Changing the party's philosophy without the consent of the majority.

[madfloridian]

This one paragraph from 2000 at the DLC website shows that the Democratic Leadership Council knows that the majority of the party do not hold their views. In other words, IMHO, it sounds like they are very aware they are in the minority in the party. What does one say to this.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955

"The DLC and the New Democrats are vulnerable to such a defeat, since they are attempting to change a public philosophy without the benefit of a realigning event and without a mass or activist base. From the makeup of the delegates to the nominating conventions to the main sources of campaign volunteers and funds, it is clear that the liberal faction and its constituent groups continue to predominate within the party. The liberals are still an important, if not vital, component in winning the party's nomination for office from congressman to president. And with their dominance of the congressional party, they are also critical actors in constructing a governing coalition. Lacking this base within the party itself, New Democrats -- or a faction in either party attempting to change their party's philosophy -- require a sustained period of political success in order to truly remake their party and wed new groups to their coalition. No matter how successful their philosophy may be, the party still matters. In the end, the New Democrats must embark on a "long march through the institutions."

In other words, they are saying that even though they know they are taking the party where it doesn't want to go....they will just keep on doing it.

This sentence disturbed me the most, I think. It sort of admits they need the majority of the party...but they wish they did not.

"The liberals are still an important, if not vital, component in winning the party's nomination for office from congressman to president."

On Edit: Thanks to cosmicdot for finding this. I saw it in one of his posts..

[Totally Committed]

1. Great post.

I couldn't agree more. This needs to be stopped, too.

[derby378]

2. ginbarn sez...

"This sounds like the same old gobbledygook that comes out of committee."

[Talismom]

3. I'd like to see a massive slap in their face during the next primaries

with progressive dems. carrying the nominations and winning the legislatures (state and federal) back hands-down! Destroy the MEpublicans and DLC in one fell swoop! That's what I'm wishing for and working for these days.

[leyton]

4. So they want to win over liberals on the merits of their plans. Bastards!

If the DLC's policies are not going to produce the results that liberals want, then the liberals who predominate the party do not have to give the DLC any more support. It's as simple as that. Marketplace of ideas. What's wrong with this again?

[union_maid]

5. OK, fine. Time to quit now

They didn't get that sustained period of political successes. In fact, we're buried. So they should gracefully bow out and let the Democratic wing of the party lead.

[havocmom]

6. "they're all the same" How often have you heard people say that?

The DLC is too much in the corporate corner and voters know it. The neocons are too, but act the populist role for the masses while pointing and calling DEMS 'elitist'. They tell people what they want to hear, then do the bidding of corporate masters.

DEMS need to return to their populist roots and base. They need to show there is a difference. The DLC can't function there. Cannot win when you let the opposition define you and frame the debate.

We talk of how old style republicans need to take their party back from the far right. We need to do the same to our party; take it back from the corporate hijackers. Then we can go before voters and show them there is a difference.

And no presidential candidates from the Rubber Stamp Senate. That just won't work.

But nothing works until we have honest elections in this country. That is job one.

[mmonk]

7. America doesn't need

two republican parties.

[Q]

8. They seem to use...

...the tactics of the RWing when they label as 'liberal' anyone that opposes their attempts to transform the party without a mandate of any kind.

That's why I believe it's fair to compare them to the Neocons. Neither did they have a mandate to transform the Republican party into a far-right cabal that works outside the Constitution and the rule of law.

As far as a 'sustained period of political success'...it's probably just a coincidence that the party has lost everything since they assumed leadership through the Clintons.

[Elidor]

26. An excellent analysis, Q

Unfortunately, I'm afraid they'll continue to exert extreme influence over the party. They have a system that perfectly whipsaws the expectations of party members while manipulating internal party politics, and they genuinely believe that, if only x, y, and z, they will reclaim congress and the executive. If only... But x, y, and z have all gone south, and still they cling to their outdated and misguided game plan, a plan that depends on making suckers out of every progressive and liberal.

I honestly want to know: what makes democrats vote for these people? And I don't mean all that "electability" bullshit. I simply don't understand what these sell-outs have to offer anyone who doesn't support pollution, corporate rapine and the Iraq occupation.

And as for Bill Clinton, whom the DLC Defenders like to hide behind: Bill Clinton hasn't held public office in almost five years. Try to catch up with the times, people.

[eleny]

9. They've taken a page from the Republican playbook

Did the neocons really have an honest discussion with mainstream conservative Repubs? I'd say no. So, it looks like the DLC is following their lead of hijacking our Party. And I'm not having any of it.

Contining the war in Iraq and accepting Roberts for the SCOTUS puts them way too far to the right for me.

[longship]

10. Write their members -- especially Hillary.

• Tell them that the Democratic Party does not need a Religious Right take-over.
  
• Tell them that what they are talking about is dividing the party.
  
• Tell them that if the measure is electoral success, they've done an extremely poor job of it.
  
• Tell them that intolerance of differences of opinion is unAmerican, unDemocratic, unConstitutional, etc.
  
• Tell them that the only way Democrats win is to unite, that the DLC is losing elections for the Democrats.
  
• Tell them that we don't need two Republican parties.
  

Keep hammering at these guys until they start behaving.

[flpoljunkie]

11. DLC would do well to read this section of this article written in 2000

Simply, the mere election of a president does not automatically transform his or her party's philosophy. Indeed, such a sudden change can occur only when there is a major national crisis (losing in Iraq), a critical election, and a massive voter realignment. However, the history of the DLC suggests that the election of a president can initiate a change in a party's philosophy, provided that the proposed alternative meets two criteria.

First, it must be operationally effective. That is, the philosophy must adequately address pressing societal problems and do so in a way that is in line with the core values of the country. Second, a philosophy must be politically effective. It must enable a party to win elections and keep political power.

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

__________________

The DLC aligns themselves with the likes of the banks and credit card companies by enabling the passage of the one-sided bankruptch bill, thereby screwing all American-- in red state and blue.

This is no way to be "inline with the core values of the country"--let alone the Democratic party.

[Rebellious Republican]

12. Our country is under attack by "Corporate Terrorists".....

They have infiltrated and taken over both major parties, and had even managed to infiltrate the green party through Nader.

Yes, we ought to tell them just to start a new party and call it the Fascist party.

Oh, silly me, thats not a new party is it. Hey how about the Neocon Corporate Fascist DLC party.

This country is no longer of the people, by the people, for the people, its looking more like the Roman Empire everyday.

Thanks for the post MF.

[madfloridian]

13. May be the 3rd party we have been hearing about.

Just was thinking about that when I read this article, RR. They may have already started the third party.

I think there are many Republicans like you who are equally frustrated. They feel lost.

[Rebellious Republican]

14. Hey, hey, now watch the name calling, thats FORMER Republican!

And Damn proud of it.:evilgrin:

:hi:

[madfloridian]

15. Oops, I forgot...but at least you are still Rebellious, right?

:hi: :evilgrin:

[Rebellious Republican]

21. Extremely , with just the right amount of crazy as well! N/T

:woohoo:

[madfloridian]

25. Crazy and nice.

:hi:

[Eloriel]

19. Not corporate terrorists -- just American Fascists, that's all

It's time we started calling them for what they are.

The alignment of corporate and government power (along with certain other things) is fascism.

[Rebellious Republican]

20. You got me there E, whats that old saying.........

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

:toast:

[madfloridian]

16. "Created specifically to change the ...party philosphy"

Their own words:

"There are many measures of success for a political organization such as the DLC, including such mundane but consequential ones as securing the spoils of public office. But for an organization created specifically to change the Democratic Party's philosophy, there is no escaping that second question. In addressing it, a perspective on how one faction can consciously change the philosophy of an American political party begins to take shape. From there, one can speculate about the future of the Democratic Party-- and of the New Democrats within it. "

They want to change the philosophy whether we agree or not. Howard Dean wants the DNC to rebuild to include the people of the party, using our money as much as possible.

Do we have a chance over huge amounts of corporate money and leaders who don't care about our opinions, even though they admit we are the majority?

I don't know the answer, but I am sure willing to go with the DNC on this.

[Totally Committed]

17. Kick

:kick:

[radio4progressives]

18. This is what many of us have been trying to communicate for so long.

DLC/NDN got created back when Bill Clinton was DNC chair before he got elected in '92. That's when he was touting the "New Democrat" - Neo Liberal line. The Neo Libs and the Neo Cons ARE essentially in bed with each other on Foreign policies and many domestic policies (a few differences - but still backing Corporatism)

Consequently, the Green Party got itself engerized and mobilized and nominated Nader to speak to this issue in the run up to the 2000 elections. But too many kool aid drinking dems (like the kool aid drinking repugs) were not paying attention - and so history played out as it did.

Now, finally this is getting more and more attention as it DESERVES to be - I hope this will lead to a better, informed understanding of what has occured within the party, and what needs to be done to reclaim the party IN ORDER TO RECLAIM our democracy, (such as it was).

But, unfortunately still not enough of the "rank and file" are aware or understand how our party was co-opted by these neo fascists - (calling it out for what it actually is, which also needs to be done, imo) and so a lot more education on this needs to be done - while at the same time pushing for election reform, including promoting Proportional Representation - or at least Instant Run off Voting (IRV) so that we can at least have some hope of returning to some form of genuine democracy and getting away from this One Party System.

[madfloridian]

22. Ah, so there is a Republican Leadership Council also.

"At the same time, the DLC's liberal rivals are not the only ones monitoring its success in transforming the Democratic Party's philosophy. Republicans who believe their party has grown out of touch with the general electorate and even with the Republican rank and file are eager to duplicate the DLC's success. Indeed, a group of Republican elected officials and benefactors has established the Republican Leadership Council to recapture the GOP's agenda from its right wing and replace it with a more mainstream platform in order to better the Republicans' odds in 2000 and beyond. Like the DLC, these "New Republicans" have impressive support among prominent elected officials (such as Govs. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and George Pataki of New York) and donors, but little representation in the House and virtually none at the party's grassroots. They hope that a New Republican-- or a "compassionate conservative" -- wins the GOP presidential nomination soon and saves a party that has lost the presidency twice and has seen its newly won hold on Congress weaken."

I sure get confused at what is defined as mainstream and right and left.

[Q]

23. The problem remains...

...that the DLC just doesn't 'get it' or they're lying to us about war and other things. Either way...this doesn't bode well for their future in the party.

The DLC...like the Neocons and the PNACers...are trying to create their own reality. In this same article...the author admits that 'this organization was created specifically to change the Democratic party's philosophy'. That is...'not only is the era of big government over, but the era of the party of big goverment is also over' (Lieberman)

The reader needs to understand the meaning of 'big government' to the Neocons and Neodems. To them...big government is one that uses tax dollars to provide services directly to the people. Both the Neocons and Neodems want to 'privatize' these services...essentially becoming the 'middleman' between the government and the people.

The DLC wants to 'recast the Democratic party in the New Democrat image'. What does this mean exactly and what was wrong with the old image? The People liked the image of the old party. It served THEM instead of the corporate state.

Relevant quotes from the article:

"Environmental, civil rights, and labor groups that oppose the New Democrat philosophy are still the heart of the Democratic base, providing candidates with money, volunteers, and crucial endorsements. The AFL-CIO played a large role in the 1998 elections, spending $20 million on 392 field organizers, 9.5 million pieces of mail, 5.5 million phone calls, and television ads to help Democratic candidates. In early 1999, the labor federation approved spending $46 million over the next two years -- the first time the group had not dismantled its political operations at the end of an election cycle-- in order to help Democrats take back the House."

These are the exact groups that the DLC has attempted to muscle out of the party...or at least out of any process that decides the platform or policy.

Another telling quote:

"In addition, members and supporters of liberal constituency groups still constitute the vast bulk of Democratic Party activists. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll of delegates to the 1996 Democratic National Convention, three-quarters felt that government should do more to solve the nation's problems, whereas only about half of Democratic voters and one-third of all voters felt this way. Delegates were far more likely to support affirmative action policies than were other Democratic voters. About 33 percent were members of a labor union, compared with 13 percent of Democratic voters; 69 percent were college graduates, compared with 17 percent of Democratic voters. Interestingly, the delegates recognized the differences between themselves and Clinton: 43 percent described themselves as liberal, while only 8 percent described Clinton that way."

And this:

"Finally, the party's liberal faction continues to be a dominating force among elected officials, especially in Congress. Clinton signed a welfare reform bill and a free-trade agreement over the opposition of most of the Democratic congressional delegation. In 1997, his effort to secure an extension of fast-track negotiating authority was killed by his fellow Democrats as well."

What's clear is that the DLC is circumventing the will of the majority of the Democratic party and base to construct a second Republican party. They admit...as I've posted many times before...that their only remaining obstacle are the 'liberals' in the party that want to remain a 'party of the people'.

[Toots]

24. "require a sustained period of political success"

That pretty much would eliminate the DLC if they followed their own script. What is their claim to sustained success, the complete loss of both houses and most governorships during their reign?

[Clarkie1]

27. I intepreted this differently.

I want to preface by saying in no way is my interpretation of what this article is saying meant to support the DLC philosophy....o.k.?

You said:
"This one paragraph from 2000 at the DLC website shows that the Democratic Leadership Council knows that the majority of the party do not hold their views. In other words, IMHO, it sounds like they are very aware they are in the minority in the party. What does one say to this."

They said:
"it is clear that the liberal faction and its constituent groups continue to predominate within the party."

In other words, liberals are the most active; that does not, however, necessarily mean they are the majority. So it is possible that the DLC may think the majority of the party does hold their views, just not the most activist part.

I'm not arguing if this is right or wrong, and I don't support the DLC; I just have a different interpretation of what they are saying here.

[madfloridian]

29. If you look at the whole paragraph...it indicates they are minority..

and they know it.

"The DLC and the New Democrats are vulnerable to such a defeat, since they are attempting to change a public philosophy without the benefit of a realigning event and without a mass or activist base. From the makeup of the delegates to the nominating conventions to the main sources of campaign volunteers and funds, it is clear that the liberal faction and its constituent groups continue to predominate within the party. The liberals are still an important, if not vital, component in winning the party's nomination for office from congressman to president. And with their dominance of the congressional party, they are also critical actors in constructing a governing coalition. Lacking this base within the party itself, New Democrats -- or a faction in either party attempting to change their party's philosophy -- require a sustained period of political success in order to truly remake their party and wed new groups to their coalition. No matter how successful their philosophy may be, the party still matters. In the end, the New Democrats must embark on a "long march through the institutions."

They are saying there are more of the liberal activist base, but they are changing the party philosophy anyway....like it or not.

They have done a pretty good job, mainly because we did not realize it. Now we do.

[LittleClarkie]

28. Then the majority will vote their ass's out

won't they? If the philosophy is being changed without them, that is? They're the majority, after all.

[yurbud]

30. Every DLC candidate should be confronted with this in public

[madfloridian]

31. Shapiro said what they did "is an intellectual leveraged buyout" of DNC

From 1992 there is a very interesting article originally in the WP, preserved at the DLC website: called "Al From, Life of the Party." There are some interesting quotes, but the whole article is well worth the read...just to get a feel of the "leveraged buyout".

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=859&kaid=85&subid=65

"To make the package irresistible to the millions of white middle-class suburbanites who, in an earlier age, were dubbed "The Silent Majority" (and have voted overwhelmingly Republican since the presidential election of 1968), the DLC wraps it prettily in "mainstream values" - yet another feature that has aroused suspicion, and charges of "Republican me-tooism," among members of the party's liberal wing.

"We always perceived ourselves not as a threat," Breaux says, "but as an active participant in advocating change - not against traditional Democratic values, and not as a group of Southern white boys."

Al From and the coup:
"As he contemplated the distance he and his tribe have come - from a renegade band of moderates athwart the Democratic Party's liberal orthodoxy to the triumphant ringleaders of a not-so-silent coup - he became increasingly mush-mouthed, and positively gooey-eyed.

"Wonderful, wonderful," From kept murmuring over the cheers, as he looked out onto a convention floor teeming with signs for two of his charter members, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. "To see it all blossom into this incredible scene is somethin' else."

"What we've done in the Democratic Party," explains institute Vice President Rob Shapiro, a Clinton economic adviser, "is an intellectual leveraged buyout." The DLC, presumably, is acting as arbitrageur, selling off unprofitable mind-sets to produce a lean and efficient philosophy for the "New Democrat," as DLCers call their slick bimonthly magazine.

"I'm stunned by the suddenness with which the party seems to have embraced what only yesterday seemed heretical and offensive to many," says institute President Will Marshall, whom From jokingly refers to as "the party ideologist," the Democrats' answer to the Soviets' Mikhail Suslov. "Having been used to being in a sort of a defensive crouch, I'm not sure now how to take all the accolades we've been receiving," Marshall continues, but hastens to add, "I don't know if I like the Suslov analogy. Suslov is a dead purveyor of a dead ideology."END QUOTE

Dear Will Marshall, we did not "embrace" it. We just did not know because you guys put it in fancy words that meant nothing at all...

I like Metzenbaum's quote about Al From:
"Sen. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, a proud and ornery liberal who founded the Coalition for Democratic Values in 1990 as an ideological counterweight to the DLC."

QUOTE:"The two senators from Arkansas {Dale Bumpers and David Pryor} are always saying, `Bill Clinton is more liberal than you think, Howard,' " says Metzenbaum, who concedes that his own group operates on a shoestring compared with the DLC. "This is not a rationalization to make myself feel comfortable. I'm too old and outspoken for that."

But when it comes to From, Metzenbaum bristles that "he doesn't know {expletive} from Shinola," punctuating his ire by spelling the four-letter word."