Debunking 'Centrism' ('Corporatism' in Centrist Clothing Hurts Us All)

[dpbrown]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=sirota

Debunking 'Centrism'
by DAVID SIROTA

(from the January 3, 2005 issue)

Looking out over Washington, DC, from his plush office, Al From is once again foaming at the mouth. The CEO of the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership Council and his wealthy cronies are in their regular postelection attack mode. Despite wins by economic populists in red states like Colorado and Montana this year, the DLC is claiming like a broken record that progressive policies are hurting the Democratic Party.

From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of "centrism" while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, "party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left" while "the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South."

Is this really true? Is a corporate agenda really "centrism"? Or is it only "centrist" among Washington's media elite, influence peddlers and out-of-touch political class?

(clip)

Read the entire article at the link above.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Al-CIAda]

1. Great article -I agree

"Is this really true? Is a corporate agenda really "centrism"? Or is it only "centrist" among Washington's media elite, influence peddlers and out-of-touch political class?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "centrism" as "the political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position." So to find out what is really "mainstream," the best place to look is public polling data.

Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich--they are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime. "

[CWebster]

13. And after all that--

they want to put Social security up for the looting?

[KittyWampus]

14. Many Who Vote GOP Don't Even Know Bush's Policy Positions Or

what direction he's actually going in.

They may WANT the Government to protect the environment but aren't savvy enough to realise that Clear Sky Initiative is counterproductive to that common desire.

[CWebster]

15. And there is no voice to articulate a position

that reflects their reality.

Last night I spoke with a women in the Doctor's waiting room. She was an older woman, now struggling to pay doctor's bills--something she seemed ashamed about, as if it was her fault, as if she had to hide it. As if she had failed, on some level and had not lived up to this image of what a good American was.

So, you see, Bush was a good, wise and fearless leader, his plans for social security were to help Americans like her. That is how she might present it on the outside, but inside--all doubt, fear and confusion.

[bread_and_roses]

2. Excellent article

<snip> But really, who is pushing a rigid dogma: these bankrolled politicians who have hijacked "centrism" to sell out America's middle class, or the progressive populists who most often have the backing of the American people? <snip>

(on immediate edit) Not to mention that they've not only "sold out" our poor and disenfranchised, particularly minorities, but actually joined in the destruction of even the inadequate safety nets that did exist (Clinton and his famous Welfare "reform" for example.

I notice that self-described "moderates" never address the popular support for progressive positions...we see these polls periodically, and have for years, but they seem to disappear into some collective amnesia when strategy or policy is discussed.

Meanwhile, DLC attempts to dance with the devil just keep losing...

Given they keep losing elections, and ignoring the popular support for what are so-tellingly always labeled as "extreme leftist" positions, one is left believing that they are shilling for their Corporate Masters...wouldn't want to lose that "plush office" now would we?

[welshTerrier2]

3. the "dead center"

this article was written some time ago but is even more true today ... centrism is a bankrupt political strategy ...

source: http://www.progressivedems.org/documents/ReichOpEd_1.pdf

Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party's difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban. This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America's giant middle and working classes - especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century. Democrats could have responded with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II - including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power. But Democrats did none of this.

So conservatives eagerly stepped into the void, claiming the populist mantle and blaming liberal elites for what's gone wrong with America. The question ahead is whether Democrats can claim it back. The rush by many Democrats in recent years to the so-called center has been a pathetic substitute for candid talk about what the nation needs to do and for fueling a movement based on liberal values. In truth, America has no consistent political center. Polls reflect little more than reflexive responses to what people have most recently heard about an issue. Meanwhile, the so-called center has continued to shift to the right because conservative Republicans stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway.

In the months leading up to the 1996 election, Mr. Clinton famously triangulated - finding positions equidistant between Democrats and Republicans - and ran for re-election on tiny issues like V-chips in television sets and school uniforms. The strategy worked, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Had Mr. Clinton told Americans the truth - that when the economic boom went bust we'd still have to face the challenges of a country concentrating more wealth and power in fewer hands - he could have built a long-term mandate for change. By the late 90's the nation finally had the wherewithal to expand prosperity by investing in people, especially their education and health. But because Mr. Clinton was re-elected without any mandate, the nation was confused about what needed to be accomplished and easily distracted by conservative fulminations against a president who lied about sex.

more ...

[dpbrown]

6. Democrats could have responded...

That about hits it right on the head, doesn't it.

That's a great article. It should have its own thread!

[Tinoire]

4. www.centrist.org & Jeff leMieux, PPI, - BIG friend of the AEI & PNAC

He as quite a tight little relationship with them as do several other wolves pretending to be "centrists".

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.aei.org+%22Jeff+Lemieux%22&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&filter=0


http://www.centrists.org/other_permanent_files/why_centrists.html

[Al-CIAda]

5. kick

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. But McGovern lost in 1972!

:P

(I thought I'd save the DLC interns' tag team the trouble of showing up.)

[dpbrown]

8. Save them the trouble of complaining

I sat right in front of former Senator McGovern at the convention.

I put a picture of him and me on my Boston Convention page.

http://homepage.mac.com/danielpbrown/PhotoAlbum1.html

[no name no slogan]

18. I was hoping you'd post this!

I actually DID read this article back in January, but I must have spaced it.....

BTW love the convention photos. I handn't seen those before. Nice lookin' group you guys had there! :D See you at the MPC meeting!

djb

[me b zola]

9. Great article, Dan, thanks.

Even *if* we were ever to win under a centrist agenda, what have we won? The power and the bad policies would be in the same hands as they are today.

Who & what we are as Democrats represents America's best interest.
When our leadership reflects this and speaks the truth to the populous *unapolagetically* we will begin to win elections and set this Nation back on the right track.

[Al-CIAda]

10. kick

[Zhade]

11. But corporate whoredom and supporting PNAC imperialism WINS ELECTIONS!!!!!

</DLCer>

[dpbrown]

16. Faith without works is dead. Faith without reason is PNAC.

The Democrats who embrace this new corporate whoredom are like sheep herding one another to the abattoir.

[Zhade]

17. "Faith without reason is PNAC."

Indeed. Well-said - all of it.

[dpbrown]

20. I'm changing my signature to include that quote

Thanks for the props.

[Zhade]

21. Word.

NT!

[loudsue]

12. We need to e-mail all of our elected officials with a link to this article

Or better yet, print it out, and send 'em all a copy....from the State level to the national level, Dems need to start hearing loud and clear from all of us that THIS CENTRIST SHIT WON'T PLAY!!! We're not so stupid that we think corporatism, by any other name, won't stink as bad.

And while we're at it, let's make sure they know that WE KNOW the election was stolen. If they want to avoid riots in the streets, they'd better get off their duffs and GET IT RIGHT on election issues!!! And tell them that's why we insist on Dean as the DNC Chair.... he KNOWS these black boxes are programmed by right wing extremist companies.

:kick::kick::kick:

[wyldwolf]

19. Debunking "Debunking Centrism"

It seems to me that David Sirota's latest attack on the DLC and other "centrists" is in need of a response. The problem here is not that the things he says are popular are not, in fact, popular. Rather, the problem is that he's gone off and created a straw man here, attacking the nefarious DLC for positions it doesn't hold....

... The point here isn't to become a thoroughgoing DLC apologist, and I've offered criticisms of some things they've said. But I try to restrict myself to criticism of things they've actually said. Sirota is creating a disagreement that's 80 percent nonexistent. He and the DLC disagree about trade. I think he's right to accuse the DLC of downplaying the unpopularity of free trade agreements. I think the DLC is right to say that free trade agreements are generally good policy. The DLC's actual general argument about the election -- one that Sirota doesn't seem interested in confronting in any of his voluminous writings on the subject -- is that Democrats can't get a hearing for their economic message unless they do something to simultaneously cool the fires of the culture war and talk in a more compelling way about national security. My analysis is that a more compelling national security message along would do the trick. Sirota seems to think that Democrats can afford to just ignore national security and values issues. Or maybe that's not what he thinks. I would be interested in getting his take on this.

So there are some real disagreements about policy and tactics here, but they deserve to be debated calmly and, above all, honestly. Sirota's attacks are growing increasingly vitriolic and wind up having increasingly little to do with the actually existing DLC and its real merits and flaws.

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html

...and another detailed response:

http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html