Related Q: What is the exact structure and function of the DLC in the DNC?

[Seabiscuit]

I've read that Bill Clinton "created" the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council?) and used it to exercise political control over the DNC.

What exactly is the DLC, what is its structure, and how does it function within the Democratic Party, and how exactly does it impact the DNC and the Chairmanship of the DNC?

And who are its members? I've seen countless references to certain Democratic senators who are "members" of the DLC. A recent post on DU listed the senators who voted in favor of the IWR and commented that it reads like a membership list of the DLC. Based on such "information and belief" I've learned over the years to dislike the DLC and to publicly condemn on the internet the positions some of its members (e.g. Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry) have taken on issues such as the Iraq war.

[GeorgeGist]

1. CONTROL

[Seabiscuit]

2. I've gathered that much over the years. How do they "control" the DNC?

And where did they come from?

[shuffnew]

3. DLC Origin

The Democrat Leadership Council (DLC) is a "corporist" group trying to make Democrats into Republicans basically... they originally said to move to the "center-right"! It started during the "wake" of Reagan election. Clinton had some involvement in the early 1990's (not sure about now-a-days) but it was trying to move rather far right and got a lot of resistance from Democrats after it was formed, etc. Now they are more of lobbyists. DLC does not equal DNC at all.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php

[Seabiscuit]

6. Thanks for the link!

[wyldwolf]

4. The DLC is not an official part of the DNC

... it is an "idea center" or think tank.

Despite what anyone thinks of the DLC, it is an organization that began in the late 80s and quickly spread it's influence into the party.

The only influence the DLC has within the DNC is the influence DLC members (elected Democrats) have in the DNC. DLC members who are high profile democrats (Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc.) will naturally carry weight for the DLC within the DNC.

Now, I'm a supporter of the DLC most of the time (I don't support anyone or anything 100% of the time) but for those who despise the DLC, the only way to counter them is to organize a entity in the same way.

[shuffnew]

10. I am one of those...

who do not support or care for the DLC at all. It is okay since they are more of lobbyists really, rather than mandates on strategy (except for the members as you mention having influence in the DNC).

I just happen to be one that feels that the DLC has gone too far right since it's formation and would not want their strategy mandated and 100% accepted or enforced by the DNC.

Membership is more for self-defense (IHMO). Lieberman is probably the main member still on the DLC "pro-corporate" agenda. I have no respect for Leiberman at all... he is a GOP in a Democrat suit (IHMO). Clinton and Gore got away from the pro-DLC agenda, but Lieberman hangs in there as one of the biggest supporters.

[scarletwoman]

5. I answered this question in your other thread.

But I'll post the same link here:

Behind the DLC Takeover
http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

[Seabiscuit]

7. Yes, I saw it. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I started this thread before I saw your post in the other one.

[scarletwoman]

9. No problem -- just means more people might read the article. (I hope)

:D

[Julien Sorel]

11. That article is crap. And it doesn't answer the OP's question.

It claims throughout that the DLC "controls" the DNC, but doesn't explain how. I can show, quite easily, how the religious right influences Republican policy. I can point to policies, meetings, reports from journalists, opinion pieces, key appointments, elections -- all sorts of things that demonstrate the degree to which the Republicans are influenced (not controlled) by the Ralph Reed/Falwell/Robertson people. Where is the similar evidence for the DLC and the DNC?

I've pointed this out before, and no one has an answer:

And, with virtually no debate, the convention endorsed a platform that, on the vast majority of issues, deviated radically from the views of most party members. According to a New York Times survey of convention delegates, traditional liberalism remained the most popular ideological stance.

In fact, polls show convention delegates are far more liberal than rank and file Democrats, so the statement made by the author is false, probably intentionally so: contrary to what he claims, the platform Democrats adopted was in line with the average party member, but out of line with the average party activist. In other words, the activists are out of step with the broader party, not the DLC. It's people like the mendicant who wrote this article (and those who brainlessly swallow their Kool-aid) who are trying to pull the party in directions it doesn't want to go, not the DLC.

[scarletwoman]

12. Oh piffle. And you don't know who John Nichols is?

Here's his c.v.: http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bio.mhtml?id=4

And just who is the "average party member" if not the people dedicated enough to give up their time, energy and money to work their way up from their state precincts to being national delegates?

Who are the party members if not the party activists? Who does the grassroots work year after year if not the party activists? They ARE the Democratic party. The Democratic party wouldn't even exist as an organization if not for the party activists who stay involved and campaign their butts off year after year.

I'M a party activist; I'm an officer in my county Dem party unit, I've been a delegate to my state's convention twice, I'm a member of the state Platform Commission, and a delegate to the State Central Committee -- don't even THINK of telling me that I'm not an "average party member"!

The party IS people like me!

sw

[Seabiscuit]

13. I agree totally.

It appears that the DLC, whose members refer to their organization as the "New Democratic movement" or "New Democrats" is the DNC's equivalent to the PNAC ("Project for a New American Century") within the RNC. The PNAC'ers refer to themselves as "Neo Conservatives", or as we know them, "neo-cons". Note the similarity in the two organizations' emphasis on the word "new" (or its equivalent, "neo").

Both parties, IMHO, have cancers growing from within, which have taken over the body politic of each party. The PNAC has spread its tentacles throughout the RNC and exercised control via monetary electoral pressure much as its predecessor, the DLC has done within the DNC. Both groups have the backing of Wall Street and the majority of the Fortune 500 companies, and both are exceedingly corporate-friendly. Both groups have historically shown contempt for "populist" and "progressive" issues.

As far as Wall Street companies are concerned, it doesn't matter which party wins because they figure the DLC will "reign in" the DNC just as the PNAC will "reign in" the RNC.

I'm beginning to feel like we're living in the nightmare George Orwell wrote about in "1984", which, ironically, is when the DLC was conceived by what Jesse Jackson referred to as "Dixiecrats", after Mondale lost to Reagan in a landslide.

[scarletwoman]

14. And don't forget, DLCer Will Marshall is a PNAC signatory!

I consider the DLC to be a trojan horse, sent to destroy the Democratic party from within.

sw

[Seabiscuit]

15. According to the article, it appears the "Dixiecrats", as Jesse Jackson

put it, i.e. southern democrat politicians, created and sent that "trojan horse" to not only destroy the Democratic party from within, but to seize control.

I've always been convinced, and still am, that Howard Dean's candidacy was undermined and destroyed to a far greater extent by the DLC than by either Karl Rove or the Repug media. And John Kerry was nominated as a result of actions taken by the DLC to a far greater extent than any influence the repug media had.

I'm also beginning to think Kerry lost the election on purpose. While giving lip service here and there to populist notions, he essentially stood his ground with the DLC on platform positions, especially its Iraq position, which ultimately handed the election to Bush on a silver platter.

Within the party, the DLC behaves like the PNAC and appears to stand for virtually the same platform on the issues. It's as if right-wing Repukes formed the DLC to destroy the opposition party (DNC).

[scarletwoman]

18. Please see my posts in this other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1423011 -- where I've written a bit more at length about my own take on the DLC.

sw
:hi:

[ShaneGR]

19. Uhhh, care to provide a link?

PNAC signatory?

[scarletwoman]

21. Sure. Sorry I didn't right away, it was in a long thread several days ago

A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

See also:
Liberal Hawks: Flying in Neocon Circles
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: "Everyone--those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors--must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes."

Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.

The PNAC letters clearly demonstrated the willingness of liberal hawks to bolster the neocons' overarching agenda of Middle East restructuring. But it was not the first time that leading Democrats joined hands with the neocons. In late 2002 PNAC's Bruce Jackson formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq that brought together such Democrats as Senator Joseph Lieberman; former Senator Robert Kerrey, the president of the New School University who now serves on the 9/11 Commission; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and the Democratic Leadership Council; and former U.S. Representative Steve Solarz. The neocons also reached out to Democrats through a sign-on letter to the president organized by the Social Democrats/USA, a neocon institute that has played a critical role in shaping the National Endowment for Democracy in the early 1980s and in mobilizing labor support for an interventionist foreign policy.

The liberal hawks not only joined with the neocons to support the war and the post-war restructuring but have published their own statements in favor of what is now widely regarded as a morally bankrupt policy agenda. Perhaps the clearest articulation of the liberal hawk position on foreign and military policy is found in an October 2003 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is a think tank closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The report, entitled Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, endorsed the invasion of Iraq, "because the previous policy of containment was failing," and Saddam Hussein's government was "undermining both collective security and international law."

sw

[Zorra]

32. The DLC, Will Marshall, and the PPI (Progressive Policy Institute) -

Will Marshall along with Al From co-founded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985. Four years later Marshall founded closely affiliated Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a think tank that shares offices with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana, who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst. Marshall was senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, "Renewing America's Promise". (1)
snip-----
Like PNAC and the Bush administration, the Progressive Policy Institute has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in "the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy." It's likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with PPI's criticism of those who complain that "the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy." In fact, in assessing the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda, the institute stated, "we believe it has not been ambitious enough or imaginative enough." (2) (3)
Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

[Julien Sorel]

20. You just demonstrated, quite convincingly,

that you are not the "average party member." The "average party member" usually votes, might even donate to the party on occassion, but certainly doesn't volunteer for functions and the like. Perhaps you need to re-think, (would it even be a case of "re"-thinking??) what the "average party member" is, because it certainly isn't you.

By the way, self-puffery by flaunting your activism isn't an argument, but running away from the argument. You still haven't addressed the core issue: the average Democrat is more moderate then people who go to party conventions and the like, ie, the average Democrat is more moderate, more in tune with the DLC, than they are with people like you. And that, rather than some Godfather-like control exerted by the silly Al From, is the reason the DLC behaves as it does.

[scarletwoman]

22. How is someone who votes for Democrats every few years,

MORE of a "party member" than a party activist?

Remember, YOU set the term in your initial post: "average party MEMBER". Now, in your second paragraph, you've switched to "average Democrat".

There's rather a significant difference, is there not? I answered your first post using YOUR term. Now you're changing the term -- that's NOT an honest argument.

And if the "averge Democrat" is so in tune with the DLC, why is it that the Dems have steadily lost seats in Congress for the last 10 years?

And while you're at it, how about defining "moderate"? What exactly does a moderate stand for?

I'll tell you straight out, I'm anti-corporatism, NOT anti-moderate -- whatever the hell that may be. My own Congressman wins year after year because he's an economic populist and socially conservative, which is fine by me. He actually considers himself to be a public servant, working for the little guy.

The DLC wants the Democratic party to forget about the traditional base of labor and minorities. How many white suburban yuppie votes do you think there are? Obviously NOT enough to win elections.

How much more proof do you need that the DLC strategy is a FAILED strategy? When we lose even MORE seats in the House and the Senate?

sw

on edit: I'm about to leave for the day. So if you should happen to reply to this post, I don't want you to think that I'm so devastated by your arguments that I'm unable to respond.

And btw, your condescending reference to my "self-puffery" is a nice touch. I was merely making the case that I am, indeed, a "party member" (YOUR term, remember) precisely by virtue of being a party activist. That's not "running away from the argument", that's making my own argument back.

[Seabiscuit]

23. Nice rebuttal. We're on the same page, "scarletwoman"

:hi:

[ElectroPrincess]

30. Here here ... you wrote it clear but they won't listen ...

They'll just attack us like the republicans do - below the belt with ceaseless whining about how we're so conspiracy theory minded, that Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinch aren't "Jeffersonian" or whatever the hell that means. That we should be ashamed of Michael Moore because he isn't photogenic and actually stands up for the working class in the USA.

Oh, and don't forget about what some DLC clone said on CSPAN recently: Boogie boogie boogie man gonna get you ... Fear fear ... listen to us in authority ... "Remember each day we have terrorists getting up in the morning wanting to KILL US."

Whoa! No intimidation there ... NOT!

[Julien Sorel]

25. No one said they were

more of a Democrat. That's you, playing a little straw man. It isn't that they are more of a Democrat, it's that there are more of them than there are of you. A lot more.

In fact, I would venture to say that there are more Democrats, and ex-Democrats, who vote Republican than there are of you, because they disagree with you about basic values and positions.




Notice how quickly you slipped back into the tired argument:

The DLC is in control of the party.

The party has lost.

The DLC is responsible.


Yet what are we nominally debating? Whether or not the DLC actually controls the party. You have failed to demonstrate the premise of your argument, yet continue to flail away as if it's true. When you demonstrate how the DLC exerts this magical control, you'll be halfway to convincing me, and many other people, of how correct you are. Until then, quite frankly, I will continue holding a rather low opinion of the ethics and reasoning ability of people who habitually toss off arguments like those above.

The rest of your anti-DLC rant simply reveals, for the umpteenth time, that you and the DLC bashers don't know what the DLC stands for, and neither do you care. You just want a straw target for your ire.

[scarletwoman]

26. "Yet what are we nominally debating?"

Let's review, shall we?

I refer you to the original post in this thread, wherein the question posed is this: "What is the exact structure and function of the DLC in the DNC?'

In the body of the post are two other questions: "What exactly is the DLC, what is its structure, and how does it function within the Democratic Party, and how exactly does it impact the DNC and the Chairmanship of the DNC? And who are its members?"

In response to these specific questions, I posted a link to an article that gives an outline of the "structure and function" of the DLC, and some further information about its members.

I merely posted the link with no comment. You replied to that post with an objection to the article ("That article is crap"), and then went on to make comments about "average party members".

I chose to take issue with that particular part of your post. I did not choose to enter a debate on the merits of the article itself. Just my choice, ya know.

So no, "WE" are not debating "Whether or not the DLC actually controls the party." I never offered to engage in that particular argument in any of my posts to you in this thread. Nor do I have time to take it up at this point.

Perhaps another time -- I really must leave now.

sw

[Julien Sorel]

27. An interesting "review."

The OP wanted to know how the DLC operates, and how it impacts the DNC. As an aside, anyone who reads here regularly knows what that's code for, but we'll leave that alone for now and play the game.

In reply, you post a link to a polemic, one that doesn't explain how the DLC operates, but does claim it has some kind of control over the DNC, without explaining the mechanism of that control. Obviously, any group that has the power to "jam a platform down the throats" of the "average Democrats" at the convention controls the party. But now, you want to play innocent. You posted the article "without comment." What can I do but shake my head in disgust, as is usual when dealing with the DLC bashers and their chronic mendacity?

[scarletwoman]

28. I don't do "code". I respond to what is actually written.

It was never my intent in this thread to engage in a detailed debate about the DCL. I've done that in other threads, I wasn't interested in repeating myself here. That's why I merely posted a link to an article that basically reflects my viewpoint -- which I know you abhor, but hey, we all have our opinions.

I've already reiterated the specific argument I was having with you, which was NOT about the DLC, per se. How is that mendacious?

It is my impression that what you are really looking for is an all-out debate specifically about the DLC, which simply was not what I was interested in doing in this particular thread.

May I direct you to another thread wherein I have somewhat expanded on my viewpoint about the DLC? It is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1423011

I won't be posting any more tonight, and will be gone most of the day tomorrow. But I will return to our conversation at my earliest opportunity and will then attempt to satisfy honor.

sw

[Q]

24. A quote from your link nicely sums it up:

"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.

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America, who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the American political debate has been dramatic. The group now controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic Party.

A day is soon coming when "we'll finally be able to proclaim that all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats," declared DLC President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National Convention."

[shuffnew]

8. Another Reference... Leadership Team

Read about the founder and CEO Al From (a corporist, without a doubt).

Here's their Leadership Team page:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

just do some googles on "Al From" or "DLC" and you will see how far right they promote and they favor the corporate elite.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The DLC is right wing Dems version of a "Southern Strategy"

How to get the "middle" (aka rednecks) to vote Democratic again.

[Seabiscuit]

17. Right. And that "Southern Strategy" has cost us elections in 2000, 2002,

and 2004.

Time to kick the bastids out of the party.

The sad thing, as one poster commented this week, is that before we can "take our country back" we have to "take our party back" from within.

Today, Howard Dean is the only Democrat working to do exactly that through his organization: "Democracy for America". See www.democracyforamerica.com

[FightinNewDem]

29. FACTS, FACTS, FACTS!!!

Who We Are:


The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate. Under the leadership of founder and CEO Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. At its heart are three principles: promoting opportunity for all; demanding responsibility from everyone; and fostering a new sense of community.

Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service.

Throughout the 90's, innovative, New Democrat policies implemented by former DLC Chairman President Bill Clinton helped to produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history, the lowest unemployment in a generation, 22 million new jobs; and helped to cut the welfare rolls in half, reduce the crime rate for seven straight years, balance the budget and streamline the federal bureaucracy to its smallest size since the Kennedy administration.

Now, with the help of Chairman Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the DLC is promoting new ideas -- such as a second generation of environmental protection and new economy and technology development strategies -- at the local, state, and national levels, working through a national network of reformers and practitioners, and offering an approach to governing that is distinctly different from traditional liberalism and conservatism to build the next generation of America's leaders.

The DLC publishes Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century, an innovative policy journal aimed at identifying the central ideas and policies that will guide American politics in the 21st century. The DLC also provides daily political commentary and analysis through its online newsletter, "The New Dem Daily," published every business day on NDOL.org and circulated by email to thousands of opinion leaders and policy makers in Washington and around the country.

The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, former Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, former Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.




DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.

Chairman: Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Vice Chair: Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
Founder and Chief Executive Officer: Al From
President: Bruce Reed
Vice President and Political Director: Holly Page

[ElectroPrincess]

31. I do understand one fact clearly -

Bill Clinton was the BEST republican (lite) President we ever had.
Thanks much Michael Moore!

also

Thank you Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich et. al. for NOT bending to the DLC's agenda. :-)