"Clintonism": Advocating the irrelevance and mediocrity of moderation

[Q]

The Practical Cult of Clintonism

-----

"Friends, it's time we talked. You've wondered for a while now why I abandoned the barricades of staunch liberalism and became a centrist. After all those years close to the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement -- a lifetime spent trying to save America from what we considered its worst instincts -- I had quit the field in favor of something practical called Clintonism." --- "the election wasn't stolen, and the American people weren't stupid. We just got our proverbial left-leaning butts whipped." --- DLC's Peter Ross Range --- http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253070&kaid=127&subid=170

------

Clinton has become the 'underground' leader of the Democratic party and is the force behind the DLC. He is the power behind the party...pushing it ever towards the mediocrity of moderation.

Many of us have wondered why the Democratic party has been so silent on the issues of election and war fraud. The answer could be: "Clintonism". The Cult of Clinton advocates never taking an 'extreme' position on any issue...even as your party and country go down in flames. Take a look at the DNC and DLC websites: no mention of election fraud or the lies that brought the Iraq invasion and occupation. Clintonism suggests it wouldn't be 'practical' to take a stand on these or any other issue that stinks of 'liberalism'.

What does Clintonism mean for the Democratic party?

it means blaming the 'loss' of the 2000 and 2004 elections on the left even though they haven't had a voice in the party for decades.

It means not discussing or recognizing the 'extreme, civil rights, anti-war' positions of election and war fraud. The Cult of Clinton insists they don't exist.

It means abandoning the liberal 'purist' values for centrist 'pragmatic' values that allow the totalitarian Bush* government to rape and pillage with impunity.

Wonder no more why our party won't make an issue of election fraud and unnecessary wars. Clintonism won't allow it because it's not 'practical' or 'moderate' and would look too 'extreme'. Watch as Clintonism infects the Democratic party and 'triangulates' us to death on the issues of church/state, choice and social welfare.

[Forkboy]

1. This should be a great thread!

Love the article Q!

[w4rma]

2. It's my understanding that President Clinton isn't even happy with what

the DLC is doing, right now.

[mazzarro]

11. Well, I have not read any statement from him stating his dsipleasure

with the direction of DLC. Instead, there far more statements from the die-hard DLC'ers using the Clinton presidency to justify their positions on all things they do to sellout the democratic party. If Clinton will only speak up.

The stranglehold of the DLC on the democratic party MUST be broken or progressives should flee the party for the Greens since with the current trend of the DLC/Democratic party, we will have little to lose during the interim period that will be necessary for the Greens to learn the ropes and start wielding the kind of influence we want to fight the RW rethugs with.

[w4rma]

21. I believe he said that they needed to go on the offensive against Repugs

more.

[Q]

40. Doing a bit of research...

...I've found nothing that would suggest that Clinton was in any sort of disagreement with the DLC. This probably isn't going to happen because he and the DLC are one in the same. Of course...the DLC has added a few policies of their own to sync better with the PNACers and the 'war on terror'.

It's not the 'moderation' of the DLCPNAC that offends as much as it is their penchant for helping the opposition win elections by covering up their lies and supporting their agenda behind the scenes.

The Neocons and Neodems have a common enemy: anyone against the Bush Doctrine of aggressive war in the guise of the war on terror. That's why they have both attacked progessive Democrats AND Michael Moore....the only voices speaking out against the insanity.

[cornermouse]

3. I'm saying the same thing to you that I say to republicans.

Clinton is not president. He has not been president for 4 years. I'll also take a moment to add that, unlike the democrats that we're seeing now, Clinton fought back when the republicans attacked him.

[Q]

5. Wow. Thanks for...

...intimating that I'm a Republican. How would I have ever found out that Clinton wasn't president if you hadn't of so kindly informed me?

Perhaps you should do a bit of research about what Clinton HAS been doing since he left office? He is considered the leader of the party by many DLC moderates. No one else has stepped up to the plate to lead this party because Clintonism is the running the show behind the scenes. And you most certainly won't see a liberal or progressive become a leader of the party because Clintonism wouldn't approve.

No one accused Clinton of not having a survival instinct. Of course he fought back. His ass was on the line. You won't see me defending what the GOP (and some Democrats) did to Clinton in the 90s with their bogus impeachment.

[cornermouse]

8. Its not my fault that you're doing exactly what the republicans

keep trying to do. My take on your post was that Clinton is the root of all the democratic party's ills. I disagree. Presumably we're talking about adults (senators and representatives) who should be taking the responsibility of their own decisions/actions?

I guess you could say that part of my thinking is that the current democrats don't even seem to have the instinct for survival. They didn't fight back at all. I don't like the DLC and I didn't approve of everything Clinton did. That said, it still doesn't excuse or cover up what appears to be the rather glaring inadequacies of the democratic party.

Added: And I just don't think blaming Clinton is going to be good enough to get us out of this mess.

[Q]

10. Of course it's not your fault...

...and I never would suggest such a thing. We should always blame the Republicans for our own actions. Critical thinking and introspection should be outlawed.

Clinton isn't the root of the party's ills...unless you happen to think that moderation in response to despotism is a bad thing. Haven't you heard? Everything has changed.

Clintonism is to blame. It's the 'third way' politics that has harmed the party and encouraged it not to stand for anything that may look 'extreme' to the opposition. Read the linked article and while you're there...browse around and witness the mediocrity of moderation.

Notice that the party has followed the Clinton DLC's politics ever since 2000. Haven't you even wondered why they've been silent or have conceded on so many issues? It's the Third Way of not only riding the fence on every issue...but to disavow the existance of Bush WH criminality, election fraud or a phony war on terrorism fought in Iraq. They consider the truth of these issues to be extreme.

[cornermouse]

14. Clinton is not to blame.

He's a handy scapegoat. When you use him as an excuse for the shortcomings of the party as a whole and the democratic senators and representatives, you're avoiding putting responsibility where it belongs. But its apparent that you'll never admit to it and I just don't care to argue any more.

Just don't expect things to change in the democratic party as long as you continue to try to blame it on Clinton or whoever, rather than putting the blame on the guilty individuals who, by and large, are busy not representing us.

[Pepperbelly]

27. horseshit ...

you haven't come close to making your case and repeating it ad nauseum is no more compelling upon the umpteenth repitition than on the first.

[slor]

4. I agree completely...

I do like Clinton, but he did do some things that I did not like ( the blow job stuff, I could honestly care less about) such as making it easier for media consolidation. I also believe he should have pushed energy independence more, though his last 4 years were spent primarily defending himself from so-called Americans, so he probably could not build that big of a movement for it. We have seen that the DLC types are blaming lefties such as myself, but I will NOT accept that the chimp really won this election fairly, based on the evidence, so that argument falls flat on it's face, and I will NOT accept any Dems that preach bipartisanship with the group of radical, fundamentalist, oil-lapping criminals that have hijacked our country!

On Edit: I am happy to hear he is not happy with the DLC, is there a source for that info you could point me to?

[Q]

7. Well...Clintonism was just as silent about fraud in 2000...

...which tends to make one believe in a trend.

2000 was a no-brainer: Jeb and Harris playing it fast and loose with the rules. Illegal SC decision. And I'm not even suggesting that 2004 was 'stolen' as it was in 2004 although election fraud HAS been proven. But for the Leadership to COMPLETELY IGNORE it suggests something sinister. That they're not loudly calling for election reform after TWO questionable elections should indicate that something is very wrong.

Just as strange is the fact that there is no mention on the DNC or DLC websites of Bush's lies that rushed this nation into 'war' in Iraq. Both do however advocate fighting a 'better' war on terrorism in IRAQ.

[NVMojo]

33. yeah, this is all good, where are the Clintons on election fraud?

Why don't we know where Senator Hillary Clinton stands? I sure hope the tin foil rumors that were going around that the Clintons did not want Kerry to win so they could set the stage for Hillary in 08 aren't true....

[ramapo]

6. Left Leaning?

The definition of "left" and "liberal" have been perverted over the past 25 years. It is worse today when arguably some of the domestic policies of Richard Nixon would be defined as "left leaning".

Clinton certainly took the party in a more centrist direction. So much so that many policies expoused by Gore in 2000 were not so different than Bush's. Of course we're not talking about the hot-bed issues of abortion and tax cuts for the top 1% but remember Gore/Lieberman almost agreeing outright with the Bush/Cheney position.

Clinton talked a great game but when you examine his record you find that he did a lot of the Republican's bidding. NAFTA, CAFE standards, Telecomm deregulation, and the list goes on.

I had a thought earlier today that the problem with the Democratic Party is that it has ceased to stand for anything. There is a lot of pandering to the base. But most of the rhetoric is maddening. How many times did I scream at both Gore and Kerry, begging for a straight and honest answer, not some canned nonsense.

I don't know that honesty would put the Democrats in any better place than they are today but in my view it has become a collection of gutless wonders, offering little in original policy ideas or leadership.

[wolfgirl]

9. I liked Clinton, too.

But he did go along with a lot of GOP initiates that have hurt the working class and played into the neocons agenda. I screamed at Gore and more at Kerry when they didn't lay it out for the world to see. I give Gore credit for being much more vocal this past year, but the media kept it hush-hush/ignored. If Clinton is the leader of the Democratic Party - fine, but he has got to get out and tell the truth without all the adornments, nuances, etc. But I suspect he is not the leader of the party...I think we are rudderless at the moment.

[Q]

12. I defended Clinton against the witchhunters for eight years...

...because what they did to him (and then Gore) was disturbing and anti-American. But in retrospect one can't call his presidency 'successful' in terms of advancing Democratic values.

Recent statements by Clinton says it all. He has asked Democrats to cooperate with Bush. He has played down election fraud and seems to agree that Bush* is fighting the war on terror in Iraq. He's trying to sound moderate...but it sounds more like selling out the truth to me.

[ramapo]

26. I still like Clinton

The man is mesmerizing plus it is so refreshing to hear such an articulate speaker. But I don't like a lot of his political "triangulation" tactic. He was great at beating Republicans at their own game, that's why he was(is) so hated, but he gave up so much during the fight.

I too applauded Gore when he spoke out during the past year or so. Too bad he didn't find his voice when he was a candidate. It seemed he was afraid to say anything that hadn't been vetted.

I don't think Clinton is the party leader either. Like you I don't believe there is one. Too make matters worse I can't name one Democrat that I can see providing anything near the bold leadership that the party, and this country, needs.

[Q]

16. The important point is that you...

...recognize that there's 'something wrong' with the party. But the problem is that the moderates don't see it the same way. They think that all the party has to do is accept centrism, throw out the extremist liberals and everything will be okay.

But please note the issues that Clintonism is willing to give up or compromise: choice, workers and women's rights, free press, free and fair elections and just wars...to name a few. This isn't moderation...it's selling out the truth and values that all informed Americans share.

[DaedelusNemo]

37. minor quibble

"Clinton talked a great game but when you examine his record you find that he did a lot of the Republican's bidding. NAFTA, CAFE standards, Telecomm deregulation, and the list goes on."

It seems to me like that's the corporate-loving DLC influence more than anything else. While certainly Clinton engaged in some repub-triangulation (welfare reform) an awful lot of what you're talking about goes more to the corporate-vs-workers issues.

Certainly agreed that the people could use a party.

[IStriker]

13. I agree with your statement...

and I fear that the Clintons are attempting to turn my party into a national version of the "Republicrats" that run PA. Election after election, the governor's office changes parties, but the direction remains the same. This may benefit individual Democrat or Republican officeholders but it's like riding on a train for the public - it only goes in one direction and it never stops, so you can't get off.

[Q]

15. I understand what you're saying...

...but I'm not trying to advance a Clinton conspiracy theory here. It's the politics of the 'third way' that Clinton originated that continue to make us the party of anyway the wind blows. The 'third way' will live on with or without him because of the advocates of Clintonism.

Clintonism is the reason why we can't...as a party...object to the Iraq slaughter or blatant election fraud without being called 'extremists'.

[IStriker]

17. I'm sure that you are correct...

but it is the Clintons right now who have the party in a deathgrip and refuse to let go. It benefits them, but it certainly doesn't help the party any.

[Q]

18. We share an unpopular position...

....when it comes to this issue. It's difficult to take a stance that contradicts that of a two term Democratic president.

It seems that many Democrats won't/can't accept that Clinton is still the 'leader' of the Democratic party. But his third way politics and policies permeate the party to its core. Republicans have taken many of these policies and expanded and manipulated them to their own benefit. It's hard for them to accept that many of the policies of Clintonism opened the gates for the Bush Neocons to take power and full control of our government.

[KoKo]

20. I'm thinking Clinton was the "Figure Head." It's not Clinton but those in

the DLC who share the same beds with the DC Inside the Beltway power crowd who are to blame.

I think it's what's behind both Parties that's the problem and not the "Figure Heads" who run in campaigns.

Look at the idiot Chimp. I don't think he had an idea in his head about any policy he wanted to make if he became President. But, the folks behind the scenes sure did...and he's the most obvious example.

I think Clinton came in with some good ideas..but the "shadow government" made sure that what he wanted to do crashed and burned. I saw the same thing with Jimmy Carter.

I wouldn't have thought this until I went through "Hunting of the Presidency" and the first stolen election. I was just your average believing Democrat...pretty innocent thinking the Candidate made all the difference.

Nope...the scales have been peeled from my eyes. It's the "shadow government" that needs our focus. The power center...the Military Industrial Complex. They are pretty clear about who they are now...since the "Sock Puppet" has been exposed. Doesn't matter about the candidates anymore. It's who runs them...it's all the same.

[kodi]

19. "All ran to meet their chains, thinking they secured their freedom."

the very nature of the social contract espoused by the DLC is fraudulent and but a mere fig leaf of so-called "justice" to hid the whoring ways of the people who control the society.

[librechik]

22. screw em. They are acting so stupid

when they could be so smart. They've got the greenback blinders on. Don't they see if they did the correct thing and moved back to US, their base, that the millions would come through? We showed them at least twice! They don't HAVE to suck up to ugly, polluting, cheap labor corporations anymore! RJ Reynolds MY ASS! Since when to REAL DEMOCRATS court killers?

screwem

[hollowdweller]

23. If Clinton hadn't been moderate and got elected I shudder to think

what our country would be like now. Our country is going farther and farther to the right. Clinton was branded as a left wing liberal while he was in office. I credit Clinton with slowing the dog eat dog society we are going to rather than screwing us.

[Q]

24. Even those who called Clinton a 'liberal' knew he wasn't one...

...and it could be said that much of what happened during the Clinton years actually opened the door for the Neocons to take advantage. It set in place or ignored policies they would later use to advance their agenda of destroying social programs, waging aggressive wars and taking over the American media.

Some say in jest that he was the best Republican the Democratic party ever had. There is always some grain of truth in humor.

I'll add this: our country isn't going to the 'right' so much as it's accepting fascism by the leadership they choose to represent their country.

[CJCRANE]

31. "Best Republican the Democratic party ever had"

Surely that's the trick: just like in the UK I would guess that most people in the US are conservative (with a small "c"): if they're doing ok, they're happy not to have too many big changes.

Clinton's centrist "Third Way" brought prosperity to the US, just as Blair's version of the "Third Way" has brought full employment to the UK and the longest period of uninterrupted growth ever.

[Debs]

25. So the hot water

Slowed from a raging boil to a slow simmer. If we want to get out of hot water we have to begin to explain why being in the pot is a bad idea.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. n/t

n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

29. This is the lesson that we need to learn from "Clintonism"

CLINTON FOUGHT BACK! Politics is a dirty game, negativity WORKS! That's the lesson that we need to learn from "Clintonism". It doesn't matter if we nominate a "liberal" or a "moderate", everybody runs to the center in an election year. Our campaigns need to be run without so many blunders and we need to FIGHT BACK.

[Pepperbelly]

30. yep ... it had shit to do with policy and everything to do with politics.

Our functionaries suck, their ability to design a message sucks, and in general, their ability to read events and ascertain the impact sucks worst of all.

[DaedelusNemo]

42. Exactly, in the red states not fighting back is admission of guilt /nt

[PROGRESSIVE1]

43. kick, kick, kick

[depakid]

32. Oh, Clintonism is REAL practical alright

It gave us a thoroughly decrepit FDA and doubled prescription drug prices by allowing television advertising.

It's FCC REFUSED to enact the fairness doctrine, instead appointing Micheal Powell and turning over radio ownership over to conglomerates like Clear Channel and Viacom. His FCC paid little more than lip service to the public interest.

Under Clinton, the FDA became decrepit- fast tracking drugs without adequate testing and they allowed the now intractible television advertising that effectively 50% or more to the price of pharmaceuticals. Do'nt like those ads- too bad- you're paying for them- and what's more- you've paid to make the media a HUGE ally of Pharma- meaning true reform willl NEVER get a fair hearing.

Clinton and the "moderates" loosened regulations on the financial industry- and set the stage for the massive frauds of the late 1990's and the looting of pensions and 401k's.

Under Clinton, FERC did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in response to petroleum market manipulation on the west Coast in 1997, natural gas manipulation in 1999-2000 and let Enron, Duke, Dynergy et al., steal billions from California during a manifactured energy crisis in 2000.

I won't even mention NAFTA and the WTO.

Over and over Clinton and the "moderates" sold us out to corporate interests- and allowed the far right to proliferate on the aiwwaves. They ended up costing the country (not to mention average citizens) 100's of billions.

And this is practical?

FOR WHOM?

[NVMojo]

34. Q, have you read this article yet?

Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda

WASHINGTON — The truce appears to be expiring among Democrats in Washington.

In the immediate aftermath of Sen. John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush in November, Democrats notably avoided the postelection squabbling that's consumed the party after almost all recent presidential races — even those it won.


But as the new year begins, a series of high-profile articles in leading liberal journals is suddenly reopening old divisions.

On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal organization of party centrists, of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

In equally combative terms, a leading young centrist commentator published a manifesto in the New Republic magazine accusing the Democratic left of slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism and undermining the party's image on security — an argument instantly embraced and promoted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

In the near-term, the Democratic desire to unify in opposition to almost all of Bush's agenda is likely to take the edge off these disagreements.

But these twin firefights, which have inspired volleys of responses, Web postings and e-mails, reflect enduring divisions over strategy, message and policy that could influence the race for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee next month and are certain to loom over the contest for the presidential nomination in 2008.

"There is a big fight about the direction of the Democratic Party still going on, and these are big documents in that fight," says Robert Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

For Democrats struggling to recover after an election that saw Bush reelected and Republicans gain greater control of the House and Senate, these two disputes highlight the most basic choices facing the party on domestic and foreign issues.

These disputes follow an election in which the party largely avoided factional discord. Although former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's bid for the nomination divided liberals and centrists early in 2004, the burning desire to oust Bush united them behind Kerry during the general election.

"We were all working for the same causes," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.

Democrats have now moved back to the barricades, at least in their intellectual circles. The lines of battle evident in these disputes also could resurface in the race for the DNC chairmanship, which will pit liberals Dean and party operative Harold M. Ickes against centrists such as former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer and Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network.

The domestic squabble extends a long-standing dispute about how heavily Democrats should rely on anti-corporate and anti-free-trade economic populism in their message.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20050102/ts_latimes/democratssplitagainoverpartysagenda&printer=1

[Q]

35. Truth versus lies

"On one front, a liberal operative at a top think tank has accused the Democratic Leadership Council, the principal organization of party centrists, of pushing the party toward a pro-corporate agenda "that sells out America's working class — the demographic that used to be the party's base."

In equally combative terms, a leading young centrist commentator published a manifesto in the New Republic magazine accusing the Democratic left of slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism and undermining the party's image on security — an argument instantly embraced and promoted by the Democratic Leadership Council."

---

One of these arguments is based on a distortion of the facts. While it's true that the DLC is pushing a pro-corporate agenda...it's not true that the left is 'slighting the struggle against Islamic terrorism' or 'undermining the party's image on security'.

The DLC is misrepresenting the left's position on the war on terrorism. They have joined with the PNACers and the Bushies in promoting the lie that a war on terrorism is being fought in Iraq. The left long ago exposed that lie and now the Neocons and Neodems are accusing them of 'being against the struggle'.

This 'division' is about the DLC selling out to corporations and their support for an illegal war dressed in the guise of a war against terror. They're pissed because the left won't participate in their deceptions and lies to the American people.

[KoKo]

36. Message removed by poster...

[DaedelusNemo]

41. correction needed

>>The domestic squabble extends a long-standing dispute about how heavily Democrats should rely on anti-corporate and anti-free-trade economic populism in their message.

Economic populism need not be anti-free-trade, nor even anti-corporate. What it is anti- is favoritism to the largest corporations. Anti-Big Business. It is actually for freer trade than exists, although that fact is obscured by economic-anarchist talk on the other side by those who want the strongest to be unfettered in dominating the weaker - which, of course, decreases total freedom.

[andyadkins]

38. I thought we were blaming ....

misguided extremist who are suppose to be encouraging others to join by using a new voice(Democratic Underground) that does not alienate the majority. In addition, it is important to acknowledge and respond to the political world as it is. When your voiced opinion only garners 50% support at best nationally and 3-5% of all counties, then your agenda will not have any real traction and at best we are left to suffer complaints about gridlock.
there is always a winning hand available for democrats because they are suppose to be open to what is new (Plato's cave analogy is apt here...i have the perfect idea for a new pencil and when it is made you can formulate a new perfect "form" for a pencil). Stop recycling the past, it alienates the future.

[Q]

39. It's not 'recycling' to want to avoid...

...making the same mistakes over and over again. And why should any citizen have to tolerate outright lies from their own party?

I don't want a 'perfect' pencil or politician. But shouldn't we at least expect the minimum standards of truth and integrity?

It's simply amazing how so many otherwise intelligent (D)emocrats just don't seem to 'get it'. Our country and planet can't afford TWO parties willing to say or do anything to get the keys to the White House. We're staring the end of democracy in the face if one of the parties (hopefully our party) can't rise above the carnage and do what's right for the people.

[robbedvoter]

44. Shouldn't you direct your energy towards the actual enemy?

The one in POWER? I am getting a bit tired of this.

[Q]

45. That's kind of ironic coming from someone who calls...

..themselves a 'robbed voter'. Aren't you tired of being robbed? Please keep in mind that the Bushies couldn't have so successfully 'robbed' you and millions of other voters if there was an active opposition calling for investigations and election reform.

We know that the enemy is the Bushie Republicans. What we don't know is why the Democratic party leadership is letting them get away with so much unopposed.

[Rose Siding]

46. The Third Way- voluntary political hermaphrodites

Today, the need for leadership that promotes progressive centrist Third Way ideas is more important than ever. Finding a Third Way is not about splitting the difference or seeking a compromise for compromise sake. Third Way is about finding a new way – innovative solutions that deliver real results to solve the serious problems in 21st Century America. To that end, Third Way will develop legislative proposals that reflect the following five progressive centrist principles:

1. Government should help people solve their own problems and control their own destinies in a way that promotes self-sufficiency.

2. Whenever possible, government must harness the power of the free market to meet America’s greatest challenges.

3. Government policies should strengthen basic American values by rewarding hard work, promoting personal responsibility, requiring fairness, honoring faith, and fortifying families.

4. Like families, government must live within its means.

5. Good intentions do not make good government programs – achieving stated outcomes must be the measure of success.

http://www.third-way.com/idea_network/

[Q]

47. Yet another deception: calling themselves 'Progressives'...

...They are no more 'progressive' than the Bush Republcians. They're using that word to fool people into thinking they're the true progressive arm of the party.

Their feel good rhetoric is almost identical to that of the Bush junta: lots of flowery phrases and promises and no specifics.

GOOD INTENTIONS are the foundation of good government. Don't let them convince you otherwise.