What's the old left? What's the new left?

What's the difference?

Is there some kind of history here? Or are these just buzzwords?

old left was the socialist and communists trade unionist who hit their
high point in the 1930's and were destroyed by the red scare and the
failure of the Soviet Union under Stalin.

The new left was the civil rights and anti-war movement of the
sixties. Destroyed by assassinations and the domestic counter
intelligence programs and drugs.

Neither are very relevant except as historical interests.

Times change.

Updated:

Old Left == IWW

New Left == SDS

If you're a liberal leftist, the new left is good and the old left is bad. or something like that

put out by the media which doesn't understand or really care abou the real issues.

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

:eyes:

hmmm I'll take a shot at it, then don my flame suit :evilgrin:

the "old left" were very labor oriented, union supporters and were for taxing and spreading the wealth (almost socialism, they agreed with a lot of socialist principles)

the new left is more amorphous, they are more environmentally aware, and have more of a "corporate responsibility" slant, are for less taxation of the working people

I'd be interested in more input but here's some where to start :)

<donning flame suit>

FDR Democrats? Wallace Democrats?

The New Left- Moore/Kucinich Grassroots Dems

They were about the politics of race, and when the Dems came out for civil rights, they all switched to the Republicans.

Doosh could be talking about Henry Wallace. FDR's vice president for one term. He pulled a Nader in 1948 and ran third party but Truman got re-elected anyway.

"Roosevelt was a politician who failed at being a reformer. Wallace was a reformer who failed at being a politician."

out of necessity. Otherwise, there is no difference. Still believe in the same ideals and principles.

but im too worn out to digress right now...

is now new again, or is it the other way around?

http://porthurontokentstate.tripod.com/PortHuronStatement.htm

either way, a starting point.
dp

New left -- Kerry, Edwards, Bayh

I'm OLD left, thank you very much. They believed that principles were more important than votes, and because of their principles, they got the votes anyway. There's a lesson there if some people would ever learn it.

Old Left--FDR, Truman, and you forgot to mention Bob Casey.

Only the last was what I term neoprogressive, or neopro for short: the opposite of a neoliberal. Bob Casey, despite his being a cultural conservative, was economically very liberal, and used such fiscally liberal means for culturally conservative ends, which included protecting civil rights for minorities and women, a statewide adoption network, expanded prenatal and infant care--18 months of care on the state!

No neolib or conservative would ever dream of putting these safeguards in place.

Old Left = communists and socialists from the 1890s-1950s, usually of a Marxist bent, who were often allied with the labor movement.

New Left = The radical Left of the '50s/'60s onward. Think Students for a Democratic Society, Yippees, and the Weather Underground. Identity politics too.

There's some degree of overlap between the two, and the former has gradually adopted many of the critiques of the latter. For example, prior to the 1960s, many radical Left groups were sexist, homophobic, and advocated "colorblind" policies.

Im suprised on how out-in-left-field some of the definitions are on this thread...

But that was decades ago. Whole nother thread though.

those were the men ,women , and children who couldn`t take the horrid working conditions and the horrid lives they had to lead. so they organized-they paid for it with their lives. they were murdered by the company thugs, they were jailed and beaten by local police, their children were taken from them, their homes were destroyed by thugs. but thru it all they believed that their right to a decent wage and a decent life would somehow come to be..and after the deaths of hundreds the unions finally won the right to just ask for a decent wage and working conditions. if it wasn`t for the unions and the wages they paid this country would not be where we are today..union wages and workers built this country after ww2.
now we are all gone-the companies finally won the war. the sacrifices of those brave men and women who gave their lives so we could have a better life are now forgotten and we as a nation are poorer for it.
don`t mourn-organize!!!!!

"New" and "Old" are hard to pin down. I run across this all the time in relation to historical subjects. What, for example, is the "Old South"? Well, as of 2004, there are half a dozen "Old South's" and just as many "New South's," so we've got to figure out which one we're talking about before we can move on.

In the modern context, "old" and "new" are generally marked as a separation between post-Vietnam Democrats and post-Reagan Democrats. The former were more pacifist, tended to argue for disengagement from foreign affairs, and concentrated primarily on domestic issues qua domestic issue. The new left is, in some sense, going back to its "old" roots, drawing from JFK and FDR and their insistence that the fate of the nation is tied to the fate of the world such that lasting economic and social justice cannot be achieved at home if it is not simultaneously given priority in the world.

Others have given definitions of "old" and "new" as they relate to earlier times. And, if you're hearing this from a talking head, don't expect the distinction to have any meaning at all, i.e. in that context, they're just buzz-phrases.

The Old-Left would toss a brick through the windshield of a scabs car for crossing a picket-line then get his name and number....

The New-Left votes for NAFTA....

A german perspective:

In a way the so-called new left separated cultural issues from social issues. They were quite succesfull doing this and frightened the conservatives to death, while on the other hand you could say middle-class people were successfull in pushing middle-class issues.

Being cynical one could claim, the new left did just produce a new kind of consumer class, suiting a new kind of capitalism, working conditions and products. But doing this, they did hit the nerve of those conservatives, who were paranoid about the left, communism and the so-called sexual revolution. Capitalism did need these consumers while the conservatives and right-wingers thought, these "consumers" would destroy capitalism.
If you understand this, you understand the reason the righwingers will always offend the media for being too liberal, while even moderate democrats see clearly that the media is 100% propaganda for the establishment.

Look at the history of the Greens in Europe, esp. in Germany. You have it all: a corrupt and succesfull mainstream neoliberal pro-buisness party, still defending minorities (gays, lesbians, immigrants, feminism), still very concerned about environment-issues (rich middle-class people breath and eat, too), but acting against the workers and the unemployed as brutal as any other neoliberal party.

I'd say, the best among the new left tried to do, what the globalisation-movement these days is about: not to become paranoid sectarians AND not to become conformists like so many of the new left.

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

The difference can be seen in what the left was fighting *for* perhaps?

Old left: livable working conditions, civil rights.
New left: Optimum working conditions, multiculturalism.

The old left gave us OSHA and everything leading up to it.
The new left gave us Brown v Board and the civil rights legislation following it, Family Leave Act, hate crimes legislation, disabilities legislation.

IMO see the old left was more concerned about workers' struggle to survive and not be treated as peasants. The new left assumes we've gone beyond that and wants to raise the bar for everyone.

Old left = democrats up to around the 60s. New left = movement that grew from the 60s and culminated with McGovern. Today's left= combination of both (today's moderates most resemble Kennedy, FDR, Truman, etc.) IMO, of course.

The Old Left would support Sanders.

The Future Left would/will support Bush.

1930's Leftists were Socialists.

The "Left" is moving ever rightward, therefore: tomorrow's Left will likely be supportive of Bush.

All you gotta do is watch the progression over the last 7 decades.

Did that clear it up for ya?




Ed:punc

I'm afraid that didn't clear it up for me. The Democratic Party has been moving towards the Center since I don't know -- Mondale/Ferraro got squashed. But the Democratic party is not the "left" unless you believe the red-baiting on Worldnet.com or whatever that is -- google democratic party and communism. rumguy was looking for the meaning of the terms Old Left and New Left. These are not terms you can move around to mean whatever you want (well you can, apparently) they indicate specific political stances at a particular period of time. What connects them is a radical critique of capitalism. What differentiates them is that the Old Left looked to Soviet Russia as a model while the New Left was more democratic and could see that the Soviet Union was a mess. The Democratic Party does not seek to get rid of capitalism so it's always been a centrist party. Claro? Slick

Let me try to be more precise.

The Old Left that you talk about in post #19 had much of it's agenda enacted in the FDR administration: workers rights, social security, etc..., while not abandoning capitalist precepts. This is who I'm calling the Old Left- the merge of leftist ideas into the Democratic party. The Socialist Party was effectively rendered meaningless because FDR implemented virtually all of their political platform, which, in my view, makes the Dem Party the caretaker of those ideals. This was the Democratic Partys greatest hour, imo. For the most part, the needs of the people acquired equal footing with the needs of business. You say "the Democratic party is not the "left" unless you believe the red-baiting on Worldnet.com or whatever that is -- google democratic party and communism." <Political "Left" defined: a. The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing. b. The opinion of those advocating such measures. Am I missing something or is this not what the Dem Party pretends to stand for? :shrug:> The Dem Party most certainly was the Left during the 1930's. And while you place the movement towards the Center as beginning with Mondale/Ferraro :freak:, I place it as beginning with Truman. By definition, if you're moving to the center from the left, you are moving rightward. If, at the same time, the Right is also moving rightwards, the Center loses it's meaning as a stationary reference point. So when you say "The Democratic Party does not seek to get rid of capitalism so it's always been a centrist party", "centrist party" has no meaning. Furthermore, Debs' Socialist movement was about justice for workers, women and children, not the destruction of Capitalism.

The New Left is the fulmination of this rightward movement. A movement that makes it hard to distinguish between the policies of Nixon and the policies of the New Left, Neo-Liberals or New Democrats.

By extrapolation, if Dems continue their rightward movement, it will be hard to distinguish their future political views from those of the present day Bush administration.

Needless to say, why don't we call the New Left what it really is: The Old Right.

The New Left usually means the radical movements of the 1960s-1970s. Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Black Panthers, SDS, Weather Underground, Yippies. They were very far to the left, some of them Maoists.

There's a good book if you can find it. SDS by Kirkpatrick Sale. It convinced me that the New Left was so attracted to the most extreme kinds of radicalism that they self-destructed. They weren't Democrats.

The Old Right? That would be Harding, Taft, Coolidge, maybe Goldwater. Today they're called "paleoconservatives". Pat Buchanan is Old Right.

I mean the New New Left

With all of this product improvement, you'd think that we'd have one hell of a powerful ideology.

I guess you could say we have a "New New Left" now, in the Green Party, anti-globalization protests, anarchists, Indymedia, International Action Center, Not In Our Name etc etc

Times change..

The Third Way New New Left.

I think those that you just listed could be categorized as the Old Left, socialists and unionists. The SDS as the original New Left, i.e, anti-war, anti-poverty and anti-racism-- or the Old Left rejuvenated. And the Third Wayers as the New New Left, DLC and NDOL.

Times do change. As do the names for things. But when you strip away the names, ideologies can be more precisely defined by their actions and intents. I'm not sure we have a disagreement here.

my head's going to explode!
just kidding, of course :)

First let me say that I'm enjoying DU. I've only been here a couple of days and it seems like good things are going on. But there does seem to be a tendency to argue things in a strange non-productive way.
When rumguy asks what does "Old Left" "New Left" mean he is asking about shorthand that people use for specific historical movements, I assume. Not what RUMMYisFROSTED happens to think those terms mean. Naturally, if the "New Left" (notice capital letters indicating a proper noun) existed in the 1960s it can't be new in 2004. It's like the difference between "The Populist Movement" of the 1890s and small "p" populism today. Or "Progressives" circa 1900 and progressives today. That said, there's no need to amplify my response to rumguy in NOT JUST BUZZWORDS any decent US history textbook will tell him something pretty close to what I put in that post.
Now, if we want to discuss the present day political spectrum we can still use left and right and say Dems are to the left of Reps and within each party some are further left and further right.
I have to go now and I don't know how (or if)I can save drafts, so I'll pick it up later.
This is who I'm calling the Old Left- the merge of leftist ideas into the Democratic party.



The Socialist Party was effectively rendered meaningless

A return to the democratic policies pre- 60s/70s McGovern era.

I can basically agree with your statement.

The policies of JFK, Truman and LBJ (minus the Civil Rights Act) are quite similar to the centrist policies of the DLC.

FDR, however, basically co-opted the Socialist Party platform into the legislation he enacted; even though he ran as a centrist.

3 out of 4 ain't bad, though. But FDR doesn't belong in your list.

The economic times called for the co-opting of the Socialist Party platform into the legislation he enacted.

Without the Depression, no such policies would have been enacted.

I dare say any democrat (or moderate republican) would be forced into similar drastic measures today if the economy called for it.

I read an FDR biography once which stated how the left and the right pretty much despised FDR through most of his years as POTUS because of his centrist or moderate stands.

No way were those policies going to be enacted without the backdrop of the Depression. But think about it...

That legislation was the greatest thing to ever happen for the American worker. Things that we take for granted today: Fair Labor Standards Act (40 hour work week, overtime, child labor laws) and Social Security. Things that are being undone as we speak. This is basically all I want from the Democratic Party: workers having equal footing with business. The DLC and NDOL favor business over the worker, as have the string of centrist Dems over the last 70 years (Don't get me started with the anti-worker policies of the Pugs). This is the basic rub between leftists, centrists and rightists-- the degree to which labor and business are given empowerment. Basically, leftists want equal footing. Centrists tilt towards business. Rightists fellate corporations. Issues like Gay Marriage, gun ownership and abortion are intentional distractions to divert us from coming to grips with this basic power struggle.

But along the lines of economics, national defense, foreign policy, and into areas such as the social issues you mention, the "new democrats" (DLC) most resembles the "old democrats" (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) than the the 60s-70s era McGovernites do.

One disagreement in your otherwise great reply, my experience shows that leftists don't want equal footing - they want the upper hand. Good, bad, other, I won't judge. But that is just my observation.

have ridden to the nomination on a promise to restrict welfare benefits to five years lifetime? Would Roosevelt have pushed trade policy that resulted in jobs fleeing overseas and an international race to the bottom in terms of worker pay and protections? Would LBJ have even remotely considered school vouchers?

Roosevelt's 1932 platform, for example, called for "reciprocal trade agreements with other nations, and an international conference designed to restore international trade and facilitate exchange." At home, it promoted "an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagances to accomplish a savings of not less than 25 percent of the cost of the Federal Government." Roosevelt's last platform, in 1944, said that Democrats had "saved our system of free enterprise" and built "the best trained and equipped army in the world, the most powerful navy in the world, the greatest air force in the world, and the largest merchant marine in the world."

Of course, the economic situation in the country was far different then.

Would LBJ have even remotely considered school vouchers?

Actually, he did. When Lyndon Johnson took office, some progressives liked the idea of choice and vouchers. Christopher Jenks, for example, a sociologist and a liberal, developed what he called a "regulated voucher plan." This was a plan which looked like a progressive income tax, with regard to educational vouchers. Those who had the least, got the most. The educational voucher wouldn't be an absolute cash grant but if you were impoverished, you would get more money than if you were wealthier.

There was an attempt under the old Office of Economic Opportunity in the Johnson administration to experiment with these regulated vouchers in a public school setting.

Again, not quite the same concept today's voucher proponants push, but times were different then but Johnson was at least open to the concept of school vouchers.

Would Kennedy have ridden to the nomination on a promise to restrict welfare benefits to five years lifetime?

Who did that?

Clinton promised to end it as we know it.

As for Kennedy? When he took office, case loads and expense were much lower. Then in 1962, at John F. Kennedy's urging, Congress renamed the program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Under the new law, states were permitted to require beneficiaries to do community work and attend training programs. Kennedy articulated what has since been a central goal of federal welfare policy: to end poverty, not just alleviate it. Welfare should be "a hand up, not a hand out," in Kennedy's words.

Clinton expanded on that when he said , "No one who can work should be able to stay on welfare forever." Clinton's welfare plan added $9.3 billion in new spending for community service jobs for those who couldn't find private sector work.

by restricting benefits to five years lifetime. He wasn't that specific in his campaign pledges, so my bad, but it is how he achieved the stated goal.

Kennedy articulated what has since been a central goal of federal welfare policy: to end poverty, not just alleviate it.

Are you saying that Clinton's goal was to end poverty, that he was in any way the heir of LBJ in that regard? If so, are you saying it with a straight face?

***

If it's hard to tell what these presidents in different times would have done with DLC policies, how can we then say that the DLC is "nearly identical" with them?

In each president paired to a policy, the president in question DID enact or seek to enact the policy (welfare reform, international trade, school vouchers) whereas you insinuated they did not.

Of course, there are always unintended consequences and those blessed with hindsite are always quick to point those out.

Seems you want to divert from those points to one in particular - that of Clinton's welfare reform and that you have special insight into what Clinton's true goals were in that respect.

So, what were they?

the "blessing of hindsight". I suppose that, in regards to both that and what Clinton's true goals were regarding welfare, my memory's too good to allow me to forget that there were a lot of people telling BC what the likely outcome of these program changes would be.

Do I *know* his true goals? No, and I don't recall having ever said that I did. That said, as intelligent a man as he is, I have a hard time with the idea that the unintended consequences of welfare reform and NAFTA just snuck up and smacked him one night while he was sleeping. I *very strongly suspect* that he downplayed them in pursuit of the short-term electoral goal, as seems to me to characterize much of the DLC strategy.

Wyld, it was your contention that the DLC is the heir of the FDR/HST/JFK/LBJ legacy, a legacy that I think they've been busy dismantling in the name of "modernizing" the party.

my memory's too good to allow me to forget that there were a lot of people telling BC what the likely outcome of these program changes would be.

Of course, there were a lot of people advising Clinton the opposite of what the others you mentioned were saying.

Do I *know* his true goals? No, and I don't recall having ever said that I did.

No, but you claimed to know what his true goal wasn't by asking, Are you saying that Clinton's goal was to end poverty, that he was in any way the heir of LBJ in that regard? If so, are you saying it with a straight face?

Here you seem to know (and believe it is true) that Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty and that LBJ's goal was.

Clinton record speaks for itself - economic facts now part of the public record.

Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8% last year (2000), the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. The child poverty rate has declined more than 25%, the poverty rate for single mothers is the lowest ever, the African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979.

Wyld, it was your contention that the DLC is the heir of the FDR/HST/JFK/LBJ legacy, a legacy that I think they've been busy dismantling in the name of "modernizing" the party.

I disagree. As I've shown, the DLC has taken on the same approach to foreign policy that pre-McGovern era democrats did, and many of the same economic policies.

Here you seem to know (and believe it is true) that Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty and that LBJ's goal was.

It seems self-evident. LBJ at least had a set of programs in the War on Poverty, so that while he may not have believed it to be an achievable goal, he at least tried to do something. I don't remember much in the way of Clintonian anti-poverty initiatives.

Clinton record speaks for itself - economic facts now part of the public record.

What, the tech bubble was Clinton's effort to end poverty?

Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8% last year (2000), the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. The child poverty rate has declined more than 25%, the poverty rate for single mothers is the lowest ever, the African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979.

I'm guessing that this quote comes from 2001 - just as the inevitable recession was gearing up. Just as the five-year welfare limits were kicking in. You'll have to pardon my skepticism.

As I've shown, the DLC has taken on the same approach to foreign policy that pre-McGovern era democrats did

But didn't you say that they were different Democrats living in different times? How could they be taking the same approach when the issues are decades removed?

and many of the same economic policies.

Your "proof" on this front consisted, as I recall, of saying that FDR pursued international trade. No shit. The US has pursued international trade since its founding. That's not the same as pushing an agreement like NAFTA.

I'm guessing that this quote comes from 2001 - just as the inevitable recession was gearing up. Just as the five-year welfare limits were kicking in. You'll have to pardon my skepticism.

Is that the best you can do to refute the facts of Clinton's economic records? Conjecture?

But didn't you say that they were different Democrats living in different times? How could they be taking the same approach when the issues are decades removed?

This is, of course, compared to the short-lived era of the McGovern-dems.

The issues are different, but the actions proposed to deal with them are not.

Your "proof" on this front consisted, as I recall, of saying that FDR pursued international trade. No shit. The US has pursued international trade since its founding. That's not the same as pushing an agreement like NAFTA.

Again, the word you hate: Hindsite. You base you opinion on NAFTA by the way it turned out, and not in it's original intent.

Is that the best you can do to refute the facts of Clinton's economic records? Conjecture?

Clinton had the benefit of a technological economic boom that 1. had little to do with him and 2. left a lot of little folks behind. What records? What conjecture?

The issues are different, but the actions proposed to deal with them are not.

So FDR pushed economic policies that *inevitably* sent jobs to Mexican maquiladoras? Who knew? And I'd like to see a cite on your reference to Johnson and school vouchers.

You base you opinion on NAFTA by the way it turned out, and not in it's original intent.

Again, those who didn't have an electoral investment in passing NAFTA were quite able to see where it would lead, no matter its original intent.

The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research.

In 1992, unemployment reached 7.5%, the highest level in eight years. Unemployment and poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanics were alarming: unemployment reached 14.2% for African Americans and 11.8% for Hispanics, and poverty rates for both groups were nearly 30%. But today:


Higher Incomes at All Levels: After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower-income families, all income brackets have experienced double-digit income growth since 1993. The bottom 20% saw the largest income growth at 16.3%.

Lowest Poverty Rate in 20 Years: Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8% last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. The child poverty rate has declined more than 25%, the poverty rate for single mothers is the lowest ever, the African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979.

Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: Under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers has fallen from 46.1% in 1993 to 35.7% in 1999, the lowest level on record. Between 1980 and 1992, an additional 2.1 million households headed by single women were pushed into poverty.

Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, the welfare rolls have dropped dramatically and are now the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53% decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22% increase) to 13.6 million people.

So explain how the 5 year limits on welfare kicking in caused this?

From you post 62: I'm guessing that this quote comes from 2001 - just as the inevitable recession was gearing up. Just as the five-year welfare limits were kicking in. You'll have to pardon my skepticism.

There is your conjecture.

So explain how the 5 year limits on welfare kicking in caused this?

I don't believe you to be ignorant, so please don't act as if you are. The welfare bill was passed in 1996, and therefore kicked in in 2001, after Clinton left office.

There is your conjecture.

Where? From your post:

Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8% last year (2000),

Was I wrong about the year? What? And can we get a cite for the quote?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that the Clinton economy was based on a tech bubble on Wall Street that couldn't last.

After I gave you these figures the first time, you said in post #62:

I'm guessing that this quote comes from 2001 - just as the inevitable recession was gearing up. Just as the five-year welfare limits were kicking in. You'll have to pardon my skepticism.

There was your conjecture (that these stats had something to do with the five year welfare limits kicking in.) So prove it.

Cites:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Tg62--nzToYJ:clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/Accomplishments/html/accomp-plain.html+Clinton+accomplishments&hl=en

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

http://bogota.usembassy.gov/wwwsbc01.shtml

There was your conjecture (that these stats had something to do with the five year welfare limits kicking in.)

Not sure where you got that idea, but that's never been my contention. :shrug:

I'm guessing that this quote comes from 2001 - just as the inevitable recession was gearing up. Just as the five-year welfare limits were kicking in. You'll have to pardon my skepticism.

What did the five-year welfare limits have to do with the stats? :shrug:

in 2001 sounds an awful lot like talking about how wonderful it all was in the summer of 1929. My point is that the welfare limits kicked in just as the recession did, not that they caused it.

You're saying the welfare limits were partially responsible for the Bush recession? and if so, how?

Try reading. I wrote, "My point is that the welfare limits kicked in just as the recession did, not that they caused it."

I'm saying that the welfare limits kicked in and required that people find jobs just as all the layoffs were happening.

People were required to find jobs so that would have affected the job numbers in a positive way. Instead, the Bush recession lost millions of jobs and unemployment went up.

Also, if the people could not find jobs they still would not be counted among the ranks of the unemployed because they would not have recently held a job.

So I don't see how it is relevant to the point I made.

Instead, the Bush recession lost millions of jobs and unemployment went up.

I'd be a lot more receptive to welfare reform if those pesky recessions didn't keep popping up. Unfortunately, they're sort of a fact of capitalism.

Also, if the people could not find jobs they still would not be counted among the ranks of the unemployed because they would not have recently held a job.

True enough. Of course, that just means that unemployment numbers are an ineffective gauge of the effects of welfare reform.

So I don't see how it is relevant to the point I made.

I'm not sure what your point even is at this point. Is it still that the DLC are identical to the great Dem presidents? We can return to that if you'd like but I don't think you've done much to this point to back up your original assertion.

I'd be a lot more receptive to welfare reform if those pesky recessions didn't keep popping up. Unfortunately, they're sort of a fact of capitalism.

Recessions are a fact of economics. Welfare reform doesn't cause them and there isn't anything I'm aware of to prevent them.

Of course, that just means that unemployment numbers are an ineffective gauge of the effects of welfare reform.

So?

I gave you facts and figures on the Clinton economy of the 90s. You countered that those facts were "quoted" or established after the 5 year welfare plan kicked in. You've yet to establish how that is relevant.

Recessions are a fact of economics. Welfare reform doesn't cause them and there isn't anything I'm aware of to prevent them.

Is it an intentional thing that you keep suggesting this supposed link I'm trying to make between welfare reform and the recession? For the third time, no, welfare reform did not cause the recession. I never said it did.

However, if we're in agreement that recessions are inevitable, and if we're at all in pursuit of a humane economic policy, then what sense does it make to apply some arbitrary time limit on the safety net?

So?

It is what it is. The fact that unemployment numbers don't count those recently thrown off welfare neither bolsters your argument nor curtails mine.

I gave you facts and figures on the Clinton economy of the 90s. You countered that those facts were "quoted" or established after the 5 year welfare plan kicked in. You've yet to establish how that is relevant.

Your point in bringing up those facts and figures, near as I can figure, was to suggest that Clinton had the end of poverty as his goal. You wrote:

Here you seem to know (and believe it is true) that Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty and that LBJ's goal was.

Clinton record speaks for itself - economic facts now part of the public record.

Facts and figures follow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1816572#1825743

My point is that curtailing welfare benefits during an economic boom that has significantly failed to raise all boats and with a deep recession just around the corner* counts far more as political cowardice than as any kind of aim at ending poverty.

(* Before I get the "unintended consequences" argument again, can we agree that if you know and I know that recessions are inevitable, Bill Clinton probably knows that as well?)

Why did you mention welfare reform kicking in as some sort of cause and effect of Clinton's economy and Bush's recession? Either explain the connection or admit the comment was irrelevant.

My point is that curtailing welfare benefits during an economic boom that has significantly failed to raise all boats and with a deep recession just around the corner* counts far more as political cowardice than as any kind of aim at ending poverty.

Two points:

No one knew a deep recession was just around the corner and the economic boom did "raise all boats." Comparing Bush I's term and Clintons...





can we agree that if you know and I know that recessions are inevitable, Bill Clinton probably knows that as well?)

Sure, but what no one knows is when those recessions will occur.

Why did you mention welfare reform kicking in as some sort of cause and effect of Clinton's economy and Bush's recession?

Please show me the comment I made that you insist on interpreting in that way. I've explained why I brought up welfare reform in conjunction with your stats on the Clinton economy, and (for the fourth time) it had nothing to do with any cause and effect.

No one knew a deep recession was just around the corner

Perhaps not, but hell, *I* knew that the boom wasn't going to last, and I'm not an economist.

and the economic boom did "raise all boats."

Not by enough.

'Clinton's 1996 welfare reform replaced the cash entitlement-based Aid for Families with Dependent Children with the new Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Research suggests that in the context of the faltering economy, people who might have once received AFDC are far more likely to find entrenched poverty than living-wage work. Single mothers are in truly desperate straits according to a new report released by the Children's Defense Fund. "The number of jobless women with children not receiving welfare rose by 188,000 in one year, leaving a record three quarters of all single mothers without public assistance and causing a sudden surge in extreme child poverty," the report states. "Single parents entered the 2001 recession with less protection from a failing economy than in any recession in the last 20 years."'

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0910-14.htm Emphasis added.

Sure, but what no one knows is when those recessions will occur.


So what? We know that they're coming. What sense does it make to shred the safety net, especially is one is trying to eliminate poverty?

Please show me the comment I made that you insist on interpreting in that way. I've explained why I brought up welfare reform in conjunction with your stats on the Clinton economy, and (for the fourth time) it had nothing to do with any cause and effect.

That is the problem. You have yet to give an adequate explanation for your quote from post #62:

I said: "Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8% last year (2000), the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. The child poverty rate has declined more than 25%, the poverty rate for single mothers is the lowest ever, the African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979."

YOU said I'm guessing that this quote comes from 2001 - just as the inevitable recession was gearing up. Just as the five-year welfare limits were kicking in. You'll have to pardon my skepticism.

So, according to your statement, you're skeptical of those numbers (even though they are matter of public record) because the five-year welfare limits were kicking in and the recession was just around the corner.

What does the welfare limits have to do with it and why is the recession (unknown at the time) even relevant to the timing of the stats?

*I* knew that the boom wasn't going to last, and I'm not an economist.

But you didn't know WHEN. And as many people point out, a continuation of Clinton's policies would have at least stalled any impending recession.

and the economic boom did "raise all boats."

Not by enough.

Not by enough? See, that is the problem with the left - nothing is ever good enough.

The poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8%, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25%, the poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever, the African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record, and the Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979.

But that just isn't good enough.

I haven't denied that welfare reform has been detrimental. However, you seem to be intent on denying that Clinton's policies went a long way (a long way) towards making every class of citizen more economically sound.

But it wasn't enough for you.

Not everyone did better. No one can accomplish that. Not Clinton. Not Kerry. Not Dean. Not Nader.

Doesn't matter, though. If they could, the left's focus would be on the negative and not the positive, anyway.

We know that they're (recessions) coming. What sense does it make to shred the safety net, especially is one is trying to eliminate poverty?

So, essentially, you're saying that no matter how prosperous we are, what you term "the safety net" should never be rolled back for fear of impending recession?

The "safety net" wasn't shredded. It was reformed. If your economic conditions called for it, you could go get on welfare now.

But what an open-ended welfare system does is create a dependent class, virtually trapping generations of families in welfare. They have no incentive to escape from it.

Kennedy knew this when he allowed states to require beneficiaries to do community work and attend training programs. In the words of JFK, "Welfare should be "a hand up, not a hand out." Though I don't totally subscribe to that, I would say "welfare should be a hand up and a handout - just not forever.

So, according to your statement, you're skeptical of those numbers (even though they are matter of public record) because the five-year welfare limits were kicking in and the recession was just around the corner.

Not skeptical of the numbers, just of the idea that they prove that Clinton was out to end poverty.

What does the welfare limits have to do with it and why is the recession (unknown at the time) even relevant to the timing of the stats?

Because the recession *was* inevitable and the passage of the 96 welfare bill *did* remove vital protections for the most economically vulnerable in our society just as the recession that *was* inevitable was kicking in.

But you didn't know WHEN. And as many people point out, a continuation of Clinton's policies would have at least stalled any impending recession.

I don't buy the last bit at all, and at any rate, so what? 2001 or 2010, it would have come, and the vulnerable would still have been more so because of the 96 law.

Not by enough? See, that is the problem with the left - nothing is ever good enough.

Perhaps I should elaborate - "not by enough to prevent a surge in extreme child poverty."

And no, I'm not sorry for feeling that something that contributes to child poverty isn't good enough.

So, essentially, you're saying that no matter how prosperous we are, what you term "the safety net" should never be rolled back for fear of impending recession?

Yes. YES. Why should it be? We're the most wealthy fucking nation on the planet, and we have an economy that *requires* that a certain percentage of the workforce be unemployed at any given time. Why should it be rolled back?

But what an open-ended welfare system does is create a dependent class, virtually trapping generations of families in welfare. They have no incentive to escape from it.

A problem, perhaps, but I submit that Clinton's solution in 1996 was far worse than the disease.

Kennedy knew this when he allowed states to require beneficiaries to do community work and attend training programs.

You'll note that he didn't limit lifetime benefits.

Not skeptical of the numbers, just of the idea that they prove that Clinton was out to end poverty.

The poverty rate declined from 15.1% to 11.8% under Clinton's policies. Interestingly, at the start of LBJ's "war on poverty," the poverty rate was 14% - but LBJ's programs, after 27 years and $6 trillion, found the official poverty rate had notched up to 15.1 percent.

So if Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty (and I never said it was), he did do a slightly better job than LBJ who did pledge to end poverty and whose programs - over a 27 year run and costing $6 trillion - actually increased the poverty rate.

Perhaps I should elaborate - "not by enough to prevent a surge in extreme child poverty."

The child poverty rate has declined more than 25% since 1993 and, according to US Census information, remained unchanged as of Sept. 2003.

Kennedy knew this when he allowed states to require beneficiaries to do community work and attend training programs.

You'll note that he didn't limit lifetime benefits.

No, but he wasn't in office long, was he? We don't know what he would have done. We do know what he said - "Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out." I'm certain he didn't mean a permanent hand up.

The issue wasn't whether or not Johnson was particularly successful, but whether or not Clinton had the elimination of poverty as is his goal in the first place, which you did imply.

he did do a slightly better job than LBJ who did pledge to end poverty and whose programs - over a 27 year run and costing $6 trillion - actually increased the poverty rate.

Erm...it's a pretty big leap from saying that the poverty rate increased under LBJ to saying that his programs *caused* the increase. I'd be very interested in seeing a citation for the claim.

The child poverty rate has declined more than 25% since 1993 and, according to US Census information, remained unchanged as of Sept. 2003.

Again, cite?

No, but he wasn't in office long, was he? We don't know what he would have done.

Surely, and I'm again prompted to wonder, given the fact that you just stated, how it is that you feel so certain in claiming him as the DLC's own.

I'd still like to know why we should roll back the socio-economic safety net, an idea that I gather you support. Maybe we can discuss that when we get to Roosevelt. :)

The issue wasn't whether or not Johnson was particularly successful, but whether or not Clinton had the elimination of poverty as is his goal in the first place, which you did imply.

Where did I imply it?

Erm...it's a pretty big leap from saying that the poverty rate increased under LBJ to saying that his programs *caused* the increase. I'd be very interested in seeing a citation for the claim.

Again, I didn't say his programs caused the increase. I said that from the time LBJ enacted his policies up until Clinton's terms, the poverty rate increased (costing the tax payers $6 trillion)

The child poverty rate has declined more than 25% since 1993 and, according to US Census information, remained unchanged as of Sept. 2003.

Again, cite?

if you'll look several posts up, I gave you several cites for the first figure (25%). The fact that the child poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged (from 2000) as of Sept. 2003 is from the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Information Office (Hard Copy)

Surely, and I'm again prompted to wonder, given the fact that you just stated, how it is that you feel so certain in claiming him as the DLC's own.

If you'll read my posts, you'll see I never claimed him as the DLC's own. I said along the lines of economics, national defense, foreign policy, and into areas such as the social issues, the "new democrats" (DLC) most resembles the "old democrats" (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) than the the 60s-70s era McGovernites do.

I'd still like to know why we should roll back the socio-economic safety net, an idea that I gather you support.

Because I believe the words of Kennedy and the actions he took. I don't believe we should create a multi-generational dependency on handouts. After a certain length of time (maybe not even a set time but perhaps with circumstances taken into consideration) welfare recipients should be required to do, as Kennedy determined, community work and attend training programs.

Where did I imply it?

Allow me to quote you from post #60:

Here you seem to know (and believe it is true) that Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty and that LBJ's goal was.

Clinton record speaks for itself - economic facts now part of the public record.

***

Again, I didn't say his programs caused the increase.

Actually, you did. From post #108:

So if Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty (and I never said it was), he did do a slightly better job than LBJ who did pledge to end poverty and whose programs - over a 27 year run and costing $6 trillion - actually increased the poverty rate.

The fact that the child poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged (from 2000) as of Sept. 2003 is from the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Information Office (Hard Copy)

You take your source and I'll take mine. Frankly, I'll take the CDN.

If you'll read my posts, you'll see I never claimed him as the DLC's own.

Erm...subject line, post #32. The DLC is nearly identical to JFK, Truman, FDR, Johnson

After a certain length of time (maybe not even a set time but perhaps with circumstances taken into consideration) welfare recipients should be required to do, as Kennedy determined, community work and attend training programs.

Community work and training programs aren't what I mean by rolling back the safety net. Imposing an arbitrary lifetime time limit is.

edit - added asterisks to separate quotes of yours.

Allow me to quote you from post #60:

The only thing that implied was that YOU believe that Clinton's goal wasn't to end poverty and that LBJ's goal was. It did not imply that I felt Clinton's goal was to end poverty.

If you'll read my posts, you'll see I never claimed him as the DLC's own.

Erm...subject line, post #32. The DLC is nearly identical to JFK, Truman, FDR, Johnson

Erm... the DLC didn't exist during those administrations. Post #32 plainly says "nearly identical." Post #50 (before I began speaking to you) clarifies the "nearly identical" wording: "But along the lines of economics, national defense, foreign policy, and into areas such as the social issues you mention, the "new democrats" (DLC) most resembles the "old democrats" (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) than the the 60s-70s era McGovernites do."

Community work and training programs aren't what I mean by rolling back the safety net. Imposing an arbitrary lifetime time limit is.

Good. Now I know what *you* mean by rolling back the safety net.

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tarrifs enacted by the GOP in the twenties helped bring on the Depression. FDR liberalized foreign trade. The Democrats were the party of free trade pretty much up until Japan, Inc. made a major move on the US in the seventies. The corporations were for "protectionism" while the workers wanted low prices. After the Asian invasion, the workers wanted "protectionism" for their jobs.

Do you think if FDR had the choice between not having to come up with programs to get people employed at all, and having to come up with them after signing away American jobs to GATT, NAFTA, etc, he would have taken the latter route?

It really doesn't matter what I think FDR would have done. We know the actions he took based on the economic environment at the time.

Do you think if FDR had the choice between not having to come up with programs to get people employed at all, and having to come up with them after signing away American jobs to GATT, NAFTA, etc, he would have taken the latter route?

Here is where I'm confused by your post. Sounds as though you are implying Clinton was forced to "come up with programs" for jobs after signing them away?

If so, the record contradicts your belief. If Clinton "signed away" jobs, who got the 22.5 million jobs created in less than eight years during Clinton's terms?

I'm talking about FDR.

It would be ridiculous x10 to even imagine FDR signing legislation that would ship American jobs overseas while in the midst of the depression. So one must imagine a scenario where he'd have the option to create the damage and be forced to deal with it.

Sounds as though you are implying Clinton was forced to "come up with programs" for jobs after signing them away?

If the shoe fits ...

It would be ridiculous x10 to even imagine FDR signing legislation that would ship American jobs overseas while in the midst of the depression.

Show me where Clinton signed legislation to ship jobs overseas?

"Sounds as though you are implying Clinton was forced to "come up with programs" for jobs after signing them away?"

If the shoe fits ...

Explain to us which programs Clinton was forced to "come up with" after signing jobs away. But first- prove Clinton's intent was to send jobs away.

Explain to us which programs Clinton was forced to "come up with" after signing jobs away. But first- prove Clinton's intent was to send jobs away.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not imply it was Clinton was sitting there twirling his mustache. Rather that it was an inevitable side effect that was well and often predicted, and did come to pass ("that great sucking sound...").

As for the programs he came up with, those were mostly the "infrustructure" jobs, including DOT funds, COPS, etc. Allowing the internet to grow unregulated was also a large boost. But, as has been shown, it proved to be a good part bubble. And Bush has eliminated many of the infrustructure jobs.

How else would one interpret your statement:

It would be ridiculous x10 to even imagine FDR signing legislation that would ship American jobs overseas while in the midst of the depression.

and your reply to my follow-up:

"Sounds as though you are implying Clinton was forced to "come up with programs" for jobs after signing them away?"

If the shoe fits ...

You are clearly implying that Clinton had foreknowledge that NAFTA would cost Americans jobs and that he had to enact other programs to counteract it.

Of this, you have no proof.


Rather that it was an inevitable side effect that was well and often predicted,

By whom and how often?

nothing like selective editing! By the included quote, I think I pretty much explained that.

Good night Irene.

Nothing like seeing someone dodge quotes when they are preserved in the forum for all to see.

Good night Irene.

will never support bush or any of his policies or idealogies.

Never.

and please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Rubin become a member of the Republicans later and a supporter of Reagan?
Shame on me, if I'm wrong, I did read this in a german newspaper about 20 years ago!
Dirk

But I do believe that he was genuinely radical in his youth.

You've hit the nail on the head.

It's all about selling out.

rumguy, You're in luck. I know this stuff and I'm on my third cuppa joe. Believe it or not, there were quite a few Communists and Socialists in the USA at different times and they were not all Foreign agents. So, in the late 1890s there are socialist parties founded that never get as big as those in European countries but big enough. Eugene Debs runs for president during World War I (while in jail!) and gets 6% of the vote. There is also a group called the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) who were revolutionary workers. A great book is "We Shall Be All" a history of the IWW.
In response to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (1917) parties calling themselves Communist begin to form in various countries. In the US the CPUSA forms in about 1921 (see the movie REDS) this is the OLD LEFT. Communists and sympathizers very big during the 1930s help to build the union movement, campaign against lynching, and segregation, critize capitalism, try to build a revolutionary movement, and fight against facism (Nazis, Mussolini, Franco). After World War II, during which the Soviets were our allies, the Cold War begins and the second "red Scare" begins (there was one earlier in 1919-1920). Communists, former communists, sympathizers, and generally anybody left leaning was hounded out of government jobs, unions, Hollywood and just about everyplace else.

In 1960 (I think) Students For a Democratic Society (SDS) is founded. This is where the Port Huron Statement comes from. This is the beginning of the New Left. See SDS by Kirkpatrick Seale a great book about left politics in the 1960s. You need More?
Slick

What Slickriddles said :)

New Left and Old Left were radical left movements, not factions of the Democratic Party.

Old Left: IWW, Socialist Party, Socialist Labor Party, Communist Party.
New Left: Black Panthers, Weather Underground, SDS, Yippies.

When FDR's New Deal and the CIO came along in the 1930s they stole most of the Old Left's thunder. We had a sizeable middle class from that point forward so the Old Left pretty much vanished.

Likewise while the New Left were dabbling in Maoist revolution fantasies and self-destructing, a new generation was bringing new ideas into the Democratic Party that stole whatever thunder the New Left had. That brought us women's lib, the environmental movement, the peace movement.

There was also a lot of FBI provocoteur type stuff that helped destroy both the Old and New Left. The government *really* didn't like the far left.

"Reds" is a good movie about the Old Left. For the New Left see "Panther", and "Berkeley in the Sixties".

The old left also was the old Socialist Party of Debs and Norman Thomas, that Mike Harrington belonged too.

An oversimplification in some ways, of course, but handy.

Old Left=economic focus, New Left=cultural focus.

Old Left=dominated by working class, New Left=dominated by bourgeois liberals.

Both had their successes and have much to offer, if only we could somehow combine both economic and cultural focuses, instead of treating them as an either/or issue, as we commonly do.

If you're really interested in this, read Richard Rorty's book, Achieving Our Country. It's short and thought provoking. Better yet, it's a lot more accurate than most of the answers in this thread, which bear little relation to what the terms Old Left and New Left actually mean and seem to have just been pulled from people's asses.

"if only we could somehow combine both economic and cultural focuses, instead of treating them as an either/or issue, as we commonly do."


Hello from Germany,
Dirk

I am what I am, and that's all that I am.

No, I'm not Popeye. I'm just a moderate Democrat. I do know I'm not as liberal as many Dems. seem these days. So much so, I think I'll be registering as an Independent in the not so distant future.

Guess that makes me an "old Democrat."

But I will NEVER be a registered Republican. Ugh. That'll never happen. They're scary people.

Since you spend a lot of time here at DU, you may think you are too moderate to stay a Dem, but it's not true! At least in my community, even among political activists, DU taken as a whole is left of us. Sometimes very much so.

Nothing I have read of yours seems to say to me that you are not a good ol' Democrat. Don't give up the ship!

Yes, I guess I'm not really THAT moderate. Compared to some of the far lefters, I seem pretty moderate. But I'm not as moderate as Lieberman. I guess I am just a regular ol' Democrat of the old order, and compared to Republicans....well, there's no comparison, I am so far from a conservative.

My parents and siblings are either Republican or apolitical. I live in a Republican state and a Republican district. I work at a place with a lot of Republicans. I KNOW I am very different from them. Still, sometimes I wonder----how the heck did I end up a Democrat?

Then I think---just smart, I guess.
:hippie:

I agree with MontecitoDem. DU is not representative of the Party. Look at how the primaries turned out. Democrats all over the country because they knew Kerry was strong on defense/national security and was running a moderate campaign. Stay in the Party and help us keep it Moderate and Winning. I do have to say that I would NEVER EVER register as anything but a Democrat.

It just seems sometimes that the Democratic Party has gotten SO left that I may not belong anymore. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I will always be a somewhat moderate person. But when I come to my senses I realize that both parties have members that range from left to right.

that if you *do* leave the party (and I'm in no way suggesting that you should - in fact, just the opposite) you'll be lionized, courted and pursued ad nauseum.

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

I consider them merely "buzzwords".

But, rumguy,...great question!!!!

I don't even consider people in terms of right/left,...but, more in terms of their basic priorities. But, it appears that alot of people don't even define their basic priorities or their own vision of life. Instead, they kinda' float and survive and spew stuff that they don't even understand let alone actually believe in or live by.

Right now both parties are at war with internal groups that are seizing control. In the Republican Party it's already a done deal, in ours, we're still fighting the same infiltration tooth and nail.

Both parties are being corrupted by partisans of the New World Order. This is where you get the Neo part which is pitting

Republicans vs NeoConservatives
and
Democrats vs NeoLiberals

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Nevermind the 5 million and one posters who are going to step up and say "But I'm a New Dem and I don't support the war". That's hog crap because the New Dem Party aka DLC supported this war knowingly and willingly. Anybody who can say that with a straight face hasn't been paying attention to the DLC's takeover and what the DLC stands for.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the NeoConservatives and the NeoLiberals- their difference is an argument over which of the two darts is in the exact center of the bull's eye.

====

That's why you now hear Senate Republicans praising Kofi Annan. That's why a hawkish senior administration official recently insisted, "I'm not anti-U.N." That's why responsible Democrats like Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton and Republicans like George Bush and Dick Cheney echo similar themes when they sketch out the years ahead. That's why Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may joust about who was right in 2003, but they generally agree on how to proceed in 2004. That's why, no matter how much they bicker, there's not a dime's worth of difference between neoliberals and neoconservatives over Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/opinion/14BROO.html?ex=1087790400&en=5ef051327229f44c&ei=5070
(I'm not a fan of David Brooks but I agree with his assessment)


I took this from IRC. Fascinating web-site; Noam Chomsky is a http://www.irc-online.org/content/index.php

<snip>

Origins and History

<snip>

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985 Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long of Louisiana, took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party’s centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long’s policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director. Today, Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC think tank he founded. (11)

In his “Saving the Democratic Party” memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a “governing council” that would draft a “blueprint” for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from “the new bosses”—organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups—that were keeping the party from modernizing. From’s memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, “Within a few weeks, it counted seventy-five members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group ‘the white male caucus.’” (7)

Although DLC members shared, for the most part, the neoliberal perspective of centrist Democrats such as Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Michael Dukakis, they took a much harsher, conservative stance on social justice and foreign policy issues. Regarding foreign policy, the DLC attempted to resurrect the hard-line anticommunism of Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson but rejected the New Deal politics that Jackson and other traditional “New Deal liberals” embraced. In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the contras, applauded President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations. While the neoliberals foresaw an end to the cold war, the DLC still viewed the Soviet Union as an unmitigated threat.

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of “Great Society” of the Johnson administration, DLC Chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. According to Robb, “while racial discrimination has by no means vanished from our society, it’s time to shift the primary focus from racism—the traditional enemy without—to self-defeating patterns of behavior—the enemy within.” This speech signaled the end of the “New Politics” of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb’s speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

<snip>

Writing shortly before the November 2000 election, John Nichols observed that the DLC had been founded “with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition,” namely, “to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right.” According to Nichols, “the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart.” (9) Although the DLC can rightly claim to have yanked the Democratic Party to the right, it has repeatedly failed to sideline what Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall has disparaging labeled “the party traditionalists.” Since its founding the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies (((that's us- the old Left!))) has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling “big tent” politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.

<snip>

<snip> blinded by their own triumphalism, New Democrat ideologues fail to acknowledge that they have fallen in line behind the ills of neoliberals, neoconservatives, militarists, and social conservatives who have transformed the Republican Party over the past three decades. What’s more, the DLC/Progressive Policy Institute has also proved itself an effective shill for transnational Wall Street capitalists, although it faces competition in this role from the Republican Party and its array of affiliated policy institutes and think tanks. Such rightward leanings prompted the America Prospect’s Robert Kuttner to call the DLC the “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats.” (2)

<snip>

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php



Funding of the DLC and of the Progressive Policy Institute


Corporate contributors

- AT&T Foundation
- Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust
- Prudential Foundation
- Georgia-Pacific Foundation
- Chevron
- Amoco Foundation

The Third Way Foundation (an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC) receives funding from

- the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation
- Howard Gilman Foundation
- Ameritech Foundation and General Mills Foundation.

DLC enjoys funding from

- Bank One
- Citigroup
- Dow Chemical
- DuPont
- General Electric
- Health Insurance Corporation
- Merrill Lynch
- Microsoft
- Morgan Stanley
- Occidental Petroleum
- Raytheon


Taken from John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

===

Sources:

Sources
(1) New Democrats Online: DLC Biographies: Al From,
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131

(2) Robert Kuttner, “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats,” American Prospect, vol. 13, no. 12, July 1, 2002
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html

(3) Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Policy, October 30, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf

(4) Ralph Nader, “The Corporatist Democratic Leadership Council,” In the Public Interest, August 1, 2003
http://www.nader.org/interest/080103.html

(5) Center for Public Integrity, Silent Partners: New Democrat Network.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=420

(6) New Democrats Online: New Dem Directory.
http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm

(7) Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein, Storming the Gates: Protest Politics and the Republican Revival (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1996), pp. 67-73.

(8) William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck, The Politics of Evasion, Progressive Policy Institute, 1989.

(9) John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

(10) Kenneth S. Baer, Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton (University Press of Kansas, 2000).

(11) “Will Marshall,” Progressive Policy Institute Bio, September 14, 2003
http://www.ppionline.org /

(12) “About the DLC,” Democratic Leadership Council, January 1, 1995
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

(13) Ronald Brownstein, “Dean Denounces Democratic Leadership Council, Stuns Centrists,” Los Angeles Times, December 25, 2003.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/122503/wor_25dean.shtml

(14) Joan Walsh, “The Democratic Weaselship Council,” Salon.com, July 29, 2003.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/howard_dean/109387.html

(15) “The New Democrat Credo,” DLC, January 1, 2001.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

(16) “New Democratic Coalition,” DLC, December 1, 2001.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

(17) “Progressive Policy Institute,” Capital Research Center, 2002
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC101

(18) “Third Way Foundation,” Capital Research Center, 2002.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC102

"Both parties are being corrupted by partisans of the New World Order."

This about sums it all up.

I was nearing the end of this thread thinking that I'd post something by Chomsky, but you beat me to it. I too am interested in deconstructing labels, terms, identifiers, and simiotics in general.

And somes folks need to remember that Reagan was a so-called "NeoLiberal."

Old left = progressive and liberal.
New left = moderate and centrist.

The old left ended with Mcgovern, in terms of white house politics. Since that time, the Democratic party decided to become the "me too" party and let Republicans control the agenda. Their answer to every issue is "oh we're that too, just a shade differently!"

Clinton is a shining example of this "new democrat" phenominon of the DLC. The theme of which is "out republican the republicans" by co-opting their issues and standing so close to them on all the issues that the only thing that decides election is a popularity contest.

Gore, though apparently full of more spunk now that he's not behing handled, followed the same DLC leadership through the 2000 campaign. Kerry is doing the same.

The Old left means real democrats basically. The new left means kinder, gentler, republicans. The old left was about standing by a certain set of beliefs at any cost. The new "left" is about winning by saying and/or doing anything at any cost.

All that's left, is DLC leftovers.

ideas of Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and FDR. These folks believe that everyone is equal and are dead set against the rise of corporate power, because they know that if corporations get too much power, the wealthy and the corporations will take control and that they would eventually overthrow democracy and assume control of the government. This, they believed, would result in inequality in government, because instead of being a nation of, by, and for the people, it would become simply a tool for the economically elite.

They seem to be correct, and we can plainly see what the rise of corporate power and subsequent corporate control of our government has done to our democracy and nation. IMO, a good example of someone that is representative of the old left is Dennis Kucinich.

The new "left" seems to consist of Democrats that do not believe, for some reason, that corporations should be regulated, favor increased defense spending over spending for social services, and believe that pre-emptive wars in which there is no imminent threat to our country, such as the war in Iraq, are acceptable and desirable.

One thing I give conservatives credit for: they know the history of their own movement. Every conservative can mention Hayek's name even if they've never read him.

The real "Old Left" began in the early part of the century and rose through the labor unions in the 1920s and 30s. The original Old Left's intelligentsia was made up largely of Northeastern Jewish Intellectuals, and it's power source was the Unions.

Granted, a lot of these leaders were full-blown communists sympathetic to the Russian Revolution, but their success with the unions defeated their own purpose. Since once union members, entered the middle class, they really didn't want to have a communist revolution. Also, FDR mainstreamed a lot of their ideas. But the "Old Left" was the face of left-wing politics until the 60s. The Leftists until the 60s.

These were towering figures in this movement for years ... like Eugene Debs, Upton Sinclair, Norman Thomas, Elizabeth Gurley Finn, Woody Guthrie, etc, etc. Nation Magazine was the Bible.

In the 60s, the leaders of SDS and other groups overtook them as the issues changed from classism to the war, racism, and sexism. The New Left is the Tom Haydn group.

Today, we have Neo-Liberals. No one has really figured out what they stand for.

Southern Democrats were definitely not part of the Old Left. Whoever suggested that is insane. Southern Democrats were the right-wing reactionists for most of the 20th Century, until Nixon invited them to the Republican Party in '68 and Regan gave them a permanent home in '80.

I'm serious. It really disturbs me that so many people on this site have no sense of history of the movement they are essentially apart of. It's probably the reason that Bill Clinton looks like a Left-wing hero to some when his politics are virtually indistinguishable from Nelson Rocekefeller's.

I also get bothered when people throw around the words "Democrat," "Progressive," and "Liberal" as if are interchangeable. Or "Socialism," "Communism," and "Marxist."

These are all different things and have different traditions.

How can we know where we are, unless we know where we came from.

Hell, the modern Democrats cannot even get themselves worked up over labor issues, unless it affects them individually. No wonder the party is so fractured. Look at the response of the technocrats in the computer industry during the 90's. They didn't need trade unions because they were so smart, business could not live without their labor. Are we learning yet?

The left cannot even agree on definition of terms.

The media has screwed America in so many subtle ways. Our education system has failed us also, in telling us who we are.

Not knowing the history of Left-wing politics in America is one thing. Not knowing the history of the Democratic Party (especially at a site with this name is another).

I'll give you an example: Bill Maher - who I generally like - had a joke in his last stand-up routine about blacks on the stage at the last Republican National Convention. His joke was, "The last time Republicans had this many black people on stage, they were selling them." Funny stuff. Except that Republicans were abolitionists, whereas Democrats were once the Pro-Slavery Party in the South. I know this doesn't sound like much, but this sort of thing bothers me.

It also bothers me, because you need to know our history to chart a course for the future. Too many Democrats just assume that our constituency groups will always be part of the Party. You hear it all the time in arguments like, "If we can get ten percent of this group to join us, we will have x percentage and be unbeatable." To me, this causes us to take parts of our membership for granted (particularly minorities). We need to know why segments of the population joined the Party and why other parts left. We need to know what happened in 1932, 1968, and 1980. It seems like all of our current discussion work under the assumption that modern politics began in 2000 or 1992.

I worked in downtown Detroit. Corner of Cass and Michigan. There was newspaper printing operations across Cass Ave. The old Freepress printing operation.

During lunch and after work I would head for the bars to shoot the breeze with the guys in the press room. These guys new what was going on in the world.

We would sometimes go to the ticker room a couple blocks from the "Book" building and read the news as it came right off the wire. Much of that stuff never got into the papers. It is amazing how much stuff gets left on the cutting room floor.

Toward the end of the 70's, the Freepress moved their printing operation out to 16 mile and Mound(?).

An era died with the mechanization of the news from the reporter/newswire directly to layout and printing consolidated. Many of those middle operations disappeared along with the inside scoop on whats really going on.

It would take until the early 90's and the alternate news in the Internet until those behind the scene stories come to the surface again.

No wonder Reagan/BushI had a "free ride". The RW had a full decade to get ahead of the game.

But this is no excuse for not understanding the history from 1900 to 1980. There is always a desire for those in power to keep the governed in the dark about whats really happening. Spreading disinformation is an old game.

Thats why the founders thought it was important a 'free' press be free, and people have the right to express their beliefs without interference for some agency of the King.

Edit: Maybe it was the Detroit News not the Freepress, its been a long time.

:shrug: I don't believe in the "Me Too" stuff the Democrats have been doing lately. I think the Republican Party and ninty percent of their policies are not healthy for people. When we go along we hurt people and if that is "new left" I'm against it.

:)