Progressives and centrists, can we PLEASE just have an honest discussion?

[ZombieNixon]

In the interests of knowing how people think, can I get progressives and centrists to talk about the DLC. I want to stick solely to policy positions, not whether or not the DLC is relevant. Centrists/DLCers - please tell why you think the DLC is a good thing. Progessives/anti-DLCers - please tell the converse.

Rules: If you make an assertion, please substantiate it with a link or quote. I don't want unsubstantiated accusations flying around. Please, please, PLEASE do not turn this into a flame war. Do not attack the messenger. If you break the rules, don't be surprised to find your message deleted.

Thank you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Perhaps, it's best if you define terms.

First, explain to those new at DU what the difference is between DLC & DNC. Who has the money, who are the supporters for each...etc. I admit I don't have it clear in my head, either.

[merh]

2. You want honest discussion, yet you set up rules that prevent it.

Rules: If you make an assertion, please substantiate it with a link or quote. I don't want unsubstantiated accusations flying around. Please, please, PLEASE do not turn this into a flame war. Do not attack the messenger. If you break the rules, don't be surprised to find your message deleted.

My assertion is that we need to stay firm to our "left" stance. Meeting "them" in the middle or "playing" to fake conservatives is not an option. I can't provide you a link, only a point of few. I will not become one of them to gain power. :puke:

The problem with this election is that we were too "centralist". Some folks couldn't tell the difference between * & K, so they went with what they knew. (No links, jmho)

[saracat]

3. Thank You , Merh. I thought I was alone on that point.

[merh]

6. You are welcome.

I might add that Kerry is a liberal, the problem was he didn't want to wear the label. The campaign, the DNC, made him feel like he should be ashamed of his "liberal leanings".

I want a candidate to stand up proudly and say, "My name is John Doe, I am a proud liberal and this is why." Liberals belief in the constitution and the bill of rights. We have nothing to be ashamed of and I want candidates that recognize that and proudly proclaim it.

(Again, no links. jmho)

[Starlight]

10. I agree with Merh. I heard many people say there was "no difference" nt

[wyldwolf]

16. Second time I've seen an anti-DLC'er effectively say...

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

[merh]

18. What facts do you have to support DLC?

You give me your facts? The thread is an opinion thread, though it asks for links, it is merely a thread seeking opinions. I do not need a link to support my opinion.

But if you want to play in the fact world, then you post yours and support your opinions if you have any. Ridicule posts are offensive and a waste of energy and that is sort of the feeling I have about the DLC, waste of energy and offensive.

[wyldwolf]

19. interesting. I see no mention of "opinion" in the original poster's post

What I DO see is this:

Rules: If you make an assertion, please substantiate it with a link or quote. I don't want unsubstantiated accusations flying around.

You say:

But if you want to play in the fact world

Anti-intellectualism from the left? I thought that was the right's domain.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. and this is your second post with no link OR opinion

Since you have taken on the role of thread police don't you think you should follow the rules you are worried about others breaking?

[wyldwolf]

27. read the "rules" again

If you make an assertion, please substantiate it with a link or quote.

I haven't made an assertion.

[Zhade]

33. See post #16. You indeed HAVE made an assertion.

That assertion being the straw man of saying that the poster isn't backing up their "assertion", which is in fact their opinion.

Disappointed to read these posts - you were more civil and reasonable in the "Friday night hypothetical" thread.

[merh]

26. And as I pointed out in my first post to this thread.

The rules cannot be abided by.

"In the interests of knowing how people think, can I get progressives and centrists to talk about the DLC. I want to stick solely to policy positions, not whether or not the DLC is relevant. Centrists/DLCers - please tell why you think the DLC is a good thing. Progessives/anti-DLCers - please tell the converse.

This thread asks for opinions and I am one of those people who can have an opinion independent of other's writings.

And where, pray tell, are you links?

[wyldwolf]

28. ..because you can't make your case with documented facts

...

[merh]

31. Don't have to have documented facts to have an opinion

You can't even give an opinion and you have yet to provide any links either, so WTF is your problem? Do you just like attacking folks? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

29. Mainstream America rejected wackos

Just like they did in 1968. That theory is just as legitimate as yours.

[merh]

32. whatever!

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

4. No!

Are you kidding? A rational discussion about the DLC? Please! HA!

One reason I think the DLC is bad is that it allows some moderate Democrats to make themselves look liberal by bashing the DLC. It's kind of disingenuous and unhealthy for the party.

My main complaint with them is their support for the WTO/NAFTA, which I believe is one of the most urgent issues of the decade.

[crispini]

5. How's this, I'll try.

DLC quote on trade:

"the DLC is among the leading organizations promoting a new approach that recognizes the opportunities created by the global economy, the benefits of open trade and a rules-based system for global commerce, and the imperative of "expanding the winners' circle" of the economy's beneficiaries."

From here: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=762&kaid=108&subid=235

Sounds great, but nowhere do I read any plan to figure out how US based companies which have much higher standards of labor and environmental based regs will compete with companies in China, etc. who can work people 14 hours a day and pollute the environment?

[Okieprogie]

7. The problem is....

The party needs to pick a path and stay with it and believe in it. I happen to be more of a centrist, but I think that the party is better off pushing and standing for more of what you call a "progressive" agenda than it is having a progressive agends and trying to pretend to be centrist.

Voters can smell B.S., and they know that Kerry was much more liberal than he claimed to be.

It's hard to run a party when there is a fundamental clash between what the party beleives, and the image it tries to present to the public. One reason I think the repbulicans have done so well over the last 12 years is because there is much less of a clash between what the rank and file believe and the image that the party portrays to voters.

[Pushed To The Left]

15. Excellent points.

A candidate should stick to what he or she truly believes in and not change stances just to get votes. I think that does turn off the voters. I think the answer to grabbing more swing voters is to "frame the debate" the way that George Lakoff recommends. That way, a candidate does not have to compromise his or her beliefs.

[latteromden]

8. The problem I have is not with the position of the DLC, it is with

its leadership. From et al want to rely entirely on the Clinton people - that is, Bill Clinton's advisors, media people, etc. back in '92 and '96 - to get things done, and it doesn't work; we've lost three consecutive elections, it just doesn't work.

I don't think that the centrist wing of the DNC is necessarily such a bad thing, but the DLC is not the vehicle to carry that centrist vision and those ideals forward. They have no real plan, but they CAN boast about all the members there are in the New Democrat Coalition. All DLCers should take a look at the New Democrat Network - both committed to the middle ground of Democratic politics, but the Rosenberg, the president of NDN, is a good guy, who understands what we need to win (e.g., the NDN's Hispanic Project: http://www.newdem.org/hispanicproject). I've found members of NDN to be far more willing to accept ideas like Howard Dean for DNC, because, even if they don't agree with all his politics, they're more reform-minded than the DLC.

It's not a question of centrist vs. progressive, it's a question of whether or not the current centrist structure (the DLC) wants to move forwards or backwards. I don't see any indication that they want to move forward.

[Starlight]

9. I hate From. IMO he's a total jerk & harmful to the party.

No, I don't have any links to prove it. :eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

11. DLC: peace, a "failed or outdated lefty idea"

The DLC views calls for "peace" in the world as naive ... they view people like Kucinich as the radical left ... who the hell would want to have a Department of Peace that uses diplomacy to build alliances around the world? who would want to have people in our government trying to help the country avoid warfare and balance the hawkish interests of the defense department? why is working for peace a "failed and outdated lefty idea" ????????????????

you asked for substantiation ... here you go ... and while you're at it, please take notice of the disrespect the DLC showed for those of us who protested and tried to prevent the invasion of Iraq ... we said there were no WMD ... we said there was no threat to the U.S. ... and we said that the invasion would destroy Iraq and its people ... the DLC view was that we were just a bunch of baby boomer whiners nostaligic for the days of our youth ...

here's the deal ... either the DLC loses power or they lose the activist (i.e. not just left wing) base of the party ... FUCK THE DLC ...

source: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251439&kaid=131&subid=192

<skip>

The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion.

But Kucinich also reflects a persistent if small faction in the party that helps reinforce Republican claims that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with military leadership or with vigorous defense of our national interests. These come-home-America liberals are in many respects still fighting against the Vietnam War, and tend to react to any prospective use of military force by hauling out the same old signs and slogans. As a Pew Research Group poll recently showed, they are isolated from the rest of the U.S. electorate in their opposition to the war. If allowed to define the Democratic Party's approach to national security issues, they would undoubtedly drag the party back into the electoral hole it inhabited for much of the post-Vietnam era of the 1970s and 1980s.

Antiwar Democrats are entitled to their opinions. In fact, we share most of their concerns about the Bush Administration diplomacy that has made the drive to disarm Iraq such a lonely endeavor for the United States and the United Kingdom, without letting those concerns obscure the national interest in toppling Saddam. But antiwar Democrats do not have the right to claim, as Dean often does, that opposing the war is a matter of fidelity to Democratic tradition, or that antiwar Democrats represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

<skip>

Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.

[fliesincircles]

12. Because Kucinich was a candidate

was the only reason I joined the Democratic party. So I could vote for Kucinich in the primaries. I had always been non-partisan and never voted candidates in primaries (only issues) for 20 years. If the DLC thinks peace is an "failed or outdated lefty idea", then logically war is a "successful or contemporary righty idea". That is absurd.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. and you don't have a link to support your opinion?

WElcome to DU. I am joshing with you, because I love it when people at DU want others to supply a link for their opinion.

[Zhade]

13. I appreciate your effort.

Unfortunately, when some refuse to see that accepting funding from, say, rightwing corporate polluters that steal oil from Native American wells like Koch Industries is a bad idea, where do you start to find common ground for discussion?

When DLCers ignore or offer apologia for Will Marshall's endorsement of PNAC views, what meaningful discussion can there be?

And, finally, there are DLC interns* here who do not want honest discussion.

(*I kid. They're just misinformed fanboys, not paid interns. I think.)

[XemaSab]

14. The DLC and why they suck

It's nigh-on impossible to be the party of the working man when there's an influential bloc in the party that's unashamedly big-business.

[48pan]

17. The DLC Seem Like Republicans to me

They are the problem with the Democratic party. Howard Dean would have gotten the nomination if the DLC wasn't running things. Times are changing and the internet and its funding options should remedy that situation.

[Lefty48197]

20. No way. If you're a centrist, then you're just Bush light, and you're

ruining our party and America. Shame on you!

[Maple]

21. Canada has managed

to be both centrist, and Liberal party, for most of our history.

Middle of the road...that's us. Left and rightwings are both too extreme.

Take up enough of the middle of the road, and the left and right wing are left running in the ditches alongside.

[BrklynLiberal]

30. Can compare parliamentary government to govt in US n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

24. sorry zombieNixon....there have been 800 threads with all the links

you could possibly want to explain who the DLC is and why people don't like of do like the organization.

There is nothing wrong with being centrist on some issues as long as you aren't a corporatist and trying to use corporate money to pull the rest of the party to the right. I am not going to supply a link for the purpose of proving my point. Do a google search and read for yourself, that way the information will mean more to you. I can't imagine anyone here who doesn't know all they need to

[AP]

25. I think people overestimate the influence of the DLC today.

I know they were a big part of making the Dems appear to be more interested in creating social wealth and less interested in just transferring wealth from the top to the bottom in the early '90s -- which may or may not have gotten a lot of moderate capitalists comfortable with voting for Clinton.

However, I think in 2004 they had almost no influence on policy or the choice of candidates, and one piece of evidence I point to is this: Edwards was on the ticket.

Edwards was a member of the DLC, sure (but that's obviously not a big deal because Obama was also a member -- or, more accurately, they had him listed on their website, until Obama pointed out to them that he wasn't a member).

Edwards only voted for two of the trade deals out of about 6 or 7 that were before him as Senator. Free trade is basically the DLC raison d'etre. Edwards voted for the China deal because I think everyone agreed that there was no way arround that one: either China was going to be an economic powerhouse playing outside of the terms of an agreement, or they were going to be a powerhouse within the rules -- and subsequently, they've been violating the rules they agreed to. The other trade deal Edwards voted for was the one with Jordan which he supported only because Jordan law protects the environment and labor rights so it wouldn't create unfair competition with American workers.

Because of those votes the DLC really didn't like Edwards. From what I could tell from reading their schedule and noting where Edwards was and wasn't, Edwards was neither invited to attend nor present at the 2003 or 2004 DLC summer meetings, at which even Dean presented (as did all the other major candidates).

I know I often look at things through the lens of Edwards, but the fact here is that if Edwards ended up on the ticket, you know the DLC doesn't have that much pull anymore.

[Zhade]

34. "...only because Jordan law protects the environment and labor rights..."

That's THE crux of the whole NAFTA issue. I'm no "protectionist", I really LOVE the idea of free, fair trade. The world is full of amazing things, why limit that?

It's just that they left the "fair" part out - likely their intention all along.

"I think people overestimate the influence of the DLC today."

You're probably right. I doubt the DLC actually has as much power as it arrogantly claims to have. Too many people both inside and outside the Democratic party are waking up to their enabling and corporatism, and they don't like it. This naturally dilutes their power somewhat.

I do see them as a wounded animal, though, and happy to lash out at those who disagree with selling out to multinationals if they see it as a way of staving off the 'Third Way's eventual (and likely sooner rather than later) extinction as an ideology.

That may be why they are getting so much louder and shrill, politically-speaking. Their number's basically up, they know it, and they'll do what it takes to stay entrenched in their sphere of influence.

That's what makes them worth watching - to see what they might do to keep what control they still retain.