DLC defenders: what are your core positions and principles

[yurbud]

that distinguish you from progressives and Republicans?

I'd like to hear an affirmative case from you guys.

[Skidmore]

1. Yeah, what Yurbud asked.

Give me a reason why you have the interests of my family at the fore front.

[liberal N proud]

2. IMO: We need to all come together regardless of the broad issues

Until we have the republican machine removed from service.

There should be only one issue on the DLC agenda and one issue on any progressive issue: Beat the Republican neo-cons.

All other issues will only divide the groups.

[MrBenchley]

3. Fuckin A!!!

Good post. I'm sick of Democrat bashing.

[Atman]

5. meaningless words

"There should be only one issue on the DLC agenda and one issue on any progressive issue: Beat the Republican neo-cons."

What the hell does that mean? Through cheating? Through capitulation? By becoming just like them? It's easy to say "we gotta beat 'em!" I doubt you'll find a single person here who disagrees with this.

The question is HOW do we beat them.

[liberal N proud]

7. That is why we all must join forces - to determine what it takes

to defeat the regime.
I don't believe we have to become them to beat them.
I alone can not determine exactly what it will take but if you have a Libertarian party, a Democratic party and a Progressive party, the republicans have won already.

[porphyrian]

10. Well, we know what doesn't work...

...from the last three failed major elections - appealing to "moderates." If the DLC had its head any more up its collective ass, it would implode. That, or they don't care that their dogma doesn't hold water, as long as they control the direction of the party.

[MrBenchley]

25. Who DO you think you're kidding?

"appealing to "moderates.""
Yeah, by all means, let's confine ourselves to the lunatic fringe.

[porphyrian]

27. Oh, wake up. Liberal isn't "lunatic fringe."

And chasing the never-materializing-at-the-polls "moderate" vote has handed the last three major elections to the fucking republicans. Defending DLC policy at this point is reprehensible and arguably treason.

[yurbud]

34. So do DLC types think FDR was the lunatic fringe? Did they notice

LBJ won by a landslide in his early Great Society mode and became most unpopular when he became the Vietnam War president?

[Perky]

28. Ummm which three faile elections are we talking about

Gore Bush
Kerry Bush and ????

Or are you thinking Dukakis Bush; Mondale-Reagan, Carter Reagan and McGovern Reagan WHere Liberal nominees got taken out to the woodshed?

Liberal do not win presidential elections because Republican play the Trust Card and we do not have an adequate/credible response?

[porphyrian]

29. 2000, 2002, 2004.

Mid-terms are just as important as Presidential elections, if not moreso, because that's when we Congress can be won or lost. Following the "moderate vote" snipe hunt of the DLC made us lose in 2002. One, two, three.

[Perky]

30. ahh ok

but when we ran libearls like Dukakis, Mondale and Mcgovern we go spanked pretty hard.

We were not spanked nearly as bad in the three elections you mentioned.


I do not think it is the DLC fault that liberals can't win the big prize.

[porphyrian]

31. The environment is significantly different today.

The biggest difference is that instead of being liberal and clueless about the will of the voter, the DLC has us acting republican and clueless about the will of the voter. If they were worth a shit at all, we wouldn't have lost these last three major elections to such an obviously incompetent and criminal administration.

[Perky]

32. You still have not tied the defeats to the DLC specifically

Nor have you said why how a Dukakis Liberal could win in this environment.

Mor have you dealt with the DLC Victories in 1992 and 1996

[porphyrian]

33. Now you want a history lesson?

Dukakis does not represent the liberal movement, and he isn't running today. Get past this.

You think Clinton won because of DLC policy rather than old bush's failed war and shitty economic policies? You'll make a great DLC shill with that kind of finger on the pulse of the voter mindset.

[Perky]

43. Me thinks your head is in the sand.

I have yet to hear you esplain how a liberal in the lefty tradition esposued by the majority on DU can win a Presidential election....


I offer Big Dawg as an example of moderate politics an you say the liberals I site don't really apply...

But you still have not told me how a liberal would win.

[porphyrian]

45. You haven't listened to me yet.

Why would you listen to anything else I have to add? Projection is a common neurosis, and can be treated with therapy and medication. Seek some.

[yodermon]

13. That might put off the DLC neocons a bit, n/t

[bryant69]

4. I'd be curious to know how many DLC types there are on this board

I am a moderate; but the DLC argues in favor of accomadation with extremism. That's not moderation. That's extremism once removed. And not even your own extremism. Some other dudes extremism.

I can't get behind that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Skidmore]

6. I don't see it that way.

The DLCs call people who don't agree with them "extremists."

[bryant69]

8. You can call someone something all you want

Doesn't make it so.

The DLC urges democrats to get behind President Bush's plan of pre-emptive invasion. That's extreme.

[Marr]

11. But only if they're on the LEFT. Odd, eh?

There's rarely a word of criticism for mainstream Republicans, but populists- oh, they're "extremists".

[yurbud]

35. A DU poll of DLC vs. extremists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4999078&mesg_id=4999078

[Marr]

9. They're invested in Bechtel's and Halliburton's competitors, basically.

Same shit, different logos.

[expatriot]

12. I am a progressive Democrat who is a "defender" of the DLC

I believe that the DLC has a right to be included in the Democrat and in fact is a natural counterweight to the Progressives in the Party. We need to do everything we can to counterbalance their influence and agenda in the party.

The American electorate is kind of like a bellcurve, in a winner take all system that we have, the two parties are always fighting for the center. Progressives try to move the party "left" at risk of losing claims on the center and the DLC try to move the party right at the risk of losing the base. Zealous members of both movements are openly hostile to the inclusion of the other in the party but the counter-balance they provide is necessary function of a viable major party in the American duopolistic political system.


(my 2 cents).

[porphyrian]

14. It's one hell of a lop-sided bell curve...

All our numbers are on the liberal side, but the DLC has been calling the shots.

[marbuc]

15. Not all of our numbers are on the liberal side

There are Democrats all over the left side of the spectrum, some even on the right. We have to be mindful of the South, West, and Midwest, where the liberal ideology doesn't sell very well. As another posted, we have to find several core issues on which we agree, and build from there.

[porphyrian]

16. Yes, there are some to the middle and the right...

...but the majority are on the left. Maybe not on every issue, maybe not calling themselves "liberal," but on the left. It's our base. It's who most of us are. It's what the party should represent proportionately.

[expatriot]

18. the DLC is not monolithic and is multi-faceted.

They are, as I gather, a "think tank." that publishes their ideas and such just as any political think tank does. of course they are idealogical lobbyists competing with us for the ears of our elected leaders. As I see it, most of the elected leaders that "sign on" to some DLC agreement or accord do not make them DLCers and even the politicians that are actively in the DLC leadership are not as "evil" as some of the policy directors in the DLC. In a way, it is more a "top-botom" spectrum than a "right-left" spectrum. Progressive/liberals are of course the activist base of the Democratic Party and as rise up from the grassroots into the echelons of leadership you naturally lose the influence of the grassroots as coporate, heirarchical, "power politics" gains. We need to push up against this and fight to keep the "channels of communication" between the grassroots are the elected leaders open, if we refuse to co-exist in a party with this centrist-corporate establishment... we will be damning all left of center political influence in this country.

[porphyrian]

19. I believe it is they who do not wish to co-exist with us.

The problem is that you accept as matter-of-fact that there must be a centrist-corporate establishment in our party. I would argue that corporate influence has no place in a representative democracy until corporate personhood carries the same accountability as individual citizens.

[charlie]

20. No, they're not merely a think tank

They're an organization that includes prominent Democrats in their membership. They're a faction of the party, not just a policy center.

[HereSince1628]

23. Is there any evidence besides assertion of the normal distribution

This is one of the huge assumptions of the DLC. If you've got current stats I'd like to see the evidence that in 2005 such a thing still exists.

The DLC pushed its way into existance at a time when there might have been a normal curve, but since Gingrich, its been increasingly polarized.

I suspect the traditional approach of the DLC to move to the middle actually moves democratic candidates farther to the right of the democratic base.

[yurbud]

37. I agree that business should have a voice but, how do you keep them

from overwhelming the rest of us with their greater financial resources?

How do we keep the Democratic Party from becoming one dollar one vote like the GOP?

[mestup]

17. Dems must stop trying to figure out how to go after the current voters!

They need to go after the non-voters. (The LARGEST voting base.)

The task is to court those people who stopped voting years ago. People who don't give a shyte about the wedge issues that generate the most in campaign contributions.

Decent Jobs. Decent Wages. Decent Healthcare.

That's what concerns this very large group of non-voters.

[porphyrian]

21. But there's no corporate money in those subjects...

...better to whore out to the special interest lobbyists.

[Perky]

24. you can't do both??? N/t

[Perky]

22. I think it comes down to two issues

1) DLCers would rather win than by pulling the lefties to some more moderate position solely as a means of wining...where as Lefties would rather have greater distinctions with the right and force people to choose one path or another.

I think DLCers would point to wins by Clinton vs huge losses by McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis as practical examples of this strategy winning.

2) as for the politcs. I think DLCers view lefties as being fairly opposed to the the "investor class" or perhaps those making something north of $80,000 a year. DLCers have no problem with people making good money, getting ahead of the game..being able to save for Kids's college, taking a couple of week's vacation at Epcot, etc.

I personally think there is alot of common ground if the lefties want to win and the DLCers don't come off as being for the rich and against the poor.

To win elections I think you have to find a way to attract the 45% of american voters who are not voting. They are turned off by both the right and the left. Figure out what would attract them into the polling booth, and you will win for a long time to come.

[yurbud]

38. Progressives have nothing against people making more than $80K

We just want the investor class to pay their fair share of taxes.

That 45% of people that aren't voting aren't going to be drawn in by more empty religious and patriotic bullshit.

Tell them how you are going to keep their job from gettting shipped overseas,make it affordable to go to the doctor, or make the neighborhood public school actually work.

The suspicion a lot of us have about the DLC is that those seemingly moderate positions don't mask underlying progressive intentions but the opposite--they are shining progressives on too, and are as solely concerned about servicing business as the GOP.

I've had some up close contact with business friendly politics through my union, and it isn't pretty. It's not about "creating jobs" in any broad sense, but simply exchanging money and favors, to the point that the administrators at my schools would be happy to have a campus of all new buildings, occupied by only one instructor and one student, that met one day a year. Then they would tear down the campus so they could build it again.

[greekspeak]

44. Stop acting like Clinton's victories were such huge victories

I gladly voted for Clinton two times. What choice was there? If it had not been for Perot, Clinton would not have won in 1992. Face that fact as you pat the DLC on the back for that. In 1996, he went up against Dole. Doley doley dole. Dole is wierd. He speaks about himself in the third person. He was pretty old to be running for pres. Again, some Perot action in there. I would not be calling that a huge resounding victory for the DLC. Add to this, the 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. More and more and more ground lost as the DLC tries to play Repuke.

[MisterP]

26. positions and principles are impediments to the corporate state

and a party of disregard, enforced apathy, war, and world enslavement
at least, that's the DLC's current leadership's view

[DanCa]

36. I really dont know what the dlc is honestly

I am ignorant on this whole subject.
I just dont believe in labeling people and that other people with other ideas should be given the chance to participant in the party as a whole.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. If the DCL was not for silencing the progresives as they ahve

been for a while I would go, yep sure..

[Crunchy Frog]

39. A very good question.

I'm not a DLC defender, but I too am genuinely curious as to what the core principles and positions are that would lead one to align oneself with the DLC.

I'm kind of disappointed that there have been no responses in this thread from DLC type people answering the question.

In most of these debates concerning the DLC, most of what I see is a back and forth bickering over which electoral strategy is more effective. I would like to see more genuine debate over the issue of core principles, done in a respectful fashion, but I suppose that is probably too much to ask.

[yurbud]

42. that's why I posted this question--they only talk about how to win

and that's the one thing they absolutely suck at.

[U4ikLefty]

41. The DLC dilutes the left by injecting corprorate greed & entitlement

into the mix. They have no interest in progressive politics whatsoever, they LIKE the status quo because it pays thier bills.

If winning is the only thing, then I will quote a Rush tune (the band, not the FM-radio-asshole)..."We will pay the price, but we cannot count the cost."