This is the difference between Dean and the DLC

[CTLawGuy]

The issue is not about moderate vs. left, the issue is about party strategy.


Dean favors what I call a "strong" party policy.

A "strong" party takes clear, concise positions and uses its own language to push those ideas.

A STRONG party wins by exciting as many people as possible. It does not worry about the few it will alienate with its strong stands. It takes advantage of the increased turnout (as well as money and time) among the base and independents who have been sold on the platform. A Strong Party plays TO WIN.

By speaking out against the war, Dean alientated those who favored the war, but really built the loyalty of most of those who opposed it, and had a chance with those who were ambivalent.


The DLC, specifically the Daschle/Gephardt crew, favors what I call a "cautious" party strategy.

A "cautious" party speaks in broad themes, and takes concilliatory, often vague positions. It also piggybacks onto positions of the opponent deemed to be "popular" with independents.

A CAUTIOUS party wins by alienating as FEW people as possible. It wants everyone to vote for its candidate, whether liberal, moderate or disillusioned conservative. It hopes that the electorate will see the other party as too radical, and that the alienated voters will vote for itby default. the big risk of this strategy is that people tend not to be excited to vote FOR the party, and it leaves itself open to be tarred as dishonest or flip-floppers. A Cautious Party plays NOT TO LOSE.

By championing the IWR, Daschle and Gephardt were afraid to be on the wrong side of a popular position. They wanted independents not to drop consideration of Democrats based on the war issue. They also hoped that the base would stay in line because the alternative (GOP) would be worse, and that they would know that the Dems wouldn't initiate the same policy if they were in power.




In Summary:

Dean/DFA =
a strong party =
wins by exciting as many people as possible =
plays to WIN


Daschle-Gaphardt/DLC =
a cautious party =
wins by alienating as few people as possible =
plays NOT TO LOSE

[rabid_nerd]

1. or by pandering to the center by alienating fellow party faithful

dlc that is

[messiah]

2. The only difference is rhetoric

agree with Bush on most issues, Talk like a champion act like coward, "FAKE".

[Cha]

28. Talk the talk but don't

walk the walk..yeah..we've since exponentially for four freakin years.

[Guaranteed]

3. Brilliant and concise post, darboy.

Thank you! :)

[CTLawGuy]

4. you're welcome

good to hear from such a smart person like you :)

[Guaranteed]

5. Kick nt

[dbt]

6. Excellent analysis, darboy,

especially the part about playing not to lose. That is very analogous to what the CONsultants have done to commercial radio in the US: eliminate the tuneouts. Trouble is, they've been so busy doing that, that they've given listeners no reason to tune in!

:hi:
dbt

[CTLawGuy]

7. kick

NT

[madfloridian]

8. That is a good post.

You really hit on the points I have tried to make.

[Tinoire]

9. Nice post!

By speaking out against the war, Dean alientated those who favored the war, but really built the loyalty of most of those who opposed it, and had a chance with those who were ambivalent.

And that right there boils down to 70% anti-war vs 30% pro-war.

If anyone can kick that dead donkey to life, it's Dean!

[jpgray]

10. You've totally misinterpreted DLC policy

They are looking to excite different people. They are looking to excite the system--the media and corporate power--as much as or more than they are trying to excite regular people. The Republicans do the same thing, but they have so much media capital that they can manufacture a good moral issue to turn out their base with regularity no matter what insane elitist policies it's covering up. The DLC can't spotlight an issue of choice so effectively, so while lobbying for media capital they are stuck with the not-so-great positions on the issues the Republicans can maneuver to the forefront of the national dialogue. That's why we get beat--those issues are designed to defeat and divide Democrats, and they work very well. The DLC believes it can surmount the GOP's media capital and frame the debate by gaining the system's influence, but they are finding that they have to toss overboard a lot of seriously important values to gain that influence.

And without any strategy for bringing along the system, the Democrats will still lose a national election. Dean wasn't a crazy liberal loon, but the media portrayed him as such with utter ease. But I'd rather lose and go for the people than slowly sell away everything that makes the party worthwhile for a chance at media parity. We ain't going to get it.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. Good analysis.

DLC was established to help triangulate the big money interests together with the base.

Sounds great on paper, but fails in application, and anyone looking at states like Ohio and their condition can see the result.

Even Clinton admits that the unintended consequence of free trade was not his goal for ths country.

[CTLawGuy]

12. i don't agree

the DLC's entire strategy is to NOT ALIENATE ANYONE.

It's hard to excite people when you speak in vague platitudes and favor watered down positions of the other guy.

The Republicans win because they are a STRONG party. They excite their base with strong positions and sell those positions to independents. Imagine if they named pro-choice Arlen Specter as senate leader? Would that HELP them win elections or HURT them?

The reason these anti-choice fundies loyally turn out for Repugs every election is because they know the party stands for what they believe in and will fight for it.

The reason enough independents go Republican so that they win, even barely, is because the Repubs appear as if they have honest and open stands, while the democrat oftan appears unconfident and vague.

[jpgray]

13. Nonsense--Pay more attention to the way the Republicans work

The caricature of Republicans as the "damn the torpedoes" party is mostly a media creation, and is favored by some because it's a good tool to bash our own party over the head with in an attempt to foment change. But the caricature just doesn't hold up.

Where was Bush on the AWB, for example? Cowering under his desk claiming to support it because it was popular, but quietly letting it die because he needs the Gun Lobby. Here Bush is just as afraid of alienating people based on the political winds as the most spineless Democrat--he was totally unable to take a strong stand. Who was he standing up for? His own political skin.

Look at the Homeland Security bill, creating the 9/11 commission, testifying himself and allowing Rice to publicly testify--all isntances where Bush and conservatives were handily brought to heel by popular opinion and political pressure.

The few "strong" positions you note are either meaningless PR creations to defend elitist right wing economics or instances of papier mache morality that only exist to win an election. I will wager with you that Roe v. Wade will not only not be overturned in this Bush administration, but that no serious effort will be made to do so. If they really stood for their anti-choice rhetoric, they could lobby hard for it and put it into effect in short order. But they can't risk the political damage.

In other words, aside from having better PR and more media capaital, the Republicans are scarcely any braver than Democrats. Smarter about their image maybe, but otherwise essentially the same.

[CTLawGuy]

16. those are minor things you speak of

and that proves that Bush is not as good at his own strategy as he should be. the election was close.


On major things however:

Bush = pro iraq invasion, pro-tax cuts, pro-patriot act pro NCLB, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion.

His policies reflected his stands on those important issues.

Republicans are not braver? thats not true. they told the UN to go fuck itself and invaded Iraq unilaterally. they passed the patriot act. they gave away trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy destroying our budget. They are getting ready to dismantle social security.

We couldnt even coherently oppose a unilateral, illegal invasion.

[jpgray]

17. Nice of you to prove my point for me :-)

"Bush = pro iraq invasion, pro-tax cuts, pro-patriot act pro NCLB (I'll include "tort reform" "social security reform" and the "Rx drug benefit" pharma giveaway)"

These issues were all created to further right wing economic policies hugely popular with the system, and the media corporations in particular. He doesn't need to be too careful of the political winds because he gets free PR all day for these stances. You'll note that even when blatant contradictions in logic and dangerous problems with these stances are exposed, they get next to zero media play. Some of the leadership of the Democrats is too caught up in pursuing that same media capital to object strongly, but the sizable group of strong Democrats would not get press even if they engaged in self-immolation to promote their views on the subject. Remember Byrd's "weak" statements on the IWR? How about Kucinich's downright "wussy" condemnation of the case for WMD? Even Dean's moderate reservations were all but ignored.

As for the morality stuff, let me know when Bush makes a serious change that goes against popular opinion on morality. You can save your breath, because he never will. They're just rube nets and they will change and shift as much as popular opinion does.

[CTLawGuy]

20. tax cuts, a war, and the patriot act

are not PR creations. They have a real effect on our lives. The admin squandered our surplus on a tax cut, and our international credibility on a war.

Whether a position is popular is irrelevant to whether it is strongly taken.

and consider all the rhetorical work Bush had to do to CREATE popularity for his positions. Dems don't do that because they assume the opposite of their positions are already popular. Bush creates popularity for his positions with the help of his rhetoric and the media.

these positions STILL alienated 49% of the electorate. However, Bush did not care, because those positions also ensured that his base would turn out in record numbers for him with enough independents to seal it.

[Zhade]

18. I think you're BOTH right.

jpgray is correct that the DLC's true constituents are rapacious multinational corporate interests. You are correct that the DLC does not want to alienate anyone.

However, since their corporatist stance in fact does alienate the very base it betrays by selling us out to the corporations, the DLC has to lie about how "progressive" it is (that they can laughably call themselves that with a straight face proves my point).

So in the end, I think you've both nailed two different aspects of the DLC pretty well.

[itzamirakul]

19. The problem with the DLC is their choice to...

"Not alienate anyone."

That's the problem...the Democratic Party (under DLC influence) wants to be popular.

Popularity is the crumbs of greatness.

[CWebster]

14. Good one.

I would say Dean's way is riskier and takes more effort but pays off in the long term.

The DLC way may reap temporary reslts but it doesn't change the direction the wind is blowing and eventually they get blown away.

[CTLawGuy]

15. a clearer explanation of cautious party strategy

If you're skeptical that the DLC advocates this cautious party strategy, consider this.


If you are trying to alienate as few people as possible, you have to stretch your appeal as widely as possible.

That means moving to the center. Why do they move to the center? Whose views can they most afford to pull slightly away from? The base or independents?

If they pull away from independents to cover more of the base, there is the risk that independents will vote GOP.

If they pull away from the base to cover more independents, there is little risk the base will vote GOP.

So according to this caluclus of risks, it makes more sense for a cautious party, trying to alienate as few as possible, to pull to the center.


There are a few basic assumptions that cautious parties bank on:

1. Voting habits are relatively fixed. For example, someone who voted last election, will almost be CERTAIN to vote in this election, no matter what the circumstances of the race.

2. Independents have strong political views, they just don't conform to either of the two parties. DLCers believe that, under current circumstances, independents lean conservative.

3. Fear of the opponent's victory will motivate the base to work for the candidate. (the ABB phenomenon)

[blm]

21. You might want to edit your post. Daschle and Gephardt weren't DLC members

if I recall correctly, although I do remember they spoke in front of the DLC convention at some point.

[CTLawGuy]

22. gephardt definitely was

and Daschle, if he wasn't, might as well have been. I will check though.

[madfloridian]

23. Gephardt was and he later withdrew.

I would have to find the source, but I read it a few days ago. He was in at the beginning I think. Not sure about Daschle, but I think so.

[CTLawGuy]

24. Gephardt was once the chairman of the DLC

www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893


"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. "

(Bold is mine)


Also, to be fair, Daschle was not listed as a member of their caucus. However, even if he is not in the DLC, it doesn't mean he doesn't follow their strategy.

[blm]

25. Gephardt withdrew many years before Dean did. As I recall Dean was their

"golden boy" at the DLC when he was governor because he set a great example in governing based on the third way principles they espouse. He was active in the DLC until he left office in Jan2003. The DLC only lists current officeholders.

So, I don't think your theory holds up based on these facts.

I support Dean for DNC chair now because his SUPPORTERS moved him leftward during the primary and I believe he has become more sincere in those positions over the last two years. Bashing other Dems to promote Dean is not necessary, especially when your basis for comparison is inaccurate.

[CTLawGuy]

26. I don't know whether Gephardt left the organization

but I do know he followed the cautious party strategy, how else do you explain the House Dems' caving to the Bush agenda.

Dean was a member, but the DLC made it obvious what they thought of him.

They also remained notably silent on the candidacy of the supposedly liberal Gephardt. This implied they had no objection to him, which in turn implies that he at least partially, agrees with their views and strategy. They called Dean "unelectable", they didn't call Gephardt that.

How do you explain the DLC's acceptance of Gephardt if he is estranged from them strategically?


Also, my point in this is not to bash Dems. Its obvious I favor the strong party strategy because I'm a Dean supporter. However, I don't believe the DLC or Gephardt/Daschle had any bad intentions. I don't believe many Dems who voted for IWR, including Kerry, really wanted the war, but I think they were just too concerned about being "electable" in the minds of the DLC. Others, like Lieberman, really wanted the war.

Essentially, the DLC is misguided about strategy, they have good intentions though. They don't want repugs in power.

[Cha]

27. Since the wimp strategy has proven

for four years Not to work ..I'd say it was time to try Governor Howard Dean's Strategy!

STRONG:party: