The DLC, Beating and being Beaten.

I wrote this in response to another thread, but it raises enough questions to warrant a thread of its own.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many reasons DLC candidates don’t seem to be able to offer ideas able to counter current right wing trends but the main explanation is that these men have all accepted the myopic view that pervades beltway politics.

Since the mid 1980’s, especially since Mike Dukakis’s presidential run and his statements that he ‘wasn’t a liberal’, it hasn’t been seen as an asset to espouse left of center politics in a grass roots manner.

The right, with various aggressive means and methods of recruitment and system of internal supports has been able to craft an environment of ridicule and contempt for these issues, causes and outlook. Those of you who have spent time working in Washington have seen this act itself out each and every day for the last decade or so.

Politics is very much a field based on self confidence, perceptions and social interactions with others in your professional sphere. In the 1970’s, there was little or no liability in supporting what are considered today to be issues of the hard left. In fact, there was a certain cachet associated in understanding popular cultures and trends. The very concept that a president would be impeached over sexual dalliances, for instance, was laughable. If anything, such behavior was seen in the positive light of the booming ‘divorce culture’ that was setting men and women free of repressive 1950’s social constraints and would have garnered politicians more votes, rather than hurt their careers.

Goldwater conservatives understood that to change their fortunes post Nixon, they would first have to pull the country back to the right, like a bull with a ring through its nose. It wasn’t easy, as Ford was precisely the wrong man for this job, so they bided their time and created a network of think tanks and provided employment and a soapbox for those ideas to spread to other, like minded individuals.

Efforts began as early as Carter, but really started to take off after the Iranian hostage situation made front page news and remained there throughout the end of his administration when Reagan’s October surprise robbed him of his dignity and any chance for reelection. Far more importantly, it set the stage for the ‘weak liberal’ nomenclature that dominated the intellectual political circles of the day.
The importance of this point cannot be overstated. Virtually overnight, no DC professionals wanted to be associated with ‘loose’ culture of the 1970’s and by association, the liberal values it espoused. Tom Delay is still using that exact imagery and language today. So effective was this demonization that the word “liberal” took on a negative character that still exists. Many people simply refuse to call themselves liberals despite their support of every liberal cause.

In the deeply social and image conscious DC beltway, nothing sells like success and nothing stinks more than failure. In the same way that everyone emulated Reagan’s suits and Hillary’s hair, the progressives found themselves thinking on the terms the dominant right had been laying out for close to 10 years via their now established ideological infrastucture.

There was no analogy on the left, no supportive haven to defend democrats inside the beltway as the conservatives found in the 70’s, and so out in the cold, leading democrats of the time started to adopt the ‘soft-right’ approach in order to emulate the success of their taunting peers and try to wrest votes from the middle of the spectrum rather than redefine the political landscape in more progressive terms.

In all honestly, one can hardly blame them- easy votes and more importantly, easy money lay via that route. Democrats found that corporations were happy to open up the coffers to these new ideological partners, sharing the cash with both sides of the political coin so as to insure influence no matter the outcome of the election.

Once a few successes had been gained via this method - after all, Democrats are almost always more palatable as individuals then Republicans – the roadmap had been set and was emulated in all circles.

Policies that supported previously bedrock Democratic principles were now tolerated for the legacy votes they would bring, but the DC culture had become one of cracked crab and caviar. In such an environment, it’s not acceptable to talk about things like class warfare, civil rights and blue collar working issues. The fact that many people ‘on the street’ seemed to respond to those issues was of less consequence than the fact that money would flow freely into a campaign. The promise of votes, in that context, seems of less importance than the certainty of cash with which to proactively attack and defeat an opponent. In other words, the left adopted the right’s effective tactic of ridicule and character assassination, demoralizing the voter base of their opponents rather than mobilizing their own.

Reagan was unassailable, but Democrats made steady inroads elsewhere during this phase and when the first Bush presidency arrived on its back Democrats sensed his weakness and attacked. Dan Quayle is a perfect example of this. They were very successful, and we all remember how sweet that defeat was, but it was a bitter pill obtained at the cost of sacrifice of the primacy of the Democratic base ideological platform. Those on the left, it was assumed, would simply vote Democrat no matter how centrist or even slightly right of center the candidate was, as the alternative was voting for a Republican.

Most critically, leading Democrats, now fully evolved into the DLC-flavored variety, underplayed the very importance of these core constituencies. Why support these ‘long haired crackpots’ when the congressional elections and the White House had been won without courting them? Worse than assumed votes, they were thought of as irrelevant.

The problem with this strategy however is now apparent and reflected in this very discussion. Without a core system of developed and time evolved values, the establishment of the Democratic Party has a threadbare platform of pseudo right corporatism and lip service to core progressive ideals. It is very hard to sound dynamic and portray that ‘fire in the belly’ so critical in mobilizing a base of supporters when your party’s platform is half abandoned or not your own. It’s impossible to lead with conviction when you don’t believe in what you say.

This is why Democrats such as the late Paul Wellstone and now Howard Dean have enjoyed such a following- they are reaching back in time to an earlier form of Democrat in the way in which they reach people and select issues. Also note that they are outside-the-beltway politicians less subject to its social vicissitudes. So absorbed in the attack/ridicule culture is the current Democratic party that rather than embrace a winning method from their own Howard Dean, they actually spend precious dollars discrediting him. Like a donkey that has ground corn to meal all its life, they continue to walk in a circle long after they are unhitched from the pole and are now faced at this late date with a paucity of options.

The mindset of the beltway is very powerful and persuasive. It can cut all but the strongest among us down to a manageable size, even you and me. Bill Clinton’s gift was his ability to use that mindset in a personal fashion, emulating in his office what the Democratic Party should have been attempting to replicate throughout the capital. Instead, confident in victory, they assumed the mantle the Republicans left aside and became less accessible to their constituencies rather than use the hard won accumulated power and capital to build similar institutions on the left to carry them into the next century.

There are precious few analogs to the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute or the Family Research Council on the left and those that do exists are under funded and often hostile to new talent. Employment is easy for those on the right who have aggressive new ideas- places are made for them, columns are provided in publications and a network of steady rewards begins early on, sometimes before these people even leave college. How many of you have been offered or have even seen such a route for talented progressives in Washington? And so, not surprisingly, these progressives have found other means and methods to express themselves. Some of have become Greens, some have created places like Democratic Underground and sadly, some are so alienated that they no longer vote or concern themselves with politics at all. This does not happen on the right.

Can GWB be defeated? Easily. He is likely the worst president in modern history in every measurable way. The question is whether the Democratic Party itself believes this. At this time, that question remains open.

reformatting for clarity

Reducing the width of the browser window helps.

BUT it's awfully hard on the eyes and if you want people to read it Terwilliger's suggestion is a good one. I second Terwilliger's suggestion.

Hope this helps!

for the paragraphs that helped a lot!!!

I think you'll find that around here a lot of people agree with what you wrote.
I do.

My thing with the right is stop letting them frame the debate!

One example:

"Fairness Doctrine" bring it back!!
We should use the freepers mantra of 'the media is liberal' against them.
The are forever barking about 'the liberal media' well then wouldn't bringing the fairness doctrine back insure that the media wouldn't be allowed to be so darn liberal?
The sword they swing cuts both ways. We should grab it out of their hands and swing it right back at them on this issue.

One of the reasons they are able to frame the debate so effectively is that they control the language of Washington. A lock on parts of the press was completely essential to make this occur, thus FOX was born via Murdock, and now Powell Jr's FCC acting against the will of the vast majority of the population and even congress. The Fairness Doctrine would help, but its restoration is unfortunately unlikely in the near future.

In many ways, we should be thankful that the current administration is so far beyond the pale. It would be alot more difficult for the progressive left if the right had a leader with Reagan's perceived charisma still around.

By a factor of at least 8 to 1.

Steve Kangas
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-thinktank.htm

Myth: Conservative think tanks are the answer to liberal academia.

Fact: Conservative think tanks lack the checks and balances of academia, and produce crank science.



Summary

In response to liberal academia, wealthy conservative businessmen are funding a growing number of far-right think tanks to establish a theoretical footing for their causes. Lacking all the checks and balances that keep academic research honest, these think tanks produce highly flawed and biased studies whose only purpose is to promote policies that favor the business classes that fund them.



Argument

By and large, academia tends to be liberal. There are conservative professors, to be sure, but they are usually moderate, and in the minority. But what of the far right? For many decades now, the far right has been gradually disappearing from American universities (with a few notable exceptions, like the computer science department). The steadily growing influence of liberalism in academia has alarmed many on the far right, because without a source of ideas and theories, the influence of their political movement will crumble.
</snip>

No one here doubts the fact that much of what the right says is false, but it doesn’t blunt the impact of their ideas in mobilizing their constituencies or in controlling the agenda. One would hope that similar organizations on the left would not mislead, but otherwise adopt the successful model they represent. These progressives have to have someplace to go when they leave school.

Also, I would contend the power of the left is waning somewhat on campuses (look at the attacks on tenure by the right, for instance) as the Democratic establishment has increasingly ignored this traditionally left leaning source of ideas and talent for special interest groups and lobbying organizations.

key word is money who is going to pay for it? The point is money/corporations are what's influencing the agenda not facts. Look at who owns the media.
If the Democrats start with bringing the fairness doctrine back that would be a good start......don't you think? I pointed out how we can, I think, in a fair way debate with the Right and win.
If they think the media is liberal would not bringing the fairness doctrine back make it so their side received equal time? Even though, we know, they know, the media isn't liberal it's corporate....there in is the bigger picture the influence of corporations/small group of elitists (we know how they hate elitists) having control over their/our lives.

I look at DU as a think tank for the left.
Key- Grass Roots and Democrats that lean left know that to be the real answer in other words feet meet the pavement and break out the Bus! Think Wellstone!

The power on the left in College's isn't waning it's being attacked that's for sure. It's part of the Rights's game plan. I think, I read about it Brock's Blinded by the Right?

another good link
http://hnn.us/articles/1244.html

Also, I think the one thing the left has to pay special attention to right now is the Courts. I'm not the most articulate writer but I tell you this the judical branch is it.
It's the big one the one they want and they will do whatever it takes as we all know.
Thing is their game plan is out there, they also run the same MO so it really doesn't take being a scholar to figure it out.

Stick around here long enough (if you haven't already) and you'll see DU'ers calling it and then hours, days, weeks, or months later you'll see they called it.

Colleges are going to be harder for the Right to squash the left is stronger on fighting them there than the Democrats are in the Senate (they don't hold the majority) course they are doing a good job so far.......yea, watch Senator Hatch, the judical is the place to beat them back at right now!
About Hatch, he's already messed up he's bringing religion into it....the Pukes can't help theirselves they overstep their bounds that's to our benefit we gotta run on that and it's honest.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0625-05.htm
Senator Hatch Adopts Divisive, Reprehensible Religious Right Strategy
WASHINGTON - June 25 - As part of his campaign to defend even the most extreme of the Bush administration's judicial nominees, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has repeatedly claimed in recent days that senators and progressive activists are opposing confirmation of some Bush nominees because of those nominees' religious beliefs. These irresponsible charges further poison an already divisive atmosphere surrounding controversial judicial nominations, especially in advance of a possible Supreme Court vacancy and nomination.</snip>

The college/university grass roots style organization that you speak of is important to the left, I’d agree, but the problem with relying on this as the cornerstone of the progressive intellectual movement is that colleges are open institutions by their very nature and thus susceptible to internal/external pressures which can shift their ideologies.

Paradoxically, the same sort of openness that you speak of is an opportunity for organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ and others to inject their ideas into the debate and shift the discussion to the right, accomplishing on the campus what the right has accomplished in the beltway.

Moreover, campuses did far too little to assist already established Democrats during the long dark night of the 1980’s- this is not surprising as it is not their charter to do so, they exist to educate people and not to support political causes. That they do serve as a focus for progressive ideas is advantageous to the left, but this happy accident of tenure and youth isn’t a strong enough basis on which to rest the future of the country.

In much the same way the DU weeds out right wing tainting influence in the discussions here to assist with the proper nurturing of progressive concepts until they are ready to fly, a network of post collegiate left leaning think tanks would have helped liberal causes mature as readily as the right have adopted their views to an ever shifting electorate.

Regarding money, while it’s undoubted true that Republicans have donors with deeper pockets it’s equally true that there are many more progressives than conservatives, and liberals who do have a lot of money or power culturally are far more personally persuasive to the public than big money conservatives. Dean’s campaign is a good example of what can happen when a progressive Democrat thinks outside of the box in terms of raising money and reaching a voter base. The money is there, it just takes a different approach to shake it loose than the Washington establishment pay-for-play method.

Lastly, I think your thoughts regarding the courts are on the mark and bring up a critical point. Conservatives have been busy for some time with shifting the judiciary to the right, ideologically. This is in many ways seen as analogous to the left’s general hold over university culture, a trump card with which to counter any left leaning social trends. The power of the Judge’s gavel is near absolute, and it has given them the Presidency and could give even more, in time. As most judicial appointments are insulated from the public and long lasting, this is the manner in which they intend to lock in the ‘progress’ made in the last 20 years. Even establishment Democrats have taken notice and have fought this issue since the 1980’s, but it’s hard to counter when all you have to fight with is a filibuster.

<eom>

"In other words, the left adopted the right’s effective tactic of ridicule and character assassination, demoralizing the voter base of their opponents rather than mobilizing their own."
==================================================
And they went after the special interest money with which to do it with...

Paul Wellstone talked the talk and walked the walk of the left because it was who he was in his very soul.

Dean governed as a compromising centrist and was poster boy for the New Dems for 11 years. He pumps up the hot rhetoric he coopted from Nader 2000 accuses those way to his left as being "Bushlite", gets plenty of antiwar $$$$ from the left and all of a sudden the most centrist Democrat becomes Paul Wellstone?

I don’t fault Dean for adopting his current successful style; he’s not as far left leaning as some but he is a convincing advocate in what he stands for. The same cannot be said regarding, for example, Joe Lieberman.

He only JUST turned left when the antiwar $$$$ started pouring in.

His record is as a compromising centrist who often aligned with the GOP against the progressive Dems in Vermont, and scorned liberals when it suited him.

Well, I'm proud to be a "liberal like Marian Wright Edelman."

Pro-NAFTA, etc...

Out of that ENTIRE very well-written, convincing piece (which I congratulate the author on) you focused like a laser-beam on DEAN! It's really starting to get tiresome, BLM.

In Democratic Leadership Council. :p Though if Dean were buds with those guys From wouldn't be doing hatchet jobs on the good doctor daily.

You've accurately summed up how we got into this mess, and the core of the problem.

The people who are calling the shots are in the Media/Political Beltway Bubble (which extends into the centers of power of New York and Los Angeles).

They live in an insulated and rarified atmosphere. Unfortunately, even when an outsider gets in (like Clinton) it changes them, rather then being changed.

The only answer is to recognize that there are far more of us than there are of them. And that if the Democratic Party start talking and behaving like real people again -- whether those real people are factory workers or granola environmentalists or minorities -- that will be its true source of power.

Just a few sources, maybe, and expand the sections on the Dems' lack of infrastructure--think tanks, PR mills, etc.
:)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp

Once again, instead of tapping into a winning strategy, the DLC seeks to discredit a colleague.