MyDD :: Who Needs to Fall In: the DLC or the 'Roots?

Who Needs to Fall In: the DLC or the 'Roots?

by Garemko, Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:22:28 PM EST

[ Update: I just want to clarify that I am using the term "DLC" here to mean the emerging ABD or Anybody But Reform movement for DNC chair. I probably should have been more clear about that.]

There seems to be an ongoing tension in the liberal blogosphere about who is bailing on the Democratic Party and helping Creepublicans. The DLC wing of the party thinks that Dean/Kucinich/netroots liberals are a threat to Democratic electoral success because they are so freaking liberal that they freak out swing voters. Apparently, they think that swing voters would actually recoil in disgust if they ever met a liberal, which I guess they never have?

Either way, they think that the world has changed and that the program-oriented solutions of the mid 20th century have fallen out of favor and we better wise up to this or lose for a long time. The DLC wing resents the fact that the grassroots seems to teeter on the edge between supporting the nominees and defecting to third parties.

On the other side, the netroots/grassroots wing accuses the DLC of defecting from the Democratic Party and weakening our chances because they sign on to major Creepublican legislation and always adopt right wing frames in media appearances.

So, who needs to fall in? Which side is really selling out?

The DLC wing needs to realize that they are the ones dividing the party and providing bipartisan cover for conservative strategic initiatives. By constantly trashing Democratic ideals in the media, they legitimize an overall conservative framework for policy evaluation on the part of the people. By signing on to destructive legislation, they cover the collective conservative ass, which should be on the line for passing unpopular and harmful policies. As far as I know, the Dean wing of the party has actively preached loyalty to the Democrats even as DLCers smeared and smeared them. Dean actually wants to be DNC chair so that the efforts of DFA do not occur outside the party, because changes in technology and fundraising mean they will occur inevitably.

The bottom line is this, the DLC needs to fall in. The Democratic Party has a tent big enough for diverse viewpoints. But it is not wacky, scary or "left wing" to insist that leaders in our party do not trash the very values we all share.

Think of it this way: the Dean/netroots/grassroots Democrats have extended an olive branch to the DLC. They will either accept our inevitable power in the party or they will divide the party by refusing to work with us. But the choice is their's. We, the 'roots, have already made up our minds and we want a strong party.

Visit Corked Bats.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 18 Comments :: Post a Comment

The DLC (3.00 / 2)

The DLC has stood for the same ideals from the time Bill Clinton took over and ultimately became a DLC President for two terms - the first Democrat to serve two in decades.

The United States is not liberal; if anything, it is growing steadily more conservative every year. The Democrats can moderate their message, returning to the centrist "Evil DLC" approach without sacrificing the beliefs that make us Democrats. We must focus not on how we must think differently, because thinking differently is never suggested. We must instead focus on how we TALK about the issues. It is a simple matter of getting back in touch with the common American by putting forth a candidate that reflects the values of the common American.

The Democratic Party must have as its primary duty the obligation to serve the people. We cannot serve the people if we are slowly edged out of every elected office in the country. We are being edged out because, in this time, people do not relate to the Kerrys, the Hillarys, the Kucinich or Deans. If we want to gain back our power as a party and represent the people of America once again, we will need to nominate a moderate who speaks their language.

The New Democrat

by demburns on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:32:59 PM EST

Re: The DLC (2.00 / 1)

Here is the area where we disagree:

The United States is not liberal; if anything, it is growing steadily more conservative every year.

You see this as a signal to go with the flow. Start adopting more conservative stands.

I see this as a signal that we need to fight harder for liberalism.

Quickly, if you don't see -- the U.S. growing more conservative -- as a problem in need of a solution, then we fundamentally disagree.

I want to turn back that conservative tide ... not just arrest it. You want to join that tide.

by manyoso on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC (none / 0)

Agreed.

Furthermore, what we have is the Republicans moving to the right. Some Dems moving to the right. We must remember that we are leaving out 50 percent of the country that didn't vote. Why don't they vote? Because they feel they can't make a difference and are disillusioned with the two party system which they feel is not looking out for them. If we present liberal policies that they can connect to then we can get this large segment of the population voting for us and creaming the Republicans.

Plus, anyone who thinks that we lose by being liberal has disregarded the past two elections. Al Gore and George Bush had very similar ideas. Tax cuts, free trade, balancing the budget, pro-death penalty, pro-mandatory sentencing. Al gore didn't campaign on any universal healthcare system. He supported the failed war on drugs. He worded with Bill Clinton to cut funding for many social programs.

This year, we had John Kerry. Didn't talk about the envirement. Voted for the Patriot Act. Voted for the war. Pro-defense spending. Didn't run on universal healthcare. He voted for NAFTA and many other free trade agreements. He didn't advocate a pro-choice view enough during the second debate, instead giving the "I'm personally against it" crap. John Kerry was pro "war on terror."

Some people must be ignorant to think that we lost this election and in 2000 by being too liberal. Furthermore, all those senate seats we lost in the south, well all our candidates there were moderate/conservative Democrats. Then we have Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama and Russ Feingold who all shared tons of votes with Bush.

by sam89 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bunk (none / 0)

We are being edged out because, in this time, people do not relate to the Kerrys, the Hillarys, the Kucinich or Deans.

If you call the reaction to Dean's campaign before the DLC torpedoed it "people not relating then you are blind and/or spouting pure BUNK.

The DLC bought two terms for Clinton and paid with it by selling off The House, The Senate, Future Presidencies and the Supreme Court. If we had to do it all over again I would have much preferred keeping the rest and giving up the POTUS.

How can you say that the DLC is doing any good when you see Feinstein "introducing" Rice today, or Rahm in such a twist on MTP because is being too afraid to show conviction of Democratic ideals.

The DLC has neutered the party.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DLC has changed (none / 0)

It used to emphasize working in partnership with the business community to create economic expansion and jobs. It has become much more hawkish and militant about supporting Israeli foreign policy.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC has changed (none / 0)

The neocons are the tools of the Likud party.

by sam89 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC (none / 0)

You seem to be a confused New Democrat. The primary duty of the Democratic Party is not to serve the people. It is to express the voice of the members of the Democratic Party. Not Indendents, not Republicans -- Democrats. You assumption that we are being edged out because of the "Kerrys, Hillarys and Kucinich or Deans" is ludicrous. One thing we learned real well back in Iowa, where I grew up, was how to recognize a cow pie when we stepped in one.

Let's consider Bob "seven strikes and you're out" Shrum. Let's consider the lackluster lack of enthusiasm anybody in the party has for a centrist candidate. Let's consider just exactly what part of Kerry's non-platform was liberal. Let also not forget how big a blowout this election would have been if it hadn't been for the "radical left wing" of the Democratic party.

The only candidate I see who is capable of speaking any language except blah, blah, blah is Howard Dean. The last thing we need is another bland, uncontroversial, duck the issue centrist. If the Democratic party doesn't stand for something then there isn't any point being a member. If the memory of Paul Wellstone doesn't count for something then what the hell is the point?

To the best of my knowledge nobody is claiming the 2008 Democratic nomination or even running for it. It is time for a reform candidate who can speak to the soul of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. If the DLC has a problem with that, then the Democratic wing of the Democratic party may very well take a powder in the 2008 election.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC (3.00 / 1)

I agree with most of what you said JollyBuddah except for the part about The Democratic Party not serving the people. The Democratic party is supposed to be the party of the people.

by sam89 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DLC (none / 0)

That's a nice theory, and in practice we like to think it's true. However, we obviously do not represent the people of Alabama, and probably never will. The Democratic party cannot be all things to all people.

Theoretically, the President, once elected should serve and represent the people. Is Bush representing or serving you? This is largely a matter of semantics. I thought it was quite deceitful as well as annoying for "New Dem" to pretend that Frost or Rosenberg could "serve" the people, but Dean could not. It all depends on how you define "the people".

O'Reilly claims he speaks for and serves "the folks". Yeah, right. The O'Reilly speaks for and serves "the folks" who already agree with him. As far as I'm concerned, New Democrat is just another bloviating gas bag.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spectrum frame (none / 0)

Americans consistently side with the liberal position on policy issues. Even Bush supporters tend to believe that Bush supports several things which he doesn't, but liberals do.

In fact, the only places where the country seems to be moving to the right are tax cuts and militarism, in both cases because we've been led to believe that these positions are necessary for the good of America and the world.

The only reason more people are identifying themselves as conservatives is because "conservatives" are in power and "liberal" has become a slur. Go ask 1000 people if they're "progressive" or "regressive" and see what kind of results you get.

As for the need to improve the message, you're right. But prominently pointing out the hypocrisy of those in power is also a must.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:48:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely right garemko! (none / 0)

The old canard about Clinton being the Dem's only two term President is so stale. I would love to hear somebody explain why Clinton owes two terms to the DLC. The DLC was just a fortuitous bystander when Clinton came along. The more we move to the center, the more we convince the public that the Republicans must be right, or else we wouldn't be moving to the center.

Then the Republicans move furthur to the right and we start all over again. I was at the grassroots meeting in L.A. this weekend. One of the most common complaints was that people are tired of being an ATM for the DLC. The most popular name mentioned was Barbara Boxer. Those are two very big clues about who needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

If Dems give us another two years of "more of the same" with a dash of same ol' same ol' thrown in for excitement, you can color a lot of us gone. The DLC needs to stop worrying about trying to pick up a small incremental percentage of red state votes, and start worrying about losing a large chunk of their base. We do not just represent votes. We represent the foot soldiers as well as the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

When we go, we will not only take our bodies and our votes with us. We will also take the only thing the DLC is genuinely passionate about with us as well -- our contributions.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:55:21 PM EST

does DLC "out perform the market"? (3.00 / 0)

The DLC would have more credibility if it were able to "out perform the market" with Democratic candidates that were not Bill Clinton.

The claim that the DLC formula wins just is supported by facts.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 05:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm DLC (3.00 / 1)

and I'm a fighter. I'm opposed to Bush's cabinet nominations but my being in a red state does not help at all.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:26:27 PM EST

Grass Roots .....Leaders.........Voters....... (none / 0)

Who should call the shots?

I say voters. I think it is fair to give a slight over-representation to the grass roots who do the door to door and organization etc.

It may come as a shock to many of you but liberals are rare. And the kind of Liberal that is more liberal than say myself is rarer still.

The 5% that organizes and goes door to door etc cannot dictate to the 95% that votes what the party line will be.