

The great bulk of the people in the country rest content with the present system. In some instances this owes to a want of imagination, making them unable to imagine any other way economic life might function, and in others it owes to an excess of imagination, leading them to imagine, at least for substantial portions of their lives, that their own prospects under it are much better than than they actually are. A competitive ethos deeply rooted in our culture, along with a sense of fairness and sportsmanship, plays a signifigant role as well: a great many who do not particularly thrive as the system operates consider that they had a fair shot at it, and that those who do thrive and rise won the race fair and square, and deserve the benefits of winning it, just as they would deserve the benefits of any competition they may have won themselves in their lives. Whether these views are sound or not is, again, beside the point: they are real and widely felt, and people act in accordance with them, and are not going to be argued out of them anytime soon.

All that most people want are certain ameliorations of the system's operations. They do not want to be in fear for their livelihoods; they want to receive more value in exchange for their labor; they want to know they will not meet some crisis beyond their control they do not have the resources to cope with. These are things that can be achieved within the existing system by only slight modifications of it, and most people are aware of this, and most who are not could be made aware of it without too much difficulty. But they do not offer any fertile ground for appeals to signifigantly alter or even replace the existing system, and there will not be, or emerge, any signifigant political bloc demanding radical change in the status quo. This can occur only when things are much more obviously broken and faulty than is presently the case. It is certainly possible that present trends, if continued for a decade or two unaltered, will produce such a situation that people will demand radical change, or accept proposals for radical change as sensible things, but that is not the case now, and it is the business of any who actually occupy themselves with governance to seek to head off such a situation from ever emerging, by one means or another. The prefered method is a reformist orientation that aims to achieve the sort of ameliorations that are widely desired, but a common method is the judicious mix of force and fraud that lies at the root of any repressive system of government. For there is no doubt that past a certain point of inequality in condition among its people, a government administering a system producing that inequality can maintain itself only by some degree of repression cowing the mass of its people.

[alvarezadams]

29. Not quite

"It seems to me that at the root of your views is a desire to overthrow the economic system currently in place."

This is far from the truth. The system is basically what it has always been. What I disagree with is the way in which it is managed. Until Nixon and particularly until Reagan, capitalism went its happy way under Keynesian ideals, with the greatest increase and distribution of wealth in human history. Nixon (to a certain extent) and Reagan (to the greatest extent) reversed 50 years of success in order to appease corporations, big capital and the like - through what had been an utterly discredited philosophy called neoliberalism.

It isn't a SYSTEM that I want to change - I am actually being a classic conservative in wanting a return (with improvements) to what had been the status quo before the neoliberal counterreformation took place.

"But this desire is not widely shared among the voting populace, and whether or not it should, or by rights ought to be, widely shared among the voting polulace is immaterial to assessing the presrnt state of political life from the point of view of crafting an effort to secure victory at the polls for one or the other of the contending parties."

I take a longer-term POV of matters - just as the Mt Pellerin Society did when they began to unleash neoliberalism on the world. And as far as the contending parties are concerned - these are immaterial to me if both are under the sway of what I consider socioeconomic anathema. I certainly don't fall for the "political expediency" baloney - having seen how such a POV has failed others in the past. Hitler was successful in applying it, but the conservative and nationalistic parties that made his victory possible (considering him a valid tool) can look back in angst at how expediency played against them.

"The great bulk of the people in the country rest content with the present system."

Yes, the combination of jingo and indoctrination does that. The great bulk of Brits were wel- content with THEIR situation, which consisted in the excesses of the Industrial Revolution and a barely-supported Chartist movement that ultimately gave them universal suffrage. At the drop of a Gibraltarian pirate they'd happily march off to war because of the flag, drank gin to get over their sufferings, and could easily have fallen under the sway of domestic fascism (or worse) if other circumstances weren't in play. While I support democracy I am fully aware of the effects of populism, demagoguery and indoctrination - and can readily discount ignorance because it is easy enough to overcome once the pocketbook is affected. And it is going that way right now.

"All that most people want are certain ameliorations of the system's operations. They do not want to be in fear for their livelihoods; they want to receive more value in exchange for their labor; they want to know they will not meet some crisis beyond their control they do not have the resources to cope with. "

Well, that's what progressive ideals offer - and what neoliberal economics take away. Simple, isn't it?

"These are things that can be achieved within the existing system by only slight modifications of it, and most people are aware of this, and most who are not could be made aware of it without too much difficulty."

Of course -which is why I call for the abandonment of a NEW philosophy which only offers a return to the status quo ante bellum (WWII/Depression).

"But they do not offer any fertile ground for appeals to signifigantly alter or even replace the existing system, and there will not be, or emerge, any signifigant political bloc demanding radical change in the status quo."

Here you misinterpret my objectives. I don't call for a significant economic change but a return to what has worked before and the abandonment of what obviously isn't working now.

"The prefered method is a reformist orientation that aims to achieve the sort of ameliorations that are widely desired, but a common method is the judicious mix of force and fraud that lies at the root of any repressive system of government."

You're not a Hayek-type, are you?

"For there is no doubt that past a certain point of inequality in condition among its people, a government administering a system producing that inequality can maintain itself only by some degree of repression cowing the mass of its people."

That is an appreciation that relies on the framing supplied by AEI, Heritage and the like.

[The Magistrate]

30. Then We Would Seem, Sir, To Have Some Substantial Points Of Agreement

The current economic orthodoxy of the "free marketeers" is a bankrupt view, that can produce only an increasing concentration of wealth and penury for the populace. A great many of those who adhere to it, however, are genuinely under the impression it will have just the opposite effect. This makes it difficult to get them to change their views or recognize the error they make. That difficult project will be rendered even more difficult if the effort to persuade them begins from the proposition that they are corrupted sell-outs, quite concious they are doing wrong and doing it for pay.

That some exercises in political expediency have failed to achieve their practitioners' ends hardly demonstrates that making a judgement of what can succeed in political life, and concentrating on achieving this, is something to be foresworn. Attempts in all manner of human endeavor fail on occassion. In fact, all discussion of political action resolves itself sooner or later into a consideration of expediency, into a judgement of whether the course urged will work or not. The only real questions become those of the time it would take, and whether or not relevant factors are correctly distinguished and appreciated.

[Xipe Totec]

32. Hence the need for a reality check

I've often said, and still believe, that there are two metrics that determine whether the party in power will win or lose:

1).- What is the price of gas.

2).- What is the price of a six-pack of beer.

If the Republicans are vulnerable right now, it is because of this.

Prosaic though these metrics may be, they track the level of consciousness of the general populace regarding political events. Ultimately, they cut to the chase and frame the debate in terms that most people in America understand. They embody the classic question posed by Reagan:

Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?

:hi:

[Zhade]

28. I'm not arguing about the merits of a majority.

Clearly, a majority of Democrats in Congress is necessary...so long as those Democrats DON'T sell out the poor, the working class, our civil rights, etc.

This thread was intended to ask DLCers to expound on how those shared goals (they must be shared, or I have no idea why they would call themselves Democrats) can actually come about via DLC policies.

You'll note, of course, that not one DLCer can attempt to answer the question. Perhaps it's as you seem to suggest - they have no explanation, and only support the DLC because others don't.

Since I've never seen an explanation from DLCers as to HOW the boilerplate language translates into support of the above goals, I am forced to conclude that there IS no explanation to be found, at least from DU's tiny group of DLC defenders.

[The Magistrate]

31. As We Both Know, Sir

Whether or not some people take up a particular challenge, especially when there are a number of heated discussions on roughly the same topic going on elswhere, cannot be said really to indicate very much.

It seems to me that for most of our members who defend the D.L.C. here, doing so is not particularly related to the details of the organization, but is rather an upholding of the idea that persons and political figures of the center-left and center of the political spectrum are indeed Democrats, and may even be more typical of the Democratic Party and its voting strength in the country at large than are those who claim such persons are not "real" Democrats at all. Most people read "D.L.C." as simply another way to say "centerist or center-left Democrat", and it seems to me as well that some who attack the organization so bitterly use it as a convenient personalization of those broader elements of the Party. That is what the real quarrel is about, and the organization serves merely as a convenient marker to center the skirmishes on.

[Zhade]

33. Well, I can't speak for those people, of course.

MY interest is:

1) What will DLC policies do to affect the goals I listed above?

and

2) What do DLCers make of the fact that the DLC was founded with monies from the likes of Olin and the Koch brothers, proponents of far right politics?

I never get an answer to those. I doubt I will, to behonest, but I thought I'd at least ask the first one again.

[itzamirakul]

34. Kick!