The DLC: Do they have a different philosophy than centrist and moderate

[Zorra]

Democrats?

Do all "centrist" and "moderate" Democrats believe that corporations should influence/control government?

Do all "centrist" and "moderate" Democrats believe that invading Iraq was necessary and justifiable?

It seems to me that most self-proclaimed "centrist" and "moderate" Democrats have almost exactly the same basic ideology as Democrats on the "left". There seems to be miniscule difference between these 2 "subgroups" of the Democratic Party. It seems that many "centrist" Democrats distinguish themselves from "left" Democrats simply because they are anti-choice, against gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration, for less gun control, or a combination of some or all of the above.

This is not really any basis at all for an ideological distinction from Democrats on the "left".

"Centrist" Democrats often also distinguish themselves from "left" Democrats because they consider themselves fiscally conservative. However, almost all "left" Democrats are far more fiscally conservative than the most fiscally conservative republican, so this in itself is not a valid reason to make a distinction between "centrist" and "left".

And it does not seem to me that "centrist" or "moderate" Democrats believe in corporate control of government or pre-emptive war.

But the DLC D'sINO, who are, like Republicans, not really "democrats", but are "corporatists", believe that corporations should influence/control government, and believe in war for empire.

Those are the main, if not only, difference between DLC D'sINO and Democrats. Unfortunately, that is basically the same ideological difference between a Democrat and a republican.

So what I am saying here is that the difference between real Democrats in the "center" and on the "left" is actually a myth.

The actual difference lies between Democrats and the DLC DINO.

And this difference is completely irreconcilable. No good Democrat, or democrat, is ever going to accept government control by business interests.

Democrats believe in democratic government: government of, by, and for the people. Business interests are secondary to the needs of people, and have no place in influencing government.

The DLC D'sINO believe, like republicans, in government of, by, and for business interests. People are secondary to the needs of business, and should have influence in government only when people's interests and needs do not conflict with the needs and interests of business.

So, "centrist" and "leftist" Democrats: Since we believe in the same essential ideology, let's acknowledge our common democratic ideology and goals, stop arguing about very minor differences, and either get the DLC D'sINO to disavow their corporatist, pre-emptive war, republican ideology, or ask them to form their own party.

All 5,000 or 10,000 of them. Big wup.

DLC corporatist D'sINO actually make up an almost insignificant relative percentage of the Democratic Party, except that an inordinate number of DLC members have taken over unelected "leadership" positions in our party.

For example, how many DUers actually belong to the DLC?

The DLC D'sINO have duped us and are causing unnecessary infighting among us.

Let's just dump the DLC so the overwhelming majority of us can all unite as democrats and DEMOCRATS to fight and end this republican corporate government.
---:hide:---

[longship]

1. No, they have similar philosophy to rapture rightists

I.E., It's my way or the highway.

It makes me sick. They want the whole Dem Party to think like them. They call liberals "extremists". Well, it's just like the neocons, whatever they say about others is true of them.

I'll embrace anybody who wants to be a Democrat, no matter what they think. But when a political faction attempts to take over the party, I've got to put my foot down and say "Fuck NO!".

[imenja]

3. what does liberal mean to you?

and how is your ideology so different from that of the DLC?

[longship]

12. That's the point.

It's not that we have different views on certain issues (which we do). And it's not that we agree on certain issues (which we do). It's that the DLC labels anybody that disagrees with them on any issue as "extreme" and generally acts thuggish.

I have no problems with people with different views in the Dem Party but I have a big problem when a minority faction claims to speak for the party as a whole and starts calling loyal Democrats names. The DLC has been doing that and I think it is reprehensible.

[imenja]

20. and people on here label the DLC as centrist, moderate

DINOs and you even go so far as to call them rapture enthusiasts. In the meantime we accomplish nothing other than perpetuate GOP dominance. We all lose.

[Zorra]

4. I don't believe that. I think that many "centrists" do not really

understand that the DLC is an organization that has a philosophy that is inconsistent with the the very root ideology of the Democratic Party.

I think that because many DLC Democratic legislators appear to be "conservative" on some social or fiscal issues that "social issue" or "fiscal" "centrist" Democrats tend to identify with them without realizing that a founding principle of the DLC is directly opposite of basic Democratic ideology.

[expatriot]

7. where are its inconsistencies?

I am not doubting you, I just want to hear how you think they are inconsistent.

[Zorra]

13. From the OP:

"Democrats believe in democratic government: government of, by, and for the people. Business interests are secondary to the needs of people, and have no place in influencing government."

"The DLC D'sINO believe, like republicans, in government of, by, and for business interests. People are secondary to the needs of business, and should have influence in government only when people's interests and needs do not conflict with the needs and interests of business."

The DLC, because of it's acquiesence to private business interests, has helped usher in the extreme RW neo-fascist government that exists in America today.

There is no longer any opposition to corporate power, and therefore no longer any balance in government. The Democratic Party used to oppose corporate control of government. Now, because of the DLC, they embrace it. Hence, we have our present fascist state.

So what the DLC has essentially done is to agree with the republicans to tolerate the growth of corporate power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. I really do not believe that most self proclaimed "centrist" Democrats wanted this to happen, and do not believe in this fundamental part of DLC ideology.

FDR called this fascism:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
FDR

[longship]

14. Let's start with their policy on corporations.

They're anti-union. They support laws which hurt people, like the bankcrupcy bill.

Let's not forget that they support trading abridged Constitutional rights for safety against terrorists, the Patriot Act, things like Constitutional amendments against flag burning and other issues which should be a slam dunk for opposition by any self-respecting Democrat.

Bear in mind that I have absolutely no problems with people in the party holding these positions. But I have a very huge problem with an organization within the party taking those positions while simultaneously claiming to speak for the party. That goes against everything for which the Democratic Party has stood for since Jefferson.

I will fight the DLC any way I can. They have absolutely no right to do what they are doing. It's divisive and damaging to the party. The only thing they seem to be able to accomplish is losing elections.

[expatriot]

17. first union scorecard I found when I googled....all DLC Senators got 100%

I copied a list of the DLC Senators and then looked up their score on the 2004 SEIU scorecard.... ALL of them got 100%

http://www.capwiz.com/seiuorg/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=1082&x=6&y=12




Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT 100
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN 100
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA 100
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE 100
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY 100
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND 100
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND 100
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA 100
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD 100
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA 100
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI 100
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA 100
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT 100
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR 100
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL 100
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE 100
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR 100
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI 100

[longship]

21. I don't think the unions have figured out the connection

between blind support for corporations and the waning of union power in the USA. I'm of the opinion that one cannot fully do both.

There are notable exceptions, e.g., Ben & Jerry's, CostCo, etc. but generally, corporations are mostly unfriendly towards labor. Don't presume that I'm against corporations, or business but I think one has to tread carefully before one starts making blanket support for policies requested by business. E.G., I am totally against "right to work". The DLC would differ with me on that issue. So although they may have 100% voting record on some union scorecard, they are not always so friendly towards unions.

[expatriot]

23. scorecards are objective tallies of whether they voted FOR or AGAINST

unions. How is voting WITH unions 100% "blind support for corporations?"

[Zorra]

35. Apparently, the SEIU actually belongs to the DLC.

There are only 3 selected issues on the posted scorecard, and it does not include critical anti-worker DLC votes such as the bankruptcy bill and CAFTA. DLC legislators consistently stab working Americans and the Democratic Party in the back with their support of, and votes for, these types of issues.

DLC/PPI Report Defending CAFTA (pdf)

http://www.ppionline.org/documents/CAFTA_0715.pdf

Info claiming SEIU DLC membership:

....During the Democratic convention Stern told David Broder of the Washington Post Washington Post that organized labor and the Democratic party would both probably be better served by a Kerry defeat. Last Summer SEIU gave more than $500,000 to the Republican Governor's Association. He lauds the DLC, and told me that SEIU is a member.
http://racerx.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/2/155843/7904

Letter from "New Democrats" (DLC) to Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert in support of the Bankruptcy Bill:

Washington, D.C.--With consumer debt reaching record highs of more than $2 trillion, members of the New Democrat Coalition (NDC) sent a letter today to Speaker Dennis Hastert, urging him to schedule House action on the bankruptcy reform legislation as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The letter, signed by twenty NDC members, including the four NDC leaders, reiterates New Democrats' long-standing support for common-sense bankruptcy legislation and states an intention to work across the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

We write to encourage you to bring bankruptcy reform legislation to the House floor as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The New Democrat Coalition has backed common sense bankruptcy reform in the past and helped in passing the bankruptcy reform bill by overwhelming margins in the House of Representatives during the 108th Congress.

Over the last several years, we have worked to advance reasonable and balanced legislation that would require individuals who have the ability to repay their debts to do so, while preserving the important safety net of bankruptcy under Chapter 7 for those who truly need it. We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling.

It is our hope that the House of Representatives will consider this important piece of legislation in an expedited manner. We stand ready to work with you and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.

Sincerely,

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher
Rep. Adam Smith
Rep. Ron Kind
Rep. Artur Davis
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Stephanie Herseth
Rep. Dennis Moore
Rep. Mike McIntyre
Rep. Joe Crowley
Rep. Jay Israel
Rep. David Wu
Rep. Diane Hooley
Rep. Melissa Bean
Rep. Jim Davis
Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Rep. Ed Case
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Shelley Berkeley
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/202044/7026

etc....

It appears that among the Democrats that consistently vote for pro-corporate, anti-labor policy legislation, a substantially higher percentage of DLC members vote for these programs than do non-DLC Democrats.

[expatriot]

5. I am willing to be educated.... when/where/how have the DLC

implied that it's there way or the highway? I am not doubting you, I just want to know.

[longship]

18. Let's start with the name-calling.

They claim to speak for the party as a whole in spite of the fact that they are a minority faction. They even call themselves the "New Democrats", the name of their publication. They label anybody who disagrees with their policies as "extreme". They cause infighting in the party, not because of their positions on issues, but because of their hubris and their bad behavior.

I could live with the DLC just fine if it wasn't for their arrogance and their divisiveness. Recently, that has taken a turn for the worse and it pisses me off.

[expatriot]

22. Any particular examples of it? nt

[longship]

29. Yes.

Let's start with calling anybody who disagrees with them "extremists". Labelling progressives as "extreme". Very divisive language.

Look it. You can support the DLC if you want. I don't care about the policy differences. What I care very much about is the unity of the party. I don't care what individual Democrats think on any issue. I may disagree, and I may argue some points with a person or two. But I have to stand strongly against the DLC for their rhetoric and their arrogantly claiming the Democratic standard for themselves alone. As a lifelong Democrat I cannot tolerate that, regardless of their position on issues.

They state that the Democrats are too far left. Well, they haven't done so well since they've had their fingers in the pie. Regardless, they still make that stupid claim. It's wrong, it's divisive, and it hurts Democrats chances to win elections. For Christ sakes, they demonize liberals just like the Repugs. So what is a liberal to do, be happy about these jerks? I'm sorry. I do not like the DLC for what they are attempting to do to my party.

[expatriot]

8. "The Bush Record" from www.dlc.org

it is a scathing collection of DLC articles and reports about Bush's misleadership... granted, it comes from much too of a moderate angle for my taste but to say they are rapture rightists is very misdirected.


http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450007

[longship]

31. Who said that they were rapture rightists?

I said they shared the philosophy, "It's my way or the highway". They claim that the Dems are too liberal. They call liberals, extremists. They want to take the party to the right, and make people who don't think like them feel unwanted in the party. No wonder Ralph Nader had so much success dragging off enough votes in 2000 to allow Bush to win.

[imenja]

2. Vilsack on Charlie Rose and political labels

Tom Vilsack, newly elected head of the DLC, appeared on Charlie Rose last week. He spoke about the need of the Dems to reclaim traditional democratic values of economic justice. Many on DU deride the DLC for being "moderate" yet rarely say what they think that means. Many who so condemn the DLC remained obsessed with GOP-defined bourgois cultural issues and never discuss poverty, workers, and social justice. So what does moderate or left even mean any more? For many on DU it seems to mean only the depth of one's hatred for Bush rather than the traditional leftist values of government serving the poor and workers rather than the wealthy.


As part of your post demonstrates, labels mean little anymore and I think most people who use them have no real sense of what they mean by them. I have many times asked DU members what they mean by such terms and they rarely if ever respond. Hating Bush and Rove is not a political philosophy. We need more than that or we have nothing and won't win elections, nor do we deserve to. I think it's time to think about what it means to be a Democrat, what we stand for rather than just what we oppose.

Another thing I've wondered about for some time: How is it that so many people who adore Bill Clinton hate the DLC? Have they forgotten the relationship between them?


One disagreement: it's not the "DLC Dino's" that have duped us into in-flighting: it's the GOP and our own stupidity. It's time we got a hell of a lot smarter.

[expatriot]

6. beautiful post. thank you. nt

[welshTerrier2]

11. you want to talk about the DLC and their concern for workers ??

check out Simon Rosenberg's quote on being "ideologically freed from labor":

source: http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

"The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

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."

[imenja]

19. my point was about Vilsack on Charlie Rose and political

not some grand statement about the DLC. Tell me, who does it serve other than the Republicans for so many on DU to spend so much energy opposing other Democrats?

Rosenberg is one individual, and it's quite clear here he is talking about union influence in politics rather than workers per se. You might note that the AFL CIO just broke apart over this very issue. Member unions didn't like the bulk of their dues going to pay off politicians rather than organizing the labor force.

Leaving all that aside, what does it mean for you to be a Democrat and a liberal?


I'm not a fan of the DLC's political ideology, but one thing to their credit is they try to get Democrats elected rather than working diligently to destroy them. Rather than talking about how much you hate the DLC, why not work for progressive candidates and help formulate political ideas and policies that can replace Republican rule?

[welshTerrier2]

24. Rosenberg's statement was very clear

and Rosenberg was the DLC's top candidate for Party Chair ... the point is that the DLC is both anti-union and anti-worker and pro-corporate ... you seemed to have glossed over that a bit ...

as for the DLC, they do nothing but bash liberal Democrats ... their website is filled with hate speech ...

"what does it mean for you to be a Democrat and a liberal?"

sheesh ... it's late here ... how about i try for a short answer for now ...

some of my priorites are:

1. restore our American democracy that has been badly corrupted by big money and corporate power
2. educate Americans that US foreign policy has been predominantly imperialistic for many, many years ... this, unlike DLC statements on this point, is not "anti-American" ... it seeks to restore our country to its proper role in the world ...
3. value work over capital ... currently, everything is done to serve the stockholders ... workers are only a "burden" ...

i have not only worked for progressive candidates but for all Democrats ... in the future, i will only support progressive Democrats or other progressives if no progressive Democrat is running ...

what are you doing to heal the rift in the Party? referring to dissent as complaining is not helpful ... the only path to unity has to be from greater representation and shared power ... if that is not achieved, all the chiding in the world will not build the unity we both think is necessary ...

[expatriot]

26. show me some of the examples of this "hate speech" nt

[welshTerrier2]

27. it's a promise !!!

going to bed now ...

there are all sort of quotes and i'll be glad to provide a few tomorrow ...

here are a couple:
source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1972163&mesg_id=1975703
For donors, NDN provides precertification that none of the politicians are noisy populists ...
To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, ...

i'll get you much better ones tomorrow ...

talk to you then ...

[welshTerrier2]

33. read some of these ...

and then let me know whether you think the comments from the DLC's website show respect for their fellow Democrats and whether they help build the kind of productive unity some on DU are calling for ... i hate to think i give off a "whiff" ...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Cultural elites with influence in the party often give off more than a whiff of fashionable anti-Americanism. They tend to equate patriotism with jingoism, see America more as a global bully than as a victim of a terrorist conspiracy, haul out the tired Vietnam metaphor anytime U.S. troops encounter difficulty abroad, and are as hypercritical of America's faults as they are forgiving of those of our adversaries.

Take Iraq. It's one thing to say, as many thoughtful Democrats do, that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But it's quite another to depict it as the expression of a new U.S. imperialism, or as a Bush family vendetta, or as a plot to grab Middle East oil, or, most ludicrously of all, as a pretext to enrich Halliburton. What leftish elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon. And while heartland voters may be too reluctant to hear reasoned criticism of U.S. policies, they are essentially right in believing that America has mostly been an indispensable force for good in the world. So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left.

They ought to be able to defend the establishment clause and religious liberty without getting in bed with the secular absolutists of the ACLU.

source: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251490&kaid=124&subid=158

The rhetoric coming from the anti-war faction of the party has raised troublesome echoes of the Vietnam era, when Democrats failed to draw bright lines between valid anti-war arguments and the blatantly anti-American sentiments of student radicals and the hard left. The guilt-by-failure-to-disassociate during the Vietnam War helped keep Democrats in the political wilderness for two decades. Democrats shouldn't let that happen again.

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

But one antiwar Democrat has refused to change his rhetoric at all, and is supplying a fascinating exhibition of the Left's "Vietnam Syndrome": the tendency to interpret any military conflict through the nostalgic lens of the political struggle against the war in Vietnam.

Like rock musicians, antiwar protesters tend to keep going back to the 1960s and early 1970s for role models and inspiration.

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.

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.

[imenja]

32. so how does devoting yourself to intra-Democratic rivalry help?

It's a huge waste of time and obviously consumes a very large portion of the energy of many on DU, as the large number of posts on the DLC indicate. I'm really not interested in debating the DLC. I frankly don't care much about them. I am far more concerned about those on the left who work so hard to destroy other Democrats thereby serve the interests of Republicans.

The agenda you outline shares something in common with what I heard Vilsack discuss on Charlie Rose. But of course the DLC is your enemy.
Do you happen to know any Democratic politicians that value work over capital? I don't, nor do I think such a priority is possible given the sanctity of private property under our constitution. Ours is a capitalist society. Sadly, capital always has meant more than labor and always will. Ours is the quintessential capitalist nation. Our constitution is a liberal document, in the classical (a la Adam Smith) meaning of the term. Classical liberalism is the political corollary of capitalism. Work is by nature devalued under capitalism. We would need to scrap the Constitution to change that in a profound way.

What we can do is to use the language of liberalism to assuage the most savage aspects of capitalism, to reinforce the idea of "government of the people and by the people" rather than simply for corporate interests. We need a reform platform. I think we need to engineer a long term reform of the party and of American politics, but it will take time--it took the Republicans 30 years. But we need to organize in FAVOR of reform rather than constantly whining about who and what we hate.


I do a variety of things for Democratic politics. What I will not do is indulge in the petty intra-party fighting that obviously consumes you and most others on DU. If I cared about ideological purity, I wouldn't vote Democrat, moderate or liberal. Both political parties are quite clearly tools of corporations. But it is also clear the Republicans are far worse. I will not devote myself to securing permanent GOP dominance--which is exactly what those of you declaring war on the party are doing. It's Karl Rove's wet dream.


I believe we need to start thinking more broadly rather than in lists of priorities as you list above and most Democratic politicians demonstrate. We need an overarching political philosophy that orients the party, not just a list of a few issues. I have a variety of ideas on the subject but I'll save them for another time. I also think the way you frame your second priority is a mistake. To adopt a foreign policy message that seeks to reeducate Americans to our country's imperialist practices is a HUGE mistake and only feeds into Republican stereotypes about Democrats. It is also unnecessary in the short run. The fact is the Bush policy does not serve the self interest of most Americans. It costs tax payers a great deal of money, achieves no successes, and makes us less safe. In political campaigns, presenting a Democratic view of foreign policy that appeals to self interest is far more likely to result in electoral success. In the long run, the best way to tackle US citizens views of foreign policy is through our educational system rather than poulticing. Background in history, civics, world affairs, and the tools are critical thinking are important to understanding foreign policy. Few Americans on the left or right know much about any of that, and all but a tiny percentage are entirely ethnocentric in their view of world politics. I see that on a daily basis on this web site, when people continually view foreign even only in terms of how they believe it relates to the Bush administration. And obviously the broadcast media reinforces such atavism.

[welshTerrier2]

34. this is about the clearest i can explain things ...

well, first let me say that other than having different views on intra-Party conflict, i have very few disagreements on what you wrote ... the very first priority i listed, which i don't see as a "list of priorities" but rather an "overarching political philosophy", was "1. restore our American democracy that has been badly corrupted by big money and corporate power" ... if you're arguing for setting a broad, thematic, longterm vision for the direction of the Party instead of a laundry list of wonky policy details, count me in ... i couldn't agree more ...

yet two differences remain ... one is the issue of American imperialism and the second is how "the left" (for simplicity here i'll just describe this group as intra-Party dissenters without elaborating) should address their differences with the current direction of the Party ... fair enough?

i recently read a couple of eye opening books ... one was called the "Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson ... quite a piece of work ... the other, which was not as strong, but emphasized very similar themes (in the first person based on the author's personal experience) was called "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins ... both books provided extensive documentation of an American foreign policy that was of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations ... examples of American imperialism provided dated all the way back to the Spanish-American war ... this is NOT about just bush; this is about self-serving corporate control of our government ...

if i heard your points correctly, you do not think highlighting this imperialism (i assumed you agree it exists) is a wise policy for the Democratic Party ... i disagree ... the DLC (and they are at best a minimal focus for me) loves to paint the "left" as anti-American ... if it is true that American foreign policy is loaded with examples of imperialism, pandering to the nationalistic spirit of American voters seems unconscionable to me ... trying to return our foreign policy to one that serves the best interests of the American people is hardly "anti-American" ... this is NOT about hating America ... this is about telling the American people the truth ... if we cannot mobilize the masses to understand what is being done in their good names, the strength of our movement against these imperialist forces is greatly diminished ...

and to put short-term political expediency ahead of what i believe to be the truth about our country's immoral foreign policy is just not acceptable to me ... and please don't toss around terms like "ideological purity" ... we are toppling democratically elected governments; we are dumping unsafe pharmaceuticals on poor nations; we are cutting down rain forests and exploiting their natural resources and cheap foreign labor ... that is not what our country should be about and until the American people understand what is being done in their names, this conduct will continue ... telling the truth is not only the right policy for the country; it's the right politics too ... anyway, enough on this subject for now ...

so let's talk about dissent ... intra-Party dissent ... before i forget, let me provide these two links for you to read if you're willing to take the time:

the first one was written by a DU'er a long time ago ... it's the first post in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

the second, whether you like Counterpunch or not, raises some of the many points we're discussing here: http://www.counterpunch.org/sperry1126.html

i want to tell you and others who are frustrated by "the dissenters" that my goal is to ultimately build party unity ... i don't believe the left can succeed anytime soon without finding a path to unity in the Party ... but, and this is where i trust we disagree, i don't think the "center" (i'll define this for now NOT as those with centrist political views but as those who are "Party loyalists" who set winning as a higher priority than issues) will succeed either without bridging the rift to the "left" ... sorry for all the labels ... i actually believe they're close to useless ... in my mind, the divide is between the "dissenters" and the "establishment" wing of the Party ... but for now, i'll continue to use the terms left and center for convenience ... anyway, the unity we had last year has changed and the Party will be in great danger if it fails to respond ...

i believe ABB was a very large force last year ... i hated Kerry's views on Iraq (we need not rehash that debate) ... but he had my total support ... i worked my ass off for Democrats last year and spent money i didn't have to help them ... i was an ABB voter ... and i now believe i was wrong ...

the bottom line is that there is a very large group of very active Democrats (that's what i believe) who are not happy with the drift to the right of the Democratic Party ... and the bottom line is that these Democrats do not believe they have a real voice in the direction the Party and its elected officials are taking ... that's certainly the way i feel ... i think the Party needs a major infusion of democracy ... and i'm not talking about my ideology here; i'm arguing that those who really control the direction of the Party are badly out of touch with the average Democrat (of any political persuasion) ... here's a link to a thread i started a few days ago in response to Hillary's 2005 issues survey (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1961981)... the point isn't whether my views are right or wrong; the point is that her survey didn't even identify the issues i care about ... when will Hillary and I sit down to talk things over ... we need to change our Party's processes so that Party leaders, especially elected Democrats, hold regular town meetings all over their states to hear from their constituents ... you might kind of call it a renewal of our democracy ...

so we have a situation in the Party where, rightly or wrongly, many do not feel they are heard or represented ... what am i doing about that?? i recenly got elected to my town's DTC ... when i attended the state convention several months ago, dissenters were shouted down from the podium ... it was truly an ugly spectacle ... it was a top-down, rigidly structured convention with an agenda that was railroaded through ... trust me, many came away very disenchanted with the Party ...

i have stayed with the Party in the hope of making the changes i seek ... i think it's important to fight for those changes ... but i can no longer go along with the ABB philosophy of "lesser of the evils" ... i'm not one who says there are no differences between the Party's ... i think that's absurd ... but i will not continue to support any party or any candidate who aligns himself or herself with the corporate agenda ... and i will not work for, pay for, or vote for any candidate who has gone along with bush's occupation of Iraq ... i am deeply concerned that Democrats are likely to go along (again) when bush attacks Iran ... how far off can that nightmare be and still not a word from the Democratic Party other than a few comments from Obama about Iran "meddling" in Iraq ... is he serious ?????

finally, i want to say to those who care about the Party and either don't understand where i'm coming from or don't agree with it that the reality is that i will do what i will do ... i want you to understand that i see your chiding of the dissenters in the Party as highly divisive and counter-productive ... just as you assign these attributes to me, i assign them to you ... what i'm seeking is a voice in a Party that is overtly hostile to my political views and seeks to disenfranchise me and my ideas ... perhaps in the end, i will leave the Party ... that is NOT my first choice ... what i seek from you is an understanding that to retain my support, you should be fighting for intra-Party reform ... the talk here is NOT about compromise; the talk is about pushing for making the Party more open for discussion and debate ... in the end, if you truly seek unity, you need to fight for giving each and every Democrat a share of the Party's direction ... any other course will result in the very outcome you fear the dissenters are causing ...

[imenja]

36. I appreciate your explanation

and I agree with most of it. First off, my point is not to stifle dissent in the party. Dissent in the nation and within the party is crucial. What disturbs me is the amount of energy, mental energy anyway, many on DU spend deriding other Democrats, the DLC in particular. Charging the party, I believe, cannot be accomplished by simpling talking about how evil the DLC is, which is what most of the posts amount to. I prefer organizing along positive lines, along an agenda similar to what you describe where government represents average citizens rather than corporations. The DLC is not solely or primary responsible for this. Campaign finance that all politicians, save perhaps Russ Feingold, depend on creates a profoundly corrupt system. The only solution that I can see to this problem is public financing of elections, something like Arizona's Clean Elections uninitiate--which gets around Supreme Court rulings equating money with speech because it is a voluntary program, but one that most AZ politic ans voluntarily adhere to.


My own voting and political background may prompt me to see these problems differently from you. I have long considered myself leftist, even socialist or Marxist. I've frequently voted third party, and voted for Nader in 2000. Now I'm not proud of that last vote, because I lived in Florida at the time. I never anticipated how terrible the Bush administration could be. I realized that my insistence on voting for candidates that espoused my views contributed to the rise of the right. Now this is not to say that I favor a "moderate" tract for the Democratic party. I believe that Democrats will be more successful if they articulate a message of social and economic justice.

I have an extensive background in history and foreign affairs so I know well about American imperialism. I think you are mistaken on making this a campaign priority. If advancing such an argument only results in more neo-con administrations, has it done anything other than make you feel righteous? In fact, it brings about the antithesis. Americans, like most peoples, respond to appeals to their self interest. Morally based abolitionist movements were never successful among the public but Lincoln's free soil appeals were. The final result was the same, not by design but by effect: slavery came to be abolished.

Politics in the media age is about advertising. The Republicans have been brilliant in their use of propaganda, and have ridden the culturally right wing so-called values issues in to power, not because the power brokers of the party care about abortion, gays, or even religion, but they tapped into social anxiety that has enabled them to advance their main agenda: government of, by, and for the corporate rich.

All of these are important issues to debate. I believe it productive when we discuss these kind of issues about what the Dem platform should be. But the typical posts attacking the DLC do not achieve that. I would like to see DU used more as a forum to discuss Democratic principles and priorities, the sort of thing you have elaborated in your last post. In short, I want to see us talk about vision and priorities rather than just who and what we hate. I'd like to see us discuss ideas that can help reform the Democratic party and bring about the kind of government most of us want.

[expatriot]

25. it's easier to find a "Great Satan" to blame all the problems on....

instead of really tearing apart the issues and seeing the underlying challenges and obstacles progressives face in putting forward an agenda in which we can achieve real progress.

Thanks again for your posts.

[welshTerrier2]

28. that's crap ...

my posts are not focussed on a "Great Satan" ...

i regularly discuss the issues and what the Party needs to do to make progress ... you take one statement i posted re: the DLC and turn it into a "Great Satan" theme ... that's just nonsense ...

goodnight ...

[expatriot]

30. yes, I am bringing other posters into it. I am sorry... night nt

[Lecky]

16. Great post

[Hidden Stillness]

9. DLC Not on a Societal Scale That Relates to the "Little People"--Corporate

I agree and think that this post gets at a lot of important analysis of the situation. I also agree that we should not be duped and use comfy words such as "moderate," "centrist" or even "conservative" to describe this group; that their real threat to our whole Party is that they have no interests or concerns other than corporate positioning. I have no problem with an actual range of opinion, and find myself agreeing with different groups on different issues, as almost all people do, but words like "moderate" etc. have no connection to what the "D"LC is though--their only agenda is corporate, and doesn't even relate to social or philosophical type language. As corporatists, they are as extreme as neo-con Republicans.

The problem with "D"LC Inc. is that they do not even relate to the societal scale of political opinion, only corporate--they will never respond to the middle class and poor, don't know what their problems are, and don't care. They contribute nothing useful or helpful to our Party, and will only continue to keep us from regaining our far-reaching, national/populist status.
Notice that the small number of DLC members on this website never even post messages, that I have ever read, other than to attack Democrats for stating opinions against them--they never post on any variety of topics. They do not consider themselves "us," but are corporatists (funded by Republican-corporate interests, as Thomas Frank and many others have shown), only there to advance their corporate friends, as much as Bush, Cheney and the rest of those anti-worker devils.

[welshTerrier2]

10. yeah, the DLC has a different philosophy

good post, Zorra ... i agree that we share many similarities on our policy beliefs ... at this point, i think the differences are more political ...

the left does not see elected Democrats responding to our beliefs while those who label themselves moderates are, in essence, more willing to go along with establishment Democrats in the hope of regaining power ... the difference is more political in nature that it is on ideology ...

and as for the DLC, just read this ... it tells you all you need to know ... both the left and moderates should do all we can to get these jackasses out of our Party ... here's the link ... make sure you read the article it references ... it's a real eye-opener: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1972163&mesg_id=1975703

[Zorra]

15. Thanks for the link, great article by Robert Dreyfuss. n/t

[Armstead]

37. Basic difference between "moderates" and "centrists"

IMO, moderates have the same basic beliefs and goals as Democrats who are clearly liberal or more progressive ("left"). They are against corporate ursurpation and elitist power.

They may differ in speed or degree, but share the same values and are moving in the same direction. .

But DLC "centrists" are complacent corporatists who are trying to pull in the opposite direction, towards acceptance of unbridled corporate power. They have the same basic goals as Republicans, but just want to be a little softer around the edges.

So "centrists" differ in direction.