So what do you SANE people think about the DLC

[LittleClarkie]

I'm somewhat too new to have a fully formed opinion of them.

Recently I've decided that I've been swallowing too much red meat out on the boards. I'm pulling back and wondering how much of it is distorted. Not that, near as I can tell, I'm a big fan of the DLC. But surely the demonization of them is overblown.

I've been defending the DLC members on the board lately, mostly because I know how they feel being in the minority. Also, sometimes it feels like they're getting swiftboated. But now folks are responding to me as if I'm DLC. I'm not. I don't think. But neither do I think they're Satan. I guess I just want us all to get along somehow. I don't think the different factions are going away. So like Israel and Palestine, we will have to find a way to live together.

I'm looking for a good resource on the DLC, one that neither blames them for all the world's ills nor holds them in too high regard. I'm getting sick of the "war within the party" rhetoric that gets more extreme depending on how far to the left it leans.

But first, I thought I'd ask the more well-read and level-headed people I know what they think.

(God this place is getting to me tonight. One too many times being called a Kerrybot, I guess.)

[Mass]

1. Both sides are driving me crazy...

On one side, the DLC leadership does not think better than behaving like Republicans.

On the other side, kos and others that make it clear by their actions that they are not really mad at the DLC positions (they support people who are to the right of the DLC or give a pass to some who vote exactly the same way and are not DLC), but clearly in a fight for the control of the party. Some of the antiDLC people are not even liberal by any standards. They just buy into this anti-establishment BS (as if Dean, Conyers, and other people they support were not establishment).

Amusing how you cant get an answer to simple questions concerning people who are at the same time DLC and have been DU and kos's heroes for quite a time like Spitzer, though.

[ginnyinWI]

2. Stay in here a while, LC

I can only take it "so" long, and I have to retreat for a bit.

I like your topic and will go you one further: I think we should have a primer on what the DLC actually is, for us political newbies (only about 18 months for me).

To some of the more knowledgeable Kerrycrats: how would you define the DLC? What do they stand for, and how DLC is JK? I have the impression that he is on the far left of that group, but not as far left as the most left among Democrats?

I think it depends on who you ask. Some far-left progressives assume he's centrist, but we think he's a left of center Democrat--the left side of the party, not the population as a whole.

I'm for the "big tent", and feel that we desperately need the unity of all parts of the Dem party to snag the swing voters and overcome the GOP. The further to the right the GOP gets, the better for us, as long as they are shown to be what they actually are. We need to do that and rally people now, to our side, even if they are more in agreement with the DLC than the progressive left.

[Dr Ron]

4. Kerry and the DLC

See my other post on the DLC.

As for Kerry, he doesn't really fit into either group of the hard core DLC or its bashers. He tends towards being more conservative economically which goes along with the DLC, but is not as willing to compromise on social issues to the degree that many in the DLC are. On foreign policy he is not avoiding criticizing Bush on Iraq as many in the DLC are (despite cliams to the contrary about Kerry by the left).

[Dr Ron]

3. Both sides have virtues and faults

I don't go along with the DLC bashing for one major reason: without the DLC (or Democrats moving in that direction on some economic matters without the organization) I do not believe the Democrats would have survived as a politial party.

Kos is one of the biggest bashers, but his people (as well as most Dean supporters) are becomming increasingly socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

On the other hand, many of the DLC people have been too hawkish on Iraq. I agree with the left attacking them on Iraq although don't agree with writing them out of the party over this. Political parties cannot succeed in this country without a variety of views.

Another point of contention is the DLC's ties to corporate interests. While this is counter to many leftist economic ideas, corporations in themselves are neither good or evil. The problem is that they are amoral. Taking corporate money is likley necessary for success. We do not have to be anti-corporations--just oppose specific actions when necessary.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Speaking of Kos, he just insulted another group of people

Let's see. So far he's pissed off
Kerry supporters
Women's rights groups
and now peace people.

Someone named Kid Oakland tried to make it sound like some sort of weird conspiracy, as if Kos was undermining on purpose. KO also sounded like he thought that DailyKos should be wrestled out of the hands of Kos and handed to the people, so I find his perspective somewhat suspect.

Kos isn't involved in a conspiracy. He's just some guy with a website who often doesn't think before he writes, has some prejudices, and no tact whatsoever. I can't believe I was defending him yesterday, but I was. Well, after I called him an asshat, anyway. It's his damn website and he can do as he damn well pleases. All the "peoples" can do is not show up and make him a lonely guy.

[Dr Ron]

11. Just read an attack on Kos

I'm not endorsing the entire article, but found it interesting to see Kos being attacked by anti-war people. I find it amusing considering all the attacks he has made on Kerry claiming he's pro war based upon the IWR vote.

Once you start the game of deciding who is pure enough in their opposition to the war, anyone can be a target.

edited to add url:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7097

[Pirate Smile]

23. Kid Oakland now has a Diary apologizing for the previous Diary or

how he acted on it, or something.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/27/04410/6409

[ginnyinWI]

14. Thanks Ron--

That helps. And it just shows how unhelpful it is to apply a label to a politician like Kerry--he follows the beat of his own drum and in so doing doesn't fit perfectly into any one catagory.

You mention leftist economic ideas--and I really can't think of any. They are mainly concerned with the social and foreign policy ones, it seems, and want the economics to sort themselves out somehow.

I think one of the functions of a good government is to regulate those corporate interests so that they behave in a moral way--because, as you say, they are amoral by definition. If our government lets us down, then we really are at the mercy of the corporate world!

[Dr Ron]

18. Economics

"You mention leftist economic ideas--and I really can't think of any."

Such ideas are dying out, but not totally. Maybe I was overly generous in crediting the DLC for this as it very well might have happened without them.

There is still some push for more leftist/populist economic ideas, such as Thomas Frank. He advocates a move to the left on economics, believing that people vote Republican since they don't see any benefit to the Democrats on economics, and therefore vote on social issues. I think he is missing what is behind the opposition to Democrats in the red states, rural areas, and many working people. They Republicans campaign against the Democrats as if they were still further to the left on economics, and that is another reason why they vote against them. A move back to the left on economics would just save the Republicans the trouble of convincing people that the Democrats are backing leftist economiic ideas.

[TayTay]

20. I don't buy it.

This only works if leftist economic ideas are solely defined as socialism or communism. There is a lot of lefty space between communism and Keynsian economic theory. (Which, btw, the Bushies are using, only they aren't calling it that.)

I think it's lefty to voice strong concern for regrowing the labor movement. I think it's lefty to want to make corporations pay taxes in this country or not do business withn the federal government. I think it's lefty to impose reasonable taxes on businesses as a means of redistributing some of the money. Right now, the tilt is so far in favor of the super-rich that we are in danger of entering territory not seen since the 1920's and 1930's. The upper .01% of the population is making out very well. Everyone else, not so much. That kind of tilt leads to revolution. bloodshed and war.

I think Thomas Frank is right. I think a lot of Dem agenda was dressed up in a business suit and sent to Wall Street to solicit donations. Who will speak for working America if not the Dems? The Rethugs see the middle class as dupes and pawns and there is not other party that is enticing the poor and middle class with bread and butter economic issues. There is a case to be made for responsible populism that seeks to more equitably distrbute the wealth in the country. I always voted for John Kerry because I think he sees it too! (Concentrating too much wealth in too few hands is a recipe for disaster. It causes social unrest, revolution and war.)

[Dr Ron]

21. There are other choices between left and Republican

Democrats can differentiate themselves from Republcans on areas such as corporate responsibility and opposing corporate welfare without coming across as leftist opponenets of business. Spitzer has done an excellent job of arguing along these lines. Kerry has also been fiscally conservative (without following the Republican line). Kerry has even called hinmself fiscally conservative, such as in an interview with Chris Matthews during the campaign.

[TayTay]

22. I don't buy the fiscally conservative thing.

I think he is for balancing the budget and PAYGO. But that is hardly the be all and end all of conservatism. And I think a strong labor movement is not a threat to business but an ally.

We are so tilted to the right in this country that fair economic policy is considered leftish. The 'free market' unfettered is a very bad thing and will almost always become a selfish thing. It must be reined in with strong government regulation and rules that temper the worst impulses of capitalism.

There is a lefty ground that isn't anti-capitalism. Ther eis a case to be made that Democrats and lefties saved capitalism in the 1930's when it was in danger of going under due to the excesses that lead to the Great Depression. Some of those solutions included creating the SEC, putting in things like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and other regulatory bodies that are now the foundation of the modern system. They are fundamentally lefty solutions. We need more of them.

[Dr Ron]

24. Terms are vague

It doesn't mean much to debate conservtive economics versus lefty economics whihc isn't anti-capitalism without specifics as the meanings are not very clear. Virtually nobody supports a totally unregulated free market and as generally used "free market" does include some degree of regulation. Markets are a human creation, not something wild in nature, and very few people really support an unfettered free market.

Kerry, Dean, and many other Democrats call themselves fiscally conservtive, but this is not the same as Republican economic policy. It is more a matter of a debate over which words are used than policy to argue over this Democratic model of econmic conservativism. Considering how the right wing noise machine has made conservativism a good word identified with fiscal responsibility and the better aspects of capitalism, while the left is associated with socialism and opposition to capitalism, there are also pragmatic reasons for adopting the fiscal conservativism label. This also allows Democrats who support sound fiscal policy to attack conservtives for not supporting the ideals they claim to have. Republicans spent years promoting the virtues of fiscal conservativism. Now Democrats can benefit from being the party which balanced the budget and force Republicans to pay the political price for squandering the surplus and running up a huge deficit.

That gets back to another part of this thread regarding Clinton's victories. Leaving office with a budget surplus qualifies as a victory.

[TayTay]

25. The terms are very vague indeed

And, to a certain extent, people see what they want to see. When I see Kerry, I see him through the prism of having watched him for years in MA. (Can't be otherwise. I can try to detach and be more objective, but honesty says I will probably only be partly succesful at this.) I see a pretty liberal guy, who, I think has re-thought his views on globalization recently and concluded that the bright and shining promise of "free trade" has been co-opted and is not what he thought it would be. I am very, very happy with this. (Globalization has been a race to the bottom and labor is losing ground. This is dangerous and wrong. Fair and free trade, with protection for labor is a wonderful thing and a very laudable goal. What we have today has little to do with that.)

I believe that the missing ingredient in the "free market" world is a powerful labor movement. I am actually cheered by the recent divorce between the AFL-CIO and several other unions. The break-away unions want to concentrate on lifting membership globally and on coming up with their own issues and then getting pols to back them. I think this is exactly right. (Labor unions do not exist to back the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party exists to back Labor.) I think Kerry's recent comments in FinComm hearings (and in SBA press releases and such) are stressing more and more the excellent positions that he has always had on labor. (The DLC ignored labor, except when it came time for a GOTV effort. This is wrong.)

[fedupinBushcountry]

6. My views are

Kerry became a member of the DLC for fiscal responsibility, I think that is a good reason and his main reason. Look what the Democrats did in the 90's because of this. It was a smart move and the right move.But as far as some of the other things that the DLC represent, it is to far to the right of center.

As Kerry said, "What we don't need in America is two Republican parties." I see the DLC as just that. Why should we have to kiss up to Republicans ? They sure as hell don't kiss up to us.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Do you think that the DLC has it out for Progressives

and is trying to push them out as some have said? The Progressives say all they're doing is pushing back.

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Who knows

Sounds more like the far left is trying to push them out. Myself I think they both cause problems for us, but my common sense tells me in the end, its the Democrats ( you know the REAL Democratic wing of the party, and I ain't talking about Dean's wing) who will win in the end. I really wish both would STFU, they should be fighting the real enemy, the Republicans, instead of slapping one another.

[LittleClarkie]

10. That's exactly my feeling as well

I keep comparing them to Israel and the Palestinians. Both sides say the other started it, neither wants to give ground, neither is going away, and will probably keep fighting until the end of time.

I'm getting called a DLCer for defending their right to speak, and when I say I'm not, I get called a liar.

But then I've noticed that once some folks have you pegged in one hole or another, they shadowbox the image they've now pasted over you rather than dealing with you as a person. One guy kept railing against things I never said, like that everyone had to like and support Kerry. Um, no. But if you bash people and I know better, guess what? I'm gonna say something.

Blah.

[ginnyinWI]

15. this looks like an example of the historical struggle

in this country between Big Money and the People, this time within the Democratic Party itself. This struggle has been going on since the Founding Fathers. (OK, I admit I've been reading Howard Zinn).
The answer is to be found in finding a middle ground where all interests have a share. The DLC needs to get more socially sensitive, and the Left needs to stop being so very idealistic(liberally pure)and get a bit more practical!

[TayTay]

8. There are ebbs and flows in politics

Tides come in, tides go out. Ahm, there is a history here, some good, some not so good. (TayTay's perspective only.)

The DLC came out with a slate of candidates, who all lost, in 1986. The Dems that won were all Libs. (Yeah!) Then we lost '88 with an ethnic Massachusetts liberal who many thought was too wishy-washy and was easy for Rethugs to paint as too liberal. Then Clinton, who was heavy into the Southern-started DLC came in. And he won. And nothing, but nothing succeeds like success.

So people decided that the future of the party was with the Neo-Liberal DLC. (Cuz they won.) But the DLC also got into bed with the Rethugs on NAFTA. (Mr. Kerry voted for it, Mr. Kennedy did not.) Mr. Kerry is a Northeastern Liberal. There was a price to be paid for going DLC. It could be paid in union towns and among blue-collar workers. Take the classic economic issues away from the Dems and what do you have? Some say you have Guns, Gays, and God. And we lose on those issues.

There was a time when Dems thought that the DLC was the future of the party and the only way to save the Dems from death. There have always been Dems who felt that the DLC was the way the Dems sold their souls to the Devil for the thirty pieces of temporary electoral silver. I think the tide is turning against the DLC. Sen. Kerry spoke at the 1998 DLC national gathering. And he took a battering for it. (Education. Go look it up. Some of this was not pretty and made some Labor Dems think that the national Dems were knifing them in the back. Some of the ideas Kerry brought up were very good and needed to be looked at, but it engendered bad feeling at home and led to that "Where does he stand" thing that always comes up. Sigh!)

Part of this comes from the anti-Clinton thing within the party. Clinton was a compromise candidate and he was not a strong Dem. (Quick, what was Clinton's greatest victory? Welfare Reform? NAFTA? Not getting convicted of Sexual Perversion by the Senate? What long-lasting Dem program do you associate with Clinton?)

Hillary owns the DLC. It is her people and her husband's people who are all over the DLC now trying to save their power and their Washington jobs. Sen. Kerry did NOT go to the DLC gathering this summer. (To what end? To get compared to Hillary? Why should he do this? What's in it for him and for the future of a Dem Party that wants to return to it's grassroots base?)

So, ahm, this is not easy. There was a romance. There was some sweet whisperings and a possible affair, but in the end the two are just friends.

[Dr Ron]

12. Clinton's Victory

"Quick, what was Clinton's greatest victory? "

Clinton was wrong on many points but there is one thing we have to give him. Eight years of peace and prosperity. While he was far from perfect, that was sure better than what we've had since Clinton.

[karynnj]

13. Thanks for the history

With the "where does he stand" stuff, it almost seems the consequence of Kerry not being either ideologically driven or driven to follow the group he is with. At this point, he seems to be avoiding pandering to either extreme (for Democrats) group. He seems to simply chart his own course based on what he thinks will work or what is right. I think we're all here because Kerry's compass seems to lead him to the right place more than either of the two groups fighting.

It is interesting that he that he skipped the DLC meeting- I wonder if he was even asked to speak. Wasn't this near the time Clinton was mouthing the Republican charge that Kerry was weak on defense - unlike Hillary and himself. (Wonder what went through Kerry's or Teresa's head when they heard this.) I agree with you on the Clintons. I admit that I ignored problems with Clinton that I would have bashed any Republican President over. He really is a captivating person, but oddly after seeing the honesty and intensity in Kerry's eyes and his lack of artifice, the little Clinton habits (biting his lip, squinting his eyes then opening them fully as he made a point, etc) seemed phony.

Some editorials last year, mentioned that Bush's ultimate downfall would be because of hubris. I wonder if the same flaw may blind the Clinton DLC strategists. Clinton was the only re-elected Democrat in 50 years, but of the incumbents only Carter was thrown out - JFK died, LBJ didn't run, but tried to concentrate on ending the Vietnam war- which makes the claim less impressive. In 1992, he had a very weak incumbent who the press was sick of and in 1996, he had a former (and future) hatchet man as his opponent. I really doubt he could have beat a Republican equivalent of Kerry.

The two pieces of advice they say Kerry was given by the Clinton people were both probably bad: to concentrate on saying the economy is bad (worked in 1992) and to support some really bad anti-gay initiatives that were not only abhorrent, but would have made the flip flop charge accurate as nothing else did. I think Kerry was right that the biggest issues were terrorism, Iraq and foreign policy. On the gay issue, following the advice would have been against Kerry's principles and probably a disaster politically. That it might have worked for Clinton shows he probably is a chameleon who is poll driven - just as he was accused of being. Of course, when Kerry lost, the DLC pundits, who were pretty tepid in their support, claimed it was because he didn't let them run the campaign.

[ginnyinWI]

17. Clintonistas' campaign tactics are so pre-9/11

That was the problem. I wish they would have stayed away from Kerry. He knew national security was our number one concern--said so during a debate way back in fall 2003. But he did spend a lot of time pounding on the economy last summer. Then by Fall he was speaking a lot more about Iraq--but probably should have started sooner, like right after the convention.

Al Gore was poll-driven, too--remember how he changed personalities with each of his debates.

[ginnyinWI]

16. Looking at Kerry's distancing himself from the DLC

I think maybe he is up there high enough in politics to feel which way the wind is blowing. He certainly has a feel for what the people want after being on the campaign trail. He's not trying to outdo Hillary at her game, seeming to be feeling that he has the true pulse of the nation. He's taking it to the people.

Bill Clinton's success may have made it seem that the DLC was the way to go--but Kerry got far more votes. Bush I had votes taken away by Perot so he lost.

In the last Dem primary, who was the most DLC? Lieberman? Well he didn't do so well, did he? But I suppose the DLC would say that is the problem with the party: the Dems pick a candidate who is too far left, and that person can't win against the repub candidate. But I disagree. :(

[Dr Ron]

19. Remember Iowa

Dean and Gephart represented two wings of the Democatic Party in Iowa, with Gephart representing the old labor wing and Dean the younger, professional, anti-war components. They fought a hard battle until neigher remained a viable candidate and Kerry took the victory.

My bet is that Kerry will play any DLC vs. left battle exactly the same way. After they bruise each other, Kerry wil try to be left standing as the consensus candidate.

[karynnj]

30. I hope you're right

It does fit with his not taking either side.

[TheDonkey]

28. Very true, Kerry was not DLC

He's quite liberal and I think that proves that liberal democrats can do good in national elections.

The DLC is wrong to think that center and rightwing democrats are the only ones capable of winning elections.

[karynnj]

29. I think the DLC backed Gore, then Lieberman

and, at least from Clinton's comment that Clark and Hillary were the only stars and the support of mostly Clinton people, they flirted with Clark. I don't know why they keep saying Kerry, as he had no money in Dec 2003.

[paulk]

26. what bothers me the most

about the DLC wars here (and at Kos) are the lies. The just flat out lies that get posted about the DLC by people who clearly have an agenda. An agenda based around dividing the Democratic Party. The constant one line non sequiturs (the DLC sucks!, etc.). The personal attacks and insinuations that the DLC and their supporters are "Republican lite". The us vs them mentality of it all.

I don't agree with a lot of DLC positions - but it's rarely a 100% to zero proposition. I think they have something to add to the debate. It's a voice I want at the table - so I defend them here at DU.

[TheDonkey]

27. The DLC is a legitimate branch of the party

I don't like when they criticize the grassroots or liberal branches though. I'll take a DLC member any day over a republican.