The DLC’s Plan for Destroying the Democratic Party

[Al-CIAda]

The DLC’s Plan for Destroying the Democratic Party
by Craig Axford
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 6, 2005

Recent articles printed in the conservative Democratic Leadership Council’s (DLC) Blueprint Magazine articulate more bluntly then ever before a strategy of moving the Democratic Party even further to the right, or the “center” as they like to call it. According to the DLC, then and only then can Democrats again become a majority party in the United States.

We have heard this before. The DLC has been preaching the gospel of centrism since its founding after the 1984 defeat of Walter Mondale and their position won considerable additional support following the defeat of Michael Dukakis in 1988. Their first and only significant success story goes by the name Bill Clinton, a former DLC chair and self described “new Democrat” we are all very familiar with. That success story comes with two significant asterisks, however. The first is Ross Perot, without whom a second George Bush Sr. term would have been all but certain. The second is the failure of Clinton’s centrist tendencies to ever earn him more than 50% of the vote.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Axford0106.htm

[leftyandproud]

1. I think they have already succeeded.

WE no longer have a national party.

[eg101]

2. The DLC and its corporate backers CREATED the Dem party we now have

why would they want to destroy their own creation?

[Mountainman]

3. Now that we are out of power, what have we got to lose by going left?

Hell, we have tried to be repub light in 2002 and 2004 and we got beat. Are 2006 and 2008 going to be a repeat? Why not try something new and be a real opposition to the repubs? What have we got to lose?

[LoZoccolo]

4. Uh, the next election?

Get it?

[el_gato]

5. the DLC has a history of losing elections and is destorying the party

Get it? I doubt it since maybe the facts are little too complicated for those who are literally drowning in corporate propaganda.

[LoZoccolo]

9. No they don't.

Clinton 1992, 1996?
Gore 2000?

What is this history of losing elections you are talking about?

[Selwynn]

12. Yes, actually they do.

Clinton 1992. Won with less than 50% of the popular vote, thanks in large part to a three way race.

Congress 1994. A Stunning and Devastating loss of Congress that set the stage for a bitter future.

Clinton 1996. Won thanks to the luck when the republicans chose the least electable candidate of all their nominees as choice to run: Bob Dole.

Gore 2000. The story is not that "ooh gore actually won by a tiny margin." The story is that despite the Clinton legacy, despite the amazing economy, despite all the successes, Gore couldn't even pull a 5% lead over the least intelligent, most pathetic, lest qualified candidate to ever run for president - even after he ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen.

Congress 2002. Despite the obvious failings of the Bush Administration, we complete fail to capitalize or score any victories.

Kerry 2004. Yet again, we fail - voter irregularities or no, the real story is that our losing strategy made an election that should have been a "landslide" one close enough to be stolen. It should have never been close in the first place, and wouldn't be if the Democratic party would start standing behind candidates who represent real and clear alternatives to the other party.

[jmowreader]

7. We lost the last two by hewing to the DLC game plan

I have written fairly extensively on this.

Our problem is NOT our positioning on the political spectrum, because the things Democrats--REAL Democrats, not the DLC-style Dems--are for are the right things for America. Our problem is that we're allowing the Republicans, Freepers, ditto monkeys, ldotters and other assorted right-wingers to define us.

This is like walking into a Chevrolet dealership and asking the salesman which Ford you should buy.

Go to anyone who's not a Democrat and ask them what Democrats of today stand for. If that person listens to mainstream news, watches Hannity or listens to Limbaugh, we stand for welfare, the right to an elective abortion in the ninth month for any reason, tax increases, trial lawyers, trade obstructionism and handing control of the military over to either France or the UN, depending on who they're more pissed off at this week. You and I know the Democratic party stands for social justice, fair taxation, full employment, an effective military and fair trade.

It's going to take two things to change this: a real liberal media (which we don't have now; go to some seriously demented websites and they'll tell you Fox News is liberal) and the guts to call these liars what they are.

[LoZoccolo]

10. I really doubt it.

On the other hand, look at pre-DLC Republican landslide victories.

I agree with you about what you'll get if you ask them what Democrats stand for, but that's an issue of getting a message out.

[K-W]

11. I think you are both right.

Centrism was the right democratic first response to the crisis of the New American Right.

But as a long term solution it is horrible. You cant build a party on centrism.

[Done]

16. Amen

You should also mention that the Democrats are perceived as being against God and wanting to destroy Christianity. All we want is separation of church and state, which means freedom of religion.

[K-W]

6. That is how it looks from your point of view.

The fact is that while both sides like to pretend that Kerry was all on the other side. He wasnt a radical centrist, nor was he a progressive. He tried to find a middle ground, and he went further to the left than many of his predecessors.

So to radical centrists, it looks just as much like his insistance in including the 'radical' left cost him to the election as it does to you like his inistance on clinging to centrist ideas cost him the election.

Its all about how you interpret the current political state of the country, and that is what makes the centrists centrists. They dont buy our narrative of a propagandized america who will come around to progressive values. Thier narrative is of a nation that has moved right and will continue to be on the right for the forseeable future. Thats just how it is, and the party should adapt.

If you keep that in mind its much easier to understand thier actions.

[xxqqqzme]

13. Kerry lost because he did not

go 2 the base nor did he energize the base. The DLC does NOT want the DNC base because it is messy and it involves values like equal opportunity; civil right; choice; quality education for all. The DLC wants no part of that and neither do any fat cat rethuglicans.

[xxqqqzme]

8. "....Liberal and progressive

candidates tend to follow their polls and decide that they have to become more 'centrist' by moving to the right. The conservatives do not move AT ALL to the left and yet they win!...." (emphasis added)

'don't think of an elephant', George Lakoff

[FlemingsGhost]

14. So what are folks holding onto exactly (re: the Democratic Party?)

Seriously.

Oh, right... The NEXT election will be fair. I'm sure the media will unbiasedly present the candidates, and corporate power brokers will certainly let the American people decide its leadership.

Yes, Let's continue with the pathetic charade. It's more palatable than having to admit the obvious.

[Al-CIAda]

15. KICK

[paulk]

17. Polls taken at the time

show that Clinton would have won even without Perot being in the race. This has been pointed out numerous times here at DU, but those with an agenda continually bring it up.

I can't take an article seriously that has such a glaring piece of disinformation in it's second paragraph.

And neither should you.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. "Perot, without whom a second George Bush Sr. term..."

"...a second George Bush Sr. term would have been all but certain"

---soryy, but i have to call you on reppeating one of the greatest myths in american politics. clinton was actually leading bush by an even wider margin in august of 1992 (after both conventions). when perot got back into the race, clinton's lead was cut in half, as the anti-bush vote was split.

the day following the election, bob dole went on the today show and claimed that clinton didn't achieve a legitimate win because more people voted against him than for him. dole incorrectly assumed that perot's voters preferred bush to clinton, when the trend of the entire year showed the opposite to be the case.

all perot did was tighten up the race by drawing from both parties. the evidence is there-go back and read the polls from september to november of 1992

---just wanted to clear that up

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

19. clinton didn't get elected on cetrism-that's what the dlc fails to realize

especially with his reelection. people didn't reelect bill because he followed dick morris' advice and sold out to the GOP congress. they voted for him because newt gingrich scared the living shit out of them and they falsely viewed clinton as someone who was opposed to the newt agenda and would fight for them.

it was the incorrect perception of a liberal perception that saved bill and not the DLC-esque advice of a toe-sucking pundit