WP: Clinton, Other Democratic Leaders Urge Young Liberals to Get Involved

[DeepModem Mom]

Clinton and Other Democratic Leaders Urge Young Liberals to Get Involved
By Brian Faler
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A04


Some of the biggest names in Democratic politics convened yesterday to focus on what they believe is the long-term remedy to their party's woes: cultivating a new generation of activists.

Former president Bill Clinton and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) were the headliners among a host of operatives, writers and artists who gathered at the Washington Convention Center for a day-long series of speeches and panel discussions designed to energize about 600 visiting students.

"You don't have to wait until your party is in power to have an impact on life at home and around the world," Clinton told a hushed crowd, urging them to embrace grass-roots organizing. "This ain't supposed to be easy, and you have to work at it. I promise you our adversaries work at it."

The suspicion that the right is working harder at it, in fact, is what led the liberal Center for American Progress to organize the event. David Halperin, a former speechwriter in the Clinton White House and the conference's coordinator, estimated that conservative groups spend more than $35 million a year on such efforts. By contrast, he said, the left has invested comparatively little effort or money in cultivating the next generation of activists and would-be leaders.

"We've been on the defensive for 25 years," Halperin said. "There's been a lot of focus on the day-to-day -- just getting through the day -- without having a rollback on civil rights or environmental protections. The idea that you could do that and, at the same time, invest in the future seems a little daunting. . . . We've learned some things from what conservatives have done better, particularly in developing and communicating ideas, in promoting news leaders and in trying to bring people together who are interested in different issues but who have the same general political orientation."...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302118.html

[htuttle]

1. ...they mean as long as they don't remain liberals, right?

If they meant they wanted more young liberals in the party, they wouldn't keep undercutting people like Dean and Kucinich, who really HAVE brought out more young liberals.

By contrast, he said, the left has invested comparatively little effort or money in cultivating the next generation of activists and would-be leaders.

Bullshit. The problem has been that the activists and 'would-be leaders' that the 'left' has come up with have been unacceptable to the party's corporate masters.

[oneold1-4u]

4. Take off the "coats"

Not all GLBTs are liberal. Not all liberals are left. Certainly, not all Democrats are GLBTs and/or liberals at all. The Democratic party is not a lot different than Republican but hopefully we can dump the rotten apples (those with personal agendas only) before they attain high office.

[Voltaire99]

16. You're right. I hope no young people fall for it.

It would be a different story if the party actually had respect for its grassroots, rather than either ignoring or scolding it.

Clinton is asking for a lot of unpaid interns to help corporate politicians in their ceaseless quest to serve corporations.

The *real* work of liberalism--sadly, the last work--is no longer performed by sell-out pols. Young people who want to effect change should look to their state PIRGs, where the good fight is still fought.

[oneold1-4u]

2. When a winner is spotted

I liked to go to the paddock and pick 3. In one order or the other then place smallest bets. Once in a while even a small bet on a long shot. Hit a long shot only once but it was worth it!
This is how it has to be with the "new" Democratic party. The coming generation has to become involved and putting a bet on one or more of them will tell them that they are known! Remaining "old fogies" and naming the same for everything is not going to do it. Someone in their early thirties could be president in 08 and a lot younger could get into the practice of being leaders if given a bit of encouragement.
If a non-judge can attain a seat on the highest court of the nation for a lifetime "job", the persons choosing to become mayors, governors, representatives, senators, and presidents, do not need to have a degree from Harvard or Yale or any college!
So let's have a look at the next generation and find a Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt or Truman! Someone who can once again be a respected leader for the world!

[lateo]

3. STFU Bill.

I used to be a big fan but now I know he is just a big sellout.

[WinkyDink]

5. Bill C.

I've tried to forgive him for "Welfare Reform", but palling around with Poppy...that's not sitting easy with me.

[lateo]

8. Same here.

They have become inseparable and insufferable.

[lancdem]

9. Keep your enemies close, remember?

:)

[lateo]

13. riiiiight...

I'm sure that is what Bill is doing...

[bunkerbuster1]

14. I think Bill's doing it partly to show up Dim Son.

How much do you think Chimpy likes it when he seems his dad treating Bill like the son he never had?

Like I said, partly. The rest is all about making his wife seem more palatable, and reframing his own legacy, of course.

(Plus the usual smattering of ego gratification, of course.)

[MaineDem]

6. Good!

Bill is a very powerful speaker and I'm sure he made an impression on the future leaders in this group.

Love him or hate him (which I see more of every day here on DU, sadly), he's still an enormous voice for the Democrats and our views.

[lancdem]

11. Many DUers don't like the closeness between Poppy and Big Dog

It doesn't really bother me, and the vast majority of the American public like the idea of them working together for tsunami relief. Clinton still knows how evil the RW is.

[bunkerbuster1]

15. Many DUers are, shall we say, idealistic.

I love 'em, but I've also been watching political smackdowns since I was a young'un in the late 60s and I know political genius when I see it.

Most Clinton haters will even acknowledge that Bill Clinton is the smartest pol this country's hatched in a generation. In fact, that's mostly *why* they hate him so.

[Voltaire99]

19. Sneering at idealism: Last refuge of a sell-out.

I was a youn'un in the late 60s, too. We've taken different paths, obviously.

What you admire in Clinton's "genius," I rue.

The Big Dawg ushered in Bushism in his embrace of market fundamentalism, decimated Iraqi children, sold out Americans to corporate stock values and frog marched the poor into low-wage peonage at Taco Bell and Wal-Mart.

That has nothing to do with hating his being, to use your term, "smart," which Clinton most assuredly is. It has everything to do with despising Republican values.

If you are going to style yourself as wise Father Time, do your opponents the service of at least understanding their case.

[FlemingsGhost]

7. Yes, get involved ... in destroying the DLC

Smash it to pieces, kids.

[K-W]

10. Stop rejecting the progressive left and the youth will come.

Few young people want to sign onto a democratic party clinging to a confused centrist position anchored in the washington bubble.

[OrwellwasRight]

18. Word. nt.

[gratuitous]

12. The GOP spends $35 million a year doing this

How much is the Democratic leadership going to spend? Thirty five bucks? Thirty five hundred bucks? It doesn't just "happen," and as another poster pointed out, it would be really nice if the party leadership didn't keep cutting the legs out from under folks like Dean and Kucinich who actually do attract and energize young people to their campaigns.

I hope the Center for American Progress can map out a five year (or better yet, a ten year) plan to spend money, cultivate the grass roots and most importantly follow through on recruiting, training, funding and developing young party operatives.

[Zorra]

17. Young voters need to see that the Democratic Party is a real alternative,

an effective and dynamic alternative, to the republican policies of war, pollution, and corporate rule.

There are an awful lot of disaffected, alienated folks in the 17 - 30 year old age group that have abandoned the political process because they believe that there is little difference between Democrats and republicans.

And to some extent they are correct - the Democratic Party has submitted to the dictates of the extreme right and has been infiltrated by pseudo-republicans and Democrats that are cowed by the bullying tactics of conservatives. The blanket of RW propaganda that has covered the nation since the Reagan era has also reinforced this valid, yet somewhat erroneous, belief.

Democrats, apparently at the behest of the DLC founders and subsequent supporters that have assumed control of the Democratic Party by accepting huge amounts of cash from corporate interests that desired full control of both the republican and Democratic Parties, allowed RW propagandists to make the the word "liberal" into a negative moniker during the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and now the chimp (p*)Presidencies. They claimed that America was becoming more conservative. To this day, the DLC continually rails against popular Populist Democrats like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich and their grassroots supporters because their beliefs and actions threaten corporate control of government with the return of democracy to America.

The fact is, the DLC actively worked to make it more conservative, and their plan to turn the Democratic Party into a "kinder, gentler, republican party" obviously has not worked. Or maybe it has worked. Maybe From and Reed and Marshall were corporate plants financed by corporations to destroy the effectiveness and appeal of the Democratic Party. I don't know.

What I do know is that the DLC, whether they were just stupid (which I doubt) or maliciously subversive (which I lean toward) really fucked us all over, and now dangerous fascist extremists are in control of the WH, both Houses of Congress, and the Federal Judiciary. And they are actively working to create a long term fascist dictatorship through their ownership and control of our media and our electoral processes.

Controlling computerized electronic voting, naturally, means that you never have to lose an election.

So many young people today have grown up in the toxic propaganda matrix of Reagan - Limbaugh fascism. Many have figured out that it is all bullshit, but need a clear alternative, a dedicated organization, under which they can unite with like-minded persons to throw off the corporate yoke. (Of course, there are some young folks that were so successfully brainwashed by fascists during the 80's and 90's that they are totally lost in the matrix-web of Reagan-era conservative extremism that their entire belief system is an illusion, and, lacking sufficient education and the perception that often comes from life experience, they have no intellectual basis to draw upon, challenge, and recover from the deliberate manipulation of their belief systems.)

Anyway, until the Democratic Party recognizes all this and once again presents itself as a genuine and effective alternative/opposition that can present a united front to counter republican backed corporate corruption in government, reaffirms its foundation as the party of the American People, and actively reaches out to the disaffected non-voting young person and makes them know that there really is someone out there that understands and really gives a shit...

then the Democratic Party will remain the republican Junior Varsity.

So if the Big Dog and other Democratic Leaders really want to get young liberals involved, they also need to come down from any kind of elitist pedestal because, having too much money can blind those that have too much money from seeing what the real needs of what folks that were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths really are.

Hitting the campuses, spreading a focused, genuine, appealing, and consistent traditional Democratic message and appeal for united activism behind this message, is a very good idea - but the message needs to go beyond the campuses, and into the streets and the farms.

“Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right.” George Lakoff