The BOTTOM LINE REASON Why the DLC is WRONG for DNC

[Eloriel]

Bascially, there are 3 centers of power in this nation:

1. The People (average, everyday people: you and me)
2. Business and Industry -- Corporations and their Owners
3. Government, esp. Federal Govt

Since its inception in 1854, the Republican Party has always, ALWAYS stood primarily for Corporations and their Owners. And for most of its history that I'm aware of since its inception in 1792, the Democratic Party has prided itself on representing The People.

The age-old question and tension between the two parties -- and a lot of what gets discussed as "Issues" -- is how to use government (and the economy!). Shall it be used for Corporations and their Owners? or The People? What is the proper balance of power?

During the more successful periods in our history, the three power centers have been appropriately balanced and things have worked pretty well. Everyone here at DU knows that right now, what we're living through is NOT one of those periods but instead is probably one of the very worst periods, and getting more so.

It's also obvious that Corporations and their Owners don't JUST want to accumulate power and money to themselves, there really is a fairly active wish to repress The People, perhaps out of perceived threat (else The People might overthrow them). One of the reasons for that apparently inborn instinct, IMO, is that capitalism really is an innately exploitative system. If one thinks it's okay to exploit resources, govt, labor, and consumers in the service of capitalism, then by golly it's got to be OKAY to exploit them! (Hard for many capitalists to find that line where it's "too much" -- but Democrats have always before this period thoguht that that is part of what government is for, to help Corporations and Their Owners FIND and honor that "too far" line.)

Now, needless to say, to the extent the Democratic Party shifts AWAY from its natural, historical and traditional constituency (The People), and toward Corporations and their Owners, they are:

* Betraying their natural constituency, and leaving us unrepresented.

* Making themselves REDUNDANT, not to mention useless! since the Republican Party will always be better at representing Corporations and their Owners, not to mention more reliable with their long history of doing just that.

* Ceased to serve anything approaching a raison d'etre. They will instead walk away from it.

NOW -- if not Dems, who will represent The People? We can see the result of eroding representation for us, and it ain't pretty.


Just in case anyone needs this information to make full sense out of this post, yes, the DLC is committed to corporations:

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
How the DLC Does It by Robert Dreyfuss
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Those "traditional interest groups" include labor, minorities, women (esp. pro-choice women), environmentalists, numerous social justice folks, the poor, children and families, those who need healthcare, etc. Likely it includes YOU. The DLC fully intends to sell you out.

That's bad enough, but think about it: The DLC's positions about this makes the whole Party redundant if adopted or acted upon.

(And where do they think they'll get voters!! Shall we add delusional to the list of their character flaws?)

[bloom]

1. PNAC follows a course that navigates midway between moralism and idealism.

According to... Tom Barry

In Defense of the Project for the New American Century
Pax Americana—What’s the Alternative?

By Tom Barry | April 21, 2004

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404paxamericana.php


It sounds like he is saying that the PNAC is neither moral or idealistic (he just considers it realistic). And that was said in it's defense.

-----

I agree with your assessment of the basic sense of the parties.

[Larkspur]

2. The Dem Party underwent changes too

Jefferson's Dem Party was closer to the Libertarians today. He believed in The People and wanted the Govt to butt out of people's lives as much as possible.

It was Andrew Jackson that shifted the Dem Party from the Jeffersonian model to one that defended the rights of those who worked, except slaves of course, or produced products (craftsmen). Jackson was a populist.

It was the late 19th century when the Dem Party shifted again to include in it's defense, laborers, especially factory workers, etc..

[bvar22]

3. Well said. Well supported.

I am NOT Anti-Business, Anti-Corporation, or Anti-Rich.
I AM PRO-BALANCE, and that balance has been disrupted, NOT by the Republicans, but by the Democrats who have abandoned their former constituents in pursuit of Corporate Money.


Clip from a Bill Moyers commentary:

" As the Republicans were coming back from the wilderness - lean, mean and hungry - Democrats were busy assimilating their opponents' belief system. In no small part because they coveted the same corporate money, Democrats practically walked away from the politics of struggle, leaving millions of working people with no one to fight for them. We see the consequences all around us in what a friend of mine calls "a suffocating consensus". Even as poverty spreads, inequality grows, and our quality of life diminishes, democrats have become the doves of class warfare.

http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers20.html

[nosmokes]

4. but GREEN is a loverly color

and a populist party as well!

[wli]

5. I'm rather far to the left of the DLC

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about their influence. But maybe they're just what's needed to rake in a little bit of campaign money from what would otherwise go to the religious reich. Maybe they're just a bunch of AEI/PNAC moles. I'll keep them at arm's length for the moment.

[Eloriel]

6. I think you miss my point

Or perhaps don't understand the nature of the DLC.

I'll keep them at arm's length for the moment.

It's rather more like they'll keep YOU at arm's length -- forever. They have no interest in anyone in or anything about rank and file Democrats, and really IMO only make a play for the "undecided voter" as cover for what they prefer to do anyway because they sure do seem off the mark.

maybe they're just what's needed to rake in a little bit of campaign money from what would otherwise go to the religious reich.

No, I think that's unrealistic as well. It's not an either/or proposition. These corporations give to BOTH sides, considrably more to the Repugs because, well, Repugs just cost more.

DLC is good for NOTHING.

[wli]

7. wtf? I was talking about the uncertainty of their purpose

Did you notice the bit about AEI/GOP moles?

[Eloriel]

8. Yesa, I saw that -- that's the part you seem to have gotten right

I was objecting (surely you can see that) to the parts that made no sense.

[Eloriel]

9. Okay

I'll kick this once. I don't quite understand why there's not much action (readership/respondership) on it, but :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

10. maybe because it breaks no new ground?

same old same old? Monotony? Yet another reworking of the same material?

Jealous your anti-DLC rant got little traction? You have to kick your own thread...

bwahahahahahahahahha!

[Eloriel]

11. And what is YOUR response to the reasoning?

What good do YOU, famous DLC supporter, see in the Democratic Party's abandonment of its traditional constituency via the DLC?