Terrific post.

Here come the AssClowns!

Good analysis of the reasons why Billary is a disaster and Schumer and Emmanuel are worse.

Go Ned!

Go Howard!

What this tells me is that they are afraid. Fear makes people act like this. Once you understand you are dealing with irrational behavior, then a lot of the DLC's decision making makes sense.

Chris, I'm mostly with you, but consider this.

Rove and friends go around all the time talking about how national security will be a big winner for Republicans at the polls.

Every time a hot-button issue like withdrawal comes up, the Republicans make clear (whether they're bluffing or not) that they think it will help them at the polls.

In 2002, not only did Bush arrange for the Iraq war vote to be scheduled just before the midterms, but he went around the country taunting Democrats with the electoral consequences should they vote the wrong way.

How come it works just fine for Republicans?  How come no one listens to them and thinks "gee, they're only doing this to win votes?

I frankly think there is a big difference between saying that a given policy will win elections and saying that a goven policy is intended to win elections, and you miss this point with your opening comment about Hillary.  Further, Hillary has to speak not only to voters but also to fellow members of her own party.  Convincing those people that a given policy is an electoral winner is a critical component in terms of gaining political support for that policy.

I agree that this business of "Democrats need to do a better job of leading on national security" is flat-out bullshit and needs to stop.  But I don't think we need to go so far as to pretend we haven't even thought about whether the people support our policies or not.  If people want universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage, or whatver, the results are what they care about anyway.

Chris, I know you've been talking about this stuff for a while, but this is the post I'm sending to all my political-operative-friends who always argue with me when I try to prove this very same point.

And this line came through as very Daou-esque:

This, of course, traps us in an endless cycle of meta- and process stories about how much we always lose, and how we need to adopt new beliefs in order to win.

Every time someone gives a speech that goes against the advice in this post, the media narrative of the Democratic party becomes that they're trying to figure out which principles to stand on.

Sounds to me like maybe these Dems are just parroting back what the consultants are telling them.

The consultants say "You have to move to the center in order to win elections", and the Dems absorb that concept so thoroughly into their mental processes that they find themselves compelled to rehash it in circumstances where it would not be appropriate even if it were true.

Can we look at it from another angle?  Are there any Dems who never fall into that trap?  Gore? Dean?  Feingold?  Clark?  Those are the Dems I like -- do they do it too?

ALOUD.

Fantastic Chris.

the Media loves talking about process stories, why even give them the chance?

-C.

I'm so FUCKING excited to be in the hands of people who couldn't get Clinton over 50%.  That sounds like a recipe for success.  Really, I'm giddy.  Can you tell?

Chris: Exactly.

Stone said the council's centrist approach has been the only proven success for Democrats in the past 25 years.

Yeah, they've done a great job.  They began in the mid 1980s, won the White House in 1992 -- then proceeded to lose the House, the Senate and the White House.  Great fricking job, DLC

Chris - thanks for saying so clearly just what it is about the Dems that makes me pull out my hair so often.

Great post.  I agree 100% that you should just say what you believe.

I agree that our  leaders, including us netroots stop prefacing speeches with:

"Democrats should......"  instead do it.

Arent they democrats too?

By the way, excellent post.  If you talk about TACTICS we need to employ to win elections, that's cool.  But if you talk about issues you need to adopt to win elections, you are pandering.

"If [Americans] don't trust us with their lives, they are unlikely to trust us with anything else."

Actually that couldn't be further from the truth. Even taking on Bayh's framing of "national security issues" as "Americans trusting us with their lives" - Americans HAVE approved of Democratic positions and competence on these issues, over time, but only by very small margins. But they've approved of Democratic positions on basically everything else - truly, EVERYthing else, from Social Security to the environment to health care, etc. ad infinitum - by enormous margins.

What Bayh says is a snappy - and idiotic, counter-productive, etc. - sound bite, but it is also just blatantly false, its falseness borne out by decades of public opinion polls. In point of fact - Americans approve of Democratic positions by wide margins, many even when they DON'T agree with Democrats on foreign policy or national security issues.

BINGO!! I posted the following on Fark a few days ago in a thread on Clinton's stumping for Lieberman:

I have tremendous respect for Bill Clinton in many areas, but I'd like to remind folks of the following:

1. Bill Clinton has the type of personal charisma and magnetism that only comes along once in a generation. A THOUSAND CLINTON WANNABES DO NOT.

2. Even with his tremendous charisma, Clinton still only received 43% of the popular vote in 1992. Put another way, 57% OF THE PUBLIC VOTED FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO BE PRESIDENT.

3. If it hadn't been for the extremely rare addition of ROSS PEROT'S 19% SHOWING IN 1992, the odds are that Bush Sr. would have won re-election after all (it's my understanding that about 2/3 of Perot voters were drawn from Bush vs. 1/3 from Clinton).

4. Even in 1996, as an extremely popular incumbent with a great economy and a weak opponent, Clinton still never broke the 50% mark--he only hit about 49% of the vote, with Perot getting about 8% and Dole about 43%. He would've won in '96 without Perot, but HE STILL NEVER BROKE THE 50% MARK.

So, if you add up Clinton's personal charisma PLUS Ross Perot PLUS a weak opponent PLUS his "move to the center triangulation" strategy, it works--but ONLY with those factors in place. Remove any one of them and the strategy falls apart, as so many Dems have discovered since then.

In other words, while Clinton is indeed a master politician, he is NOT the end-all be-all of all political knowledge. The same strategies which worked FOR HIM, AT THAT TIME will NOT necessarily work for someone ELSE, at a DIFFERENT time, under different circumstances. Times change, attitudes change, technologies change, etc.

Notice how Ned Lamont comes out and says what he believes, not what he thinks the Democrats should do or say.  Notice how Ned is gaining on a Democrat that is the personification (squared) of the DLC problem.  Notice how Ned's campaign is not staffed with the usual crowd of DC consultants.  How I hope for a paradigm shifting victory on August 8th.

This is the difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the party.   Dean knows what to do and does it. It's difficult.  It's risky because it's a path frought with setbacks.  When you give power away in order to keep it, when you rely on other people there's always the danger of mistakes and miscommunications.  

The other guys, let's say the DLC, would rather talk about talking about strategy.  That's easy.  That's fun.  That's bulletproof because you can always say that your master plan wasn't followed perfectly.  Mistakes were made.  

It's the difference between getting on the ground and working and talking about what other people should do to get still other people on the ground working.

The GOP is percieved as believing their positions because they push them for their own merits, whatever they actually are. Democrats push there positions as election winning strategies, just as you say Chris. This seems disengenious, and often is.

I was just pointing this out on a local blog. This is precisely why many people are reticent to support candidates. Positions are geared to get them elected. It's often pretty obvious. And it's what we fear. The candidate has positions. They are geared to get them elected. Once in office, how will they vote and who will they represent?

Politicians say what the polls say will get them elected. They shift with the blowing winds. Leaders stand up for what they believe. They are a rock in a storm. We need more leaders and fewer politicans.

I think the point made here is shown by Edward's and Gore's popularity.  Edwards has submitted proposals to end poverty, following up on his 2 Americas phrase, and he comes across as committed to ending poverty.

Gore comes across as someone who has devoted his life to saving the environment.

Sincerety is important, and the DLC openly treat politics as a game.

One of the very best Blog posts of the year-

DLC- Demeaning Lifeless Clones

They can't really defend their policies as policies, since moving to the right is a shit-stupid idea.

So they are trying to defend their positions in terms of electability.  "We're doing this to win elections" does make more sense than "We're doing this to undercut liberalism and betray the American people."

See?

I have seen some good points.  Particularly good ones about DOING and not SAYING.

It's also about having a vision.  The DLC is too busy checking the direction of the wind to say where it is they want the country to go.

The DEMS may regain some seats in congress, but it's only because the Rethugs have been stinking it up so bad.

Once people realize that the DEMS have no vision for the US, they will drop them too.  That is why it is so crucial to get ON MESSAGE instead of just waffling around.

if they weren't senators with instant name recognition and i only had their words to judge them by... i'd be calling them "concern trolls".

and about that quote: ""If [Americans] don't trust us with their lives, they are unlikely to trust us with anything else.""

i'll tell you what... you show me i can trust you to defend the constitution with your life - every EFFIN' day, then i'll think about trusting you with my lunch money.

being better than the bush/cheney administration is nothing to boast about.  even the nixon administration was better than the crew in charge now.

p.s. thanks for an excellent post.

These people aren't morons. Most of them have been doing this kind of thing for quite a while as professional politicians with multiple advisors. Sometimes consistently poor messaging over and over like this makes me wonder whether it's on purpose.

How many times in a row can you shoot yourself in the same foot and get me to believe it was an honest mistake?

Yes, yes, a 1000 times yes. Dead on.

We ARE a representative democracy, which means that our politicians DO need to listen to the people they represent. But, there's a big difference between making your message palatable to your constituents vice saying, "I know where you want to go. Follow me!"

This is why I like like Jim Webb. The political handlers haven't got hold of him yet. And this is the reason I don't like H. Clinton. I could forgive her position on the war if I thought the position was based on an honest belief instead of (misguided) political wind sniffing.

This post should win an award. It's the most succinct and dead-on explanation of the problems in the Democratic Party since 1984. Thank you.

"Stone said the council's centrist approach has been the only proven success for Democrats in the past 25 years."

What 'success' is he talking about?  The past 25 years have been a disaster for Democrats.

I think this is a very intelligent insight, one that touches the core of why the Democrats are not CRUSHING at the polls, instead of just "leading."

Man, are the people hungry for heart, for truth, and for integrity. And the system is terrified of it.

What is the solution?

People believe what liberals say.  The trouble is that there aren't any in the DLC.

Excellent work, Chris!  This should be cross posted at dailykos.  It is one of the best postings I've read on this site ever.

The REAL problem for Democrats is that DLC thinks like who backs them...private business. The DLC arose from the union of high tech companies and free trade oriented merchants who saw the Clintons as pliant on an agenda of deregulation and rolling-back worker protection in the name of fostering growth because these new industries were "different" and not like manufacturing.

On the other hand....the unions who were far more confrontational lost the money race for the Party's soul.

That's where all the frustration is...because the Boomers didn't respect the need for unions in the 80s and 90s and now we have an hourglass-society based on a few wealthy people, a lot of people living beyond their means, and giant underclass just waiting for the next batch of rioting to begin.

This ain't about nat'l defense, it's about understanding that the Democrats won by being aggressive, and confrontational when they were successful. This goes from the lowest union captain to Strom Thurmond's filibusters.

Challenge the NeoDems in their primaries and get rid of the them.

When beltway Dems talk about "the Democratic party needs to move to the center" on some issue, what they are really telling voters is "you shouldn't believe what you believe", you should support what WE tell you to believe.

Naturally this doesn't work very well.

After decades in the wilderness railing against social security, Republicans found ways to get around the problem of their issues being wildly unpopular with the overwhelming majority of voters.

First they appeal to religious conservatives who will vote for people who peel them like an apple when April 15 comes and ship their jobs to Mexico -- so long as they believe he's a "good christian man."

Next they appeal to the fear voters have by saying "we're strong" over and over again. Democrats who try to say "no, they're not" only reinforce the fear of these voters - "are you saying I'm not safe? I don't want to believe that!" Thus, you see the anger of conservatives when Democrats attack the Republican response to the war on terror.

Finally, most importantly, they appeal to southern exceptionalism by saying "we're one of you." While Northerners generally care more about issues than whether the candidate is "like them", southerners won't vote for a "yankee". This can change, but only after a HUGE investment in outreach to red-state blue-collar workers that will take a lot of time. Joe Bageant writes passionately about this: http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2005/01/dr ink_pray_figh.html

Democrats like Dean in 2004 who appeal to populist issues (like really providing health care for all Americans for instance), arouse fear in corporate boardrooms. Thus, they cut him down to size with endless negative coverage of the "scream" - making a perfectly normal, rather mainstream democrat seem like a freak.

Thus, DLC'ers fear that to take progressive stands on an issue will cause them to be de-funded and attacked by the corporate media. You see it in the coverage of Ned Lamont too.

THAT in a nutshell is why the DLC exists in the first place and why it takes the positions it does despite constant failure every election.

The problem is that Democrats have found no way to get voters to support them despite taking positions directly contrary to the interests of a majority of those voters. For example, they are caught between the demands of their corporate sponsors for further "free-trade agreements" that directly result in the loss of American jobs, and their constituents who are increasingly unhappy about them.

Republicans don't have that problem to the same extent since their voters aren't paying attention. But, the decline in Bush's fortunes suggests that many Americans are finally beginning to wake up!

The biggest problem is that the more Democrats take progressive positions on issues, however popular, the more the mainstream media will attack them.

A couple of days ago I posted a comment elsewhere daring people to define the "middle" agenda.

The "middle" is defined negatively: the middle is "not lefties" and "not wingnuts". Apparently the vast majority of U.S. citizens want to define themselves as "middle" - i.e., reasonable, rational, practical people who want a working government they can be proud of.

But now try defining what the "middle" believes in. You can't do it. That's because everyone in the middle is drawing from their own mix of beliefs, taken from both the right and the left. Those who claim to speak for the middle (usually for business and branding purposes, like "Unity08"), are actually just projecting their personal mix of beliefs onto the "middle" they are falsely claiming to represent.

The illusion of the middle is killing are civil society because when people invoke it, they are invoking an empty concept. They are simply expressing a will to disengage from partisan politics, not proposing any sort of political platform to replace it.

At a gut level everyone knows this: and that's part of why politicians sound like phonies when they invoke the "middle".

Yes, yes, yes, yes! No wonder people think Dems are wishy-washy. As Yoda said, "No say, DO!"

They lack clear principles to give voice to.  Good intentions are not good principles.

And I know more than a few bloggers that tell them to keep it that way, that there is too much purist principle based thinking going on already, and that that's the problem.

All that's important is that D, so what if a person failed to live up to some principle standards on the right to choose or the environment?  They are a D... and that's good enough.

Btw, it's almost silly how you call this meta chris.

PS: btw, on actual meta: when I asked you at the yKos meta if community blogs serve as model communities, you said no, that would be terrible, someone would say something funny and be chased around and harrassed, that would be terrible.  I of course agree.  My position has been they should be models, because we need to invent progressive community.  But note: kos said at ykos and reiterated a couple times for Nightline, he is mayor of a city.  That's how he sees it.

Don't you have to be elected to be mayor?  What is the "mayor" of a non-democratic city?  That's actual meta.  And I think it's important, because I believe in second generation cognitive science.

PPS: yes, I know, someone didn't understand me. sue me.

I totally agree with your sentiment's Chris.

I also would like to see your version of the 50 state strategy, or at least, what I came to advocate and remember you pushing for, that is a red state strategy that is not just a red-state strategy.

But a blue state strategy where we try to get Democrats Of Principle generated in blue states.