The main problem with the DLC is what exactly?

I am (as I am apt to do) seeking information and opinions. I am not slamming or smearing anyone.

Can I get a few links that explain the problem(s)? Or can someone put it in a nutshell for me? I'd even accept a copy of "DLC Sucks for Dummies"!

Thank you.

It's what keeps drawing me closer into the DLC. They found my weakness.

No smearing or slamming.:spank:

There must be more to it than that.

If that's part of it, why don't they want Dean? Someone's signature here has a lot of Clinton praise for Dean. Isn't Bill DLC?

Idea of the week: Damage Control.

We keep losing. They're the Democratic LEADERSHIP Council, and as far as I can tell they're not leading very well.

Although I am no fan of the DLC, they did put Clinton in the Whitehouse and won Gore and Lieberman the popular vote.

I believe a more cogent criticism of the DLC is that they have appeared to tie themselves too much to big business and so-called "free-trade" at the expense of the worker.

Clinton won on personality and brute intelligence. Clinton was charismatic and seemed to care about people's problems when he stepped in front of an audience.

Clinton was also a brilliant man who didn't act arrogant about being smart.

Basically, DLC supporters rode Clinton's coat-tails into power.

but basically they are GOP lite. They believe in Nafta, tax cuts for the rich, welfare "reform" (the end of welfare), blocking universal health care, etc.

The best thing I can say for them is that, afail, they are not necessarily in favor of the PNAC empire plan.

Are you an old line Clintonian..Or a New Line Green/Progressive?

They invented themselves to move the democrats to the right.

Rather than explain why more progressive ideas can't be understood by the American electorate, they decided to turn the clock back 50 years for the democrats.

I don't think you need to swallow the hype about them 'wanting' Clark. IMHO, they just think he is more electable. I believe they are misperceiving Clark and just looking at his military cred. Actually, it seems to me as if it's some sort of juvenile surrogate Clinton/Gore fight.

We need a united democratic party and IMHO that united democratic party should nominate Clark in 2004.

When you hear DLC then Bill Clinton, I got news for you they go together. So please tell me how they set us back 50 years?

. . . you might ask yourself if things really would have been any different had Bush won in 1992 and Dole won in 1996.

NAFTA, "the end of welfare as we know it", "the era of big government is over" (if this was true it might not be bad, but he meant the end of social welfare government, not corporate welfare or military expenditures), and basically continuing US foreign policy not that much different than a Republican. Who did he make Treasury secretary? Robert Rubin!

Clinton got away with a lot of stuff that the left would have never let the Republicans get away with.

"Clinton got away with a lot of stuff that the left would have never let the Republicans get away with."

You're absolutely right about that.

I have no gripe with some of them at all. If I did, I would dislike most Democrats in Congress.

I do have gripes with the leadership. I do not like the way they literally made fun of anti-war protestors, and they actually supported the Iraq War.

I do not like their stances on vouchers in education. I do not trust the leadership views on the Social Security and Medicare issues, as they believe just about as the GOP extremists do.

I believe some of the original members were ultra conservatives who helped fund the beginning of the group, and then went back to their roots.

I am highly suspicious of why it was founded, and don't like that the leadership takes the right wing views on education and social issues. I detest Al From, and I don't think he is a Democrat even in name.

Bob Graham was one of the original leaders in it, but he has since backed off from them in some of his stances.

but others claim they lead the Republican wing of the Democratic party.



:shrug: I think both might have a point.

as opposed to perceived old line dem politics - whatever unions want/taking minorities for granted/exploding entitlements - all the tags which caused us to lose and lose and lose. Clinton epitomizes the new tack, ruffling some of the core constituency, but adding enough voters to actually WIN and maintain a progressive, but not excessively liberal agenda.

I do not have as much of a problem as many on this board about the DLC - but I do not like McAuliffe.

The DLC finally brought us to the party in '92 - IMO if they lose influence we will be on the outside for a long time to come.

thank you.

Not really.

Party out of the white house is supposed to pick up seats, margins in both houses were so narrow that we could've picked up a seat or two in the Senate and won the House. Instead we lost both and now Bush can do whatever he damn well pleases. Had we won congress and elected a good Spaker then Bush's damage would be a minor fraction of what it is now.

After the votes were counted, dems were in shock and wondered why we had failed so miserably. Did people really believe the bush "speak" of how he needed help fighting terrorism and that dems didn't get it? Isn't that what bush did all over the country telling his rich and protective friends that the dems would only slow down their progress with the media right there to tell it like Bush wanted it told. Any democrat who can get the attention of the voters by stating concisely what Bush has done to this country since day one, might earn enough respect and votes. It seems that is what Dean has done. He speaks and people listen and talk and he is talked about. He is getting hammered by both sides. If he can take it I think he wins.

I haven't seen anything.

They are for cuts in services, cuts in taxes, Iraq war, corporate America, pay as you go healthcare, Patriot act, Social Consevatisim, bluring of church/state lines, etc.

Basically, If you like Joe Lieberman, they are the group for you.

Unless Dean get his way and becomes presedent..Its the Progressives that are backing him up..

See the thread labeled "The Dean Deception".
Dean is really far from being a Progressive; he is basically a Republicrat.

Here are some excerpts from a footnoted article showing what Dean is really all about...Read 'em and weep:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Throughout the 1990s, Dean’s cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million. Dean claimed that the cuts were necessary because the state had no money and was burdened by a $60 million deficit.9 But during the same period, Dean found $7 million for a low-interest loan program for businesses, $30 million for a new prison in Springfield, VT, and he cut the income tax by 8 percent (equivalent to $30 million)–a move many in the legislature balked at because they didn’t feel comfortable "cutting taxes in a way that benefits the wealthiest taxpayers."10 By 2002, state investments in prisons increased by nearly 150 percent while investments in state colleges increased by only 7 percent.11

....


Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16

....

The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The rest of this large, detailed article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

And the distinction is VERY important

A centrist has principles that lie between the right and left. Regardless of circumstance a centrists philosophy remains between the left and the right.

BUT

The DLC is populist. It holds back avoiding taking a principled stand until its clear where the center of popular opinion is. A populist isn't guided by any principle other than the pragmatism of vote-getting. It requires focus groups, polling, and triangulation. If popular sentiment goes to the right; the DLC goes right along with them.

The DLC picks candidates that it thinks will protect its interests and the interests of its business benefactors and associates, then it funds them so that they can run commercials that win the vote.

Popular opinion is manufactured through the ads. Again, the DLC's actions do not reflect popular opinion, they finance the proper candidate so that he can shape popular opinion.

Sorry but once you dump "tags" like organized labor, minorities and so forth, you don't still have "us" - you have a party that has just thrown out it's entire base.

Once we get rid of all the Democrats, all the tags against the Democrats will lose.

Also, the Democrats held the Hosue of Representatives until 2 years after the first DLC president, Clinton, was elected. Then the house was lost. To me it seems like we've only been lose lose losing since then. Personally, I was happier back when the Supreme Court, presidency and both house of Congress were not Republican. What you are saying is ridiculous, and please do not lump ME in with "us" because I am not part of your us.

They're not centrists at all, they're considerably to the right, just not as much as Republicans.

They are the CAPITALIST wing of the party (bad word here, I know). They are hated by so many on DU because they are not sufficiently socialist enough. Look at the polls on DU and you'll see that DU is so far removed from mainstream thinking in this country. It's like trying to compare Berkeley with Dallas. This board is loaded with people on the far left who would rather go down in flames election after election for the sake of left/socialist thought than win with philosophies espoused by the DLC and mainstream Democrats. The recent thread concerning Harold Ford, Jr. was a perfect example. People here want more Al Sharpton and less Harold Ford...prescription for DISASTER for our party.

and no problem with 'bombing for democracy' or 'coups for capitalists'.

Are most of the congress democrats DLC or is it like a country club?

But I know that Zell Miller definately doesn't belong.

Their differences in policy, goals and vision are a dead giveaway , you can search their directory http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=104 or check out their Annual Meeting from June. Their main candidate is Clark. It used to be Lieberman but we all know what happened to him after he was exposed. Kerry is also DLC. Dean remains close enough to them that he sent a video greeting but did not attend in person or even attend the meeting by video-conference. Kucinich has never been a New Dem- they're a totally different breed from him being pro-business and pro-corporation.

Here's more than you probably ever wanted to know about their annual meeting this year and who's who for the Presidential race.

http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/

<snip>

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

<snip>

Despite the political focus, however, the declared Democratic presidential candidates were asked to stay away.

<snip>

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

<snip>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6400042.htm

Another article about this same meeting in Philly:
Centrist Dems weigh Dean dilemma

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945273.asp?cp1=1

You can read Dr. Chris Kofinis' (that same DLC consultant mentioned above) PDF Analysis of Zogby Poll Commissioned by DraftWesleyClark.com

If you want, you can listen the 2 hour speech (followed by DLC Q & A) that Clark gave at the New Democrat Network Annual Meeting in DC: (Lieberman & Graham were also present) http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/kdrive/c04061703_newdemocrat.rm

Excerpt, if you don't have 2 hours to listen, here: http://manatt.net/clark.ram

NDN and DLC are the same thing.

DLC AND NDN
Two acronyms that junkies know and that Democratic candidates hear in their sleep. The Democratic Leadership Council, chaired these days by Sen. Evan Bayh and run for 17 years by its founding director, Al From, is the spawning ground of moderate “Third Way” thinking in the party. Bill Clinton was chairman when he launched his own presidential bid in 1991. The New Democratic Network is the DLC’s overtly political cousin, run by an operative named Simon Rosenberg. It doles out cash to candidates and, increasingly, supports independent spending efforts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834591.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

More about the NDN:

Centrist Democrats launch new agenda
By Hans Nichols

The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) unveiled a new six-point agenda yesterday that it says can serve as a blueprint for making the Democratic Party the governing force in American politics for the next generation.

<snip>

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

<snip>

Rosenberg explained in the interview that the network’s revamped agenda and new strategy are the beginning steps of “a 10- to 45-year” plan to elect centrist Democrats to local, state and federal offices.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/centrist.aspx

----
About the NDN


The New Democrat Network (NDN) is one of the nation’s most influential political organizations.
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community.

<snip>

NDN is led by NDN President Simon Rosenberg, with advice from NDN's Advisory Board, a group of leading New Democratic thinkers and strategists. NDN’s Advisory Board includes former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew, pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen, former Army Secretary Louis Caldera, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Vic Fazio, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Dave McCurdy, former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former Federal Trade Commissioner and White House Cabinet Secretary Christine A. Varney.
------------------------------

Who founded the NDN?

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, the DLC contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates.

I've bookmarked this because I may have bit off more than I can mentally chew this evening.

Thank you all for the assistance.

Another problem with the DLC is that they work a bit too closely with the American Enterprise Institute which is the force behind PNAC. That is something Hedda_Foil or Stephanie can better explain to you based on all the research they did into PNAC. Eloriel too.

In a nutshell for me, their Third Way is paving the way to a one-party conservative future.

Peace and good question... Too often we forget that a lot of people have had a life these last 3 years and haven't been digging up all this unhealthy dirt. It was a good question and I'm glad you asked it. Any others, just post away!

Stephanie had a great thread here called
New to DU? Here's your =======> Intro to PNAC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=301411

and you've also got the PNAC Links Archive (Redux)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

Here are the type of Think Tanks the DLC likes:

American Enterprise Institute

Brookings Institution

Business Execs. for National Security

Cato Institute

Center for American Progress

Center for Defense Information

Center for Education Reform

Center for Policy Alternatives

Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Centrists.Org

Citizens for Tax Justice

Committee For Economic Development

Communitarian Network

Concord Coalition

Corporation for Enterprise Development

Economic Policy Institute

Kaiser Network - Health Policy

Manpower Demonstration Research

National Civic League

Natural Capitalism

New Economy Information Service

The Radical Middle

Resources for the Future

Rockridge Institute

Urban Institute


http://www.coloradodlc.org/thinktanks.htm

This is exactly what I see and fear!!


>In a nutshell for me, their Third Way is paving the way to a one-party conservative future.


...if it isn't already in place in "sheeps" clothing..

I for one am certainly NOT a centrist and won't vote for one at all.

That which you support are lockstep with a murderous catastrophe that has been terrorizing millions for decades.. but at least they can bullshit their way into power in order to keep people like myself down. That's not much of an argument to me, but you can try maintaining that 'holier than thou' act until I cave in and bow before your feet for forgiveness.

Post Reagan-BushI, the DLC thought the mood of the nation had turned conservative. To regain power, they supported Clinton over more liberal candidates in 92.

I remember Clinton being opposed to NAFTA originally and then he changed his position. That's when BushI said he'd turn the "white house into the waffle house." Perot said "giant sucking sound" which appears to have been true, although maybe not due to NAFTA as much as out sourcing to Asia.

Clinton changed his opinion because business supported NAFTA and he needed the support of business. When American Airlines went on strike in early 1993, didn't Clinton work out an agreement? I thought that was pro-union, but maybe just compared to firing people a la Reagan.

Was Gore as running mate for Clinton a splint to heal the fracture?

And Howard broke from the DLC when and why?

Which of Dean's positions are in conflict with the DLC?

Is it possible that the conflict with the DLC is more personal than policy?

You view Clinton as moderate, many view him as a liberal, extremeists view him as a conservative sell out, and Rush Limbaugh views him as a socialist nutball. It is extremely hard to tell what mainstream America definates as moderate vs liberal. DU's view of moderate is nowhere near the same as America defines moderate and liberal. Here Lieberman is a conservative, Dean is a moderate, and Kucinich is a liberal. Outside of DU or when you're not asking a community of liberals they will tell you Lieberman is a moderate, Dean is liberal, and Kucinich is a radical extremeist.

Can't we take 10 or 20 issues and define what the liberal, moderate and conservative positions are?

Labels just get in the way don't they?

I think a lot of the opposition to him is corporate, as he thinks deregulation of media and and power supplies is damaging America.

It depends on what your definition of "Left" is.

A Third of a Third

SNIP..."But it's important to remember that energy and excitement and all the other subjective factors in politics are no more than means to an end: obtaining the power to govern, and then governing well. And the Democratic Party's only recently successful formula for doing either one remains that of President Bill Clinton.

Those on the Left who want to veer away from that formula have every right to their opinion, and there's nothing wrong -- much less "divisive" -- about debating how progressives pursue their common values and reflect their common tradition in current political circumstances.

The idea, however, that the Left has some inherent superior claim to Democratic tradition or principle, as self-appointed representatives of the Democratic "base," is questionable at best. Most actual rank-and-file Democrats, as a matter of fact, don't view themselves as aligned with the self-conscious Left

MORE:..."The Gallup Organization, which has been measuring the partisan and ideological self-image of American voters longer than anybody, recently published a survey showing that among self-identified Democrats, 33 percent consider themselves liberals, 43 percent consider themselves moderates, and 23 percent consider themselves conservatives. Self-identified liberals, in other words, represent a third of a party "base" that in turn represents about a third of American voters. That's a lot of folks, but it's a far cry from a majority, and no matter how excited, energized, stoked and psyched you are, you only get to vote once.

I found this an offensive article in several ways. I will find another article they wrote about those who opposed the war. They decided it was best to go along than to make waves. I can't forget that.

The 43% and the 33% who make up moderates and liberals are 76% of the party. Yet it appears the DLC wants to cater to the 23% who are conservative.

That is helpful.

There is a difference between a DLC Centrist and a moderate.

A moderate is clearly liberal, even though they might want to go as far or fast as more left liberals and progressives. They are at last going in the same direction with the same goals.

The centrist DLC types are more concerned with not offending Big Business, and they afraid to actively defend liberal positions on economic and power issues.

They have made it possible for the GOP and conservatives to take over by their abdication of the traditional principles and values of Democrats. They claim they are adapting to the country's more conservative stance. But in reality, they have helped create that situation by giving up being the opposition, and giving up defending those who need defending. They have gone along with the assertion of the rights of the corporations over the public interest.

Specific centrist policies that reflect this are NAFTA and otehr aspects of "free trade." They embrace of the philosophy of Wall St. that if it's good for the investor class, it's good for everybody.They only care about "growth" but have lost sight of the fact that growth along is meaningless if it is achieved by depleting the middle and working classes. They have gone along with deregulation, privatization and they never challenge the mergers that have concentrated wealth and power.

Good Night, Vietnam

SNIP..."Former Gov. Howard Dean, whose antiwar rhetoric has made him the unlikely darling of liberal activists in Iowa and elsewhere, has been visibly struggling to criticize the war without appearing to undermine the troops. He vowed not to "personally" attack the president on the war, but has instead continued to attack his Democratic rivals who voted to authorize force....."

Well, that was ugly enough toward Dean, but Kucinich supporters should writhe in anger at this statement:

SNIP...." But one antiwar Democrat has refused to change his rhetoric at all, and is supplying a fascinating exhibition of the Left's "Vietnam Syndrome": the tendency to interpret any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam..."

SNIP..."The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion...."

And Finally:
SNIP.."Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era....."

I do not trust the "Democratic Internationalism" of Al From and Bruce Reed.

edited to add:

But I don't think the democratic internationalism is necessarily a bad thing.

What am I missing?

I don't. I think the leaders of the group are too tied to the GOP. They encouraged going along with the IWR vote rather than make waves. If you agree, that is fine. That is your right.

I think they view with favor only the 23% mentioned in the article who are conservative. The rest of us do not matter to them at all.

I do not think that is ok. Our soldiers are dying, the bodies of the Iraqis are not being kept on record...we will never really know how many have died.

but I agree with the diplomacy statement:

"It supports active diplomacy, collective security and multilateral institutions, not in order to surrender our country's right to act on its principles, but because good allies and strong institutions of international law make us stronger as well."

And strong international institutions.

But I see the force of their argument is in support of the IWR, which I do not agree with. If Clinton had the IWR, do you think we'd be in Iraq?

I don't know, but I like to suspect he would have let the inspections work with the IWR vote making him into a sort of german shepherd. It's warm and fuzzy, but it COULD bite you.

I never supported the Iraq war in any way. Congressional Dems should have known Bush would abuse it.

DLC is the opposite of the philosophy that is behind the social democracies in Europe, which are kicking America's ass when it comes to offering a higher quality of life for most Americans.

This is just my observation, not a criticism. Our DEC here is just building back up again. They are very conservative, and they squelch, almost sit on any activism. They are very proper, everything is so lackluster.

They follow on the guidelines of the DLC, in my mind. There is no enthusiasm. The website has not been updated in months, though some have offered to maintain it for free.

I even told the state party about that. I said there are a lot of us here who want to be activists but are prevented. I told them about the website, they said oh my goodness. I said a skilled webmaster has offered to do it for free, and the person wanted to know why it was not accepted. I told her probably because he was a Dean supporter, gay, and thus not quite acceptable the county establishment. She understood what I meant.

The only activists in our county are the Dean supporters. There are a lot of us, too. My husband has decided not to go to the county DEC meetings anymore as they are just about counterproductive. There is another group forming, which is already outnumbering the DEC. They as a group welcome us. Many of this group are working to try to start a county group of the Alliance for Retired Americans. We have other things as well.

I object to the DLC because I have seen the devastation that occurs when you try to be so proper and circumspect. That is why McBride lost. He would not confront issues, he did not stand for anything. We donated a lot to his campaign, and we worked hard for him. He stood for nothing, and he let Jeb define the issues.

The same thing is happening here now. A good DEC meeting is when no one speaks out, no one thinks, and no one rocks the boat.

Am I bitter? You betcha!

It's what I tried to say earlier but didn't get it right.

I write better when I am irritated, and I am most irritated with our party right now.

:hi:

The Party's over...
...

'There is another rule. The public plays no part. The public is the audience; the audience does not write or cast the play. In 1988, the 1992 play was already being cast. Conservative Democrats were holding strategy meetings at the home of party fund-raiser Pamela Harriman. The meetings -- eventually nearly a hundred of them -- were aimed at ending years of populist insurrection within the party. They were regularly moderated by Clark Clifford and Robert Strauss, the Mr. Fixits of the Democratic mainstream. Democratic donors paid $1,000 to take part in the sessions and by the time it was all over, Mrs. Harriman had raised about $12 million for her kind of Democrats.

The play was also being cast by the Democratic Leadership Council. Although lacking any official role in the Democratic Party, the DLC claimed it was the voice of mainstream party thought. In fact, it was primarily a lobby for the views of southern and other conservative Democrats, yet so successful was its media manipulation that it even got away with calling its think tank the Progressive Policy Institute.

By the late 1980s there was a wide-spread consensus among both the press and the Democratic leadership that the party's problems could be traced to several factors:

- The loss of control by party bosses due to excessive democratization of nomination and convention procedures.

- Undue pandering to such traditional constituencies as blacks, liberals, and women.

- The need for a new and far more conservative Democratic platform.'

Sam Smith

http://prorev.com/partyover.htm

...populist politics has been decimated in this country.

And I do not have many good ideas about how to revive it. At this point, it is all done through a propaganda machine that is fueled by money and media "mentions"--how many times and in what light (negative or positive) a candidate is mentioned in the media. It is clear to me that Dean is the fairhaired boy of the money men this time around.....If you want to know who this year's fairhaired boy is, just look at how many times his name comes up on google.com as compared to the other candidates.

media bias is an interesting topic on its own.

After McGovern, primaries were changed and "front loaded" which discourages grassroots campaigns. Media bias factors in with regards to prejudging viability (and therefore coverage) based largely on polls and money.

The Invisible Primary by Christopher Hanson points out some of the problems with "front loading".

....the more outraged and paranoid I feel.

If you start reading the ideas of the true lefties like Chomsky et al., you start to see how the evil conglomeration of money and power has castrated true political activism in this country. I never would have thought so, but political activism really is helped by party affiliation. THe most democratic societies, like the social democracies, which have voter participation rates approaching 90%, have strong party activism at local levels.

But here in the States, in many areas in local politics, like City council races, we have removed party affiliation from the ballot, which is one big reason why we only have 2 parties in this country, for practical purposes.

http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

from 2000

Behind the DLC Takeover
By John Nichols

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

<snip>

SNIP..."It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.

Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, whom the DLC dismisses as "a cranky peddler of corporate conspiracy theories," says publicly what many veteran Democrats admit privately. "You had Al From and the DLC and the corporate lobbyists running the Democratic Party convention this year, picking the candidates, writing the platform, just as they'll run things in the fall and after November if they're given a chance," says the consumer activist. "Even if Al Gore wanted to do the right thing, which I do not suggest that he does, he would be told by the DLC and its corporate contributors, 'We're sorry, that's not in the script.' "

That is from 2000, look how much worse it has gotten. Look how ugly things have become here at DU, within the party, and in the country.

That's what Jesse Jackson calls them, quite aptly.

I have no loyalty to the Democratic party. I am loyal to a vision of society that stands for working class people, and is tolerant towards progressiveness for women, blacks, Hispanics and homosexuals. I also see working class issues and progressive tolerance entwined - a lot of the problems for blacks, Hispanics and women are economic problems.

I do not think the DLC are for working class people, I think they are fiscally conservative people trying to buy the Democratic party, trying to make no difference between Democratic and Republican economic ideas so big business wins whichever lever is pulled.

I think workers should control their offices and factories. This does not seem so radical to me, but it would mean a radical remaking of society - kicking out a lot of the bad stuff, in my opinion. The New Deal was far away from this in my opinion, and with the DLC, the Democrats have gotten far away from the New Deal. From my vantage, there is little difference between the DLC and the Republicans. In the short run, the DLC may be more compassionate, but in the long run they are both sending things in the same basic direction.

bitch-asses that, in essence, have no desire to maintain the principles of the Democratic party.

That's the only problem I have with the DLC.