Confused about PNAC -->Will Marshall --> PPI -->John Kerry

[LittleClarkie]

Someone here has the knowledge to set me straight about the New Democrats and why Will Marshall is a member of PPI but often sounds like PNAC. Are the two closer than they should be?

It does creep me out that someone like what Will Marshall appears to be was a national security advisor for John Kerry. The thing is, it sounds like Will Marshall and the PPI endorses things that are pretty far away from where I think Kerry stands. Will Marshall sounds like a Dem uberhawk, and while I know that Kerry can also be a hawk at times, he wasn't endorsing Iraq the way PPI appears to have done.

Why does the PPI appear to be so close to PNAC.

I don't intend to put on the tinfoil hat here. I'm just trying to understand the connection and John Kerry's place in there.

And I can't ask this on the main board or I will start a DLC/Kerry rant from someone.

[elshiva]

1. Oh, dear too many questions and no answers.

I do not know what PPI or PNAC is, what are they? Who is Will Marshall?

[LittleClarkie]

2. Okay this is what I know

PPI = Progressive Policy Institute, which is a think tank founded by this Will Marshall person, and is often mentioned with the DLC and the New Democrat movement, a movement within the Dem party that talks about fiscal responsibility and is somewhat more hawkish about foreign policy than your average liberal Dem. Kerry is a New Democrat, Kennedy is not, and that pretty much sums up the difference right there.

PNAC = the neocons, the ones who want us to bring democracy to the Middle East because it will make Israel safe. That's probably an over-simplification, though.

Will Marshall, founder of PPI, also is a regular signer of position papers over at the PNAC and seems to agree with them alot, even about the Iraqi War. Might explain why Clinton, who is quite DLC, made comments supporting the Iraq War.

Will Marshall is also listed on the web in articles as being one of, or perhaps THE foreign policy advisor for the Kerry campaign.

So if he's a wingnut, I wanted to know what he was doing in the Kerry campaign. Did the Clinton's donate him? Is he buds with Kerry? Are they close at all, or is it just that Kerry is a New Dem and this guy is the founder of that movement. I'm looking for some history as it relates to Kerry and Marshall.

[TayTay]

4. I never bought Kerry as DLC

His record is too liberal. His vote to give authorization to * to take action in Iraq was complicated and I didn't see it as totally hawkish. (He didn't vote for war, he voted for investigating what was going on in Iraq and for war as a last resort after verifying the need for it.) I don't think Kerry is very hawkish at all. He just knows the costs of war too well.

I have had my differences with Kerry over the years (oh gawd, the liberal Mass wars over some stuff give me a headache. I disagreed over his '96 Welfare reform vote, I disagreed with him when he brought up Affirmative action then dropped it, etc. It hasn't been a perfect voter/Senator relationship. There have been bumps in the road.) I think he had to take on some advisors in the campaign whose views differed from his own. (I would have been shocked if didn't. He likes a real range of opinions from advisors from which to make an informed choice.) But I never saw the whole New Democrat thing as a fit. And I think he has outgrown it and is more ready to embrace the progressive side. (Health care, education, labor law. I wait to see what positions he now holds on NAFTA and Fair Trade, I have had differences, but not enough to not vote for him.)

[LittleClarkie]

8. I wish he'd have his name removed from the New Democrat website

I agree. I don't think it's a good fit, or at least not anymore. Like I said, he's somewhat hawkish in budget and foreign policy matters, but that doesn't make him a DLCer.

I wouldn't mind if he disassociated if he's outgrown it.

[ginnyinWI]

9. but the way I understand it,

is that the DLC is different than the NDN, which is more grassroots progressive? I'm new at all understanding all this alphabet soup, but the two are different. When you said DLC and New Democrats, I took it to mean that you are saying they are the same group?

[elshiva]

6. Again more questions,

What exactly is a New Democrat? I here the name alot and know that Bill Clinton is one (Is Hillary Clinton, too?), but I don't know what it really means. I got into trouble calling Clark a new Democrat (as in he used to be a Republican) and was mistaken for calling him a New Democrat (an easy mistake without the aid of capitalization). Is Clark a New (capital N) Dem?

Note: I do trust new Democrats (former non-Democrats) because there is nothing like the zeal of the newly converted like Clark and Momma T.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Here are a couple of websites

They are accessible from just one of them, but here are the both.

http://www.ndol.org/ This is the New Democrats on line

http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm This is the Progressive Policy Institute.

Will Marshall's article about the heartland is on the front page of both. I just don't get why this guy signs neocon documents. Seems a bad move to be associated with them and makes him look like a neo-dem.

[elshiva]

11. Thanks for the links.

I don't agree with the New Democrats but I still think they can be good leaders within the party. As in I can trust them politically.
According to the first link, Rosenburg, one of the DNC candidates is one of the principle creators of the New Dem Movement.
I'll work with Rosenburg, but I still think Dean is the best. I think Dean respresents us Moderate Liberal Extremist Democrats the most, don't you.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Right now I'd take Dean, with Rosenberg as some sort of subordinate

I think they could probably work together, based on what both are saying. And I think Rosenberg has knowledge that could be useful to Dean.

[elshiva]

13. Rosenburg, is Jewish, right? He's OK by me

just please, God let's have Dean (who is sorta Jewish)?

[ginnyinWI]

3. I found an article that might shed some light...

I'm only including the three best paragraphs as allowed by DU. If you are a subscriber you can go to www.thenation.com and do a search on Perlstein and find the whole thing.



Party Cannibals
by RICK PERLSTEIN



<snip>
Leninism for losers. Once the organization raised enough corporate cash to be financially sound, it was rebranded as a "political movement." Potemkin Village "conventions" were held; the 1991 event, where lobbyist "delegates" from all fifty states voted on a premasticated "progressive agenda for the Democratic Party," was partially funded by the Republican CEO of Nestlé. Simultaneously, that same two-step hustle, the popular front and the work in the shadows: When the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC's new think tank, was founded, its president, Will Marshall, described it as an "analytic guerrilla group." It was built on the model of the Heritage Foundation (From and Marshall consulted Heritage's director, Ed Feulner, for advice)--not as an honest brokerage for research but as a factory for marketing policy positions arrived at in advance (and disseminated in a magazine then called the Mainstream Democrat). Then, in preparation to influence the 1992 presidential race, the DLC formed chapters in every state with a major primary, in order, said Reed, to "create the illusion of a national movement." Lovely, no?

This year, before pushing its line that the Democratic Party had to reform itself in the DLC's image to recover from a failed presidential campaign--its message after every failed presidential campaign--it got word out in the press that Democrats thankfully no longer sniped among themselves after elections. That put it in position to label liberals as divisive when they criticized Kerry's objectively centrist presidential campaign. Thus the DLC's divisiveness could be framed as a bid to end all the divisiveness.

It's clever stuff. But it also plays into George W. Bush's hands. Splitting the difference with Republicans to neutralize attack from Republicans never works; the response to From and Reed's op-ed in the Journal shows that. Clinton's entire second term shows that, too, in spades--even a policy agenda so devoid of liberalism it warmed the cockles of every DLC heart was frozen in its tracks by "scandals" drummed up by Republicans convinced Clinton was the liberal devil incarnate.
<snip>

[JI7]

5. Kerry listens to what many people have to say

and comes to his own conclusions.

[elshiva]

7. Good for him. He's great at researching.

[paulk]

14. Will Marshall was actually a signatory of the PNAC manifesto

as were several other Democrats. He's definitely a hawk.

I think Kerry takes in a wide range of opinion, as others upthread have noted, before arriving at his conclusions.

I also think Kerry may be closer to the PPI view than many realize - he definitely thought Saddam was a threat and while Clinton was still president was pushing for a "third way" approach in Iraq - not outright invasion necessarily, but he felt the sanctions were a failure. My understanding of why he felt this way was that after 1991, the weapons inspections had found a lot more WMD and more advanced programs than most in the US government had believed Saddam had.

Combined with the Bush administrations lies on WMD and after four years of no inspections could this have had some influence on his IWR vote?

In any case - I think Kerry would always take diplomacy over military action, if he were President.

[elshiva]

15. Absolutely Diplomacy over military action

was what he was running on during the election. That's why he did the Mideast fact finding tour to show some diplomacy.

[LittleClarkie]

16. I believe that more than the other explanation I get

which is that he was playing politics.

I do think what he knows about the world through Iran/Contra and BCCI plays into his worldview as well, and fed into his IWR vote. I think he was more likely to be suckered by Bush because he actually knows the dangers pretty well. I don't think he realized just how badly these people could fuck this up.

But then, the way he was talking during the campaign, about unending war, told me that he's at least starting to understand what a neocon is and what they're about. I wonder if he had a conversation or two with Wes. We know Wes knows about neocons, and we know Wes has some input into the foreign policy aspect of the campaign.

I think Kerry definitely learned a thing or two during the campaign. But I agree that he's probably more hawk than alot of people would prefer.

Another thing bothers me about the attitude toward terrorism on the main board. I think many out there discount the idea that there are indeed terrorists out there who are not going to stop simply because we leave their country.

I saw last week someone trying to bring up the idea that perhaps terrorism is something to worry about, and yet several people put him down as having bought into something that doesn't exist. You'd think we'd have learned from watching the Religious Right pushing their beliefs no matter what, that there probably are people out there with an agenda who aren't going to stop until they get it. I don't think merely leaving will necessarily do it.

And here I thought I was a peacenik. I guess it depends on the war, whether or not I'm anti-war or not. I certainly think that people like Buchannan and some on the left are a bit naive to think it's American imperialism alone that's causing all the trouble.

Or are they right and people like Kerry wrong? Personally, with his experience, I'd bank with Kerry first.

[paulk]

17. I'd bank on Kerry -

You gotta trust somebody sometime - and if Kerry could go from the Vietnam war protester he was to where he is today - well, he's got a lot more experience at this foriegn policy thing than I do.

I think Kerry thought that Poppy, Brent Scowcroft, even James Baker - the old school conservative foreign policy people - would rein W. in. He put too much faith in the system's ability to stop what was obviously a really stupid foreign policy initiative (invading Iraq) - and maybe he didn't understand how partisan the Senate had become. I think Washington tends to isolate people - put them in a bubble - and I do think it's a valid criticism to say that Kerry didn't seem to really understand the threat of the PNAC.

I'm sure he understands it now.

The attitude toward terrorism that many hold here at DU bothers me also. The threat of transnational terrorism is very real and to deny it borders on ... stupidity. It's why, even though I opposed the invasion of Iraq - I don't think "cut and run" is a strategy the world can afford. We can't allow Iraq to become a failed state - another Afghanistan - only this time an Afghanistan that's sitting on top of the world's 2nd largest oil reserves.

Of course, the problem is - we can be sure that Bush will fuck things up. Even Kerry may not have been able to reverse the debacle of Iraq - we know that Bush won't.

Changing the subject - what does "anti-war" mean? People say "the anti-war left" or the "anti war wing of the Democratic Party", and I get the distinct impression they're not talking about me... Yet I marched against the first Gulf War - I went to rallies protesting both Afghanistan and the Iraq sequel... but, because I don't think just pulling the troops out is a viable strategy I can't be "anti-war" anymore.

[LittleClarkie]

18. To me, it's the difference between a knee jerk reaction

and looking at each situation as it comes up.

Would these same people have been against WWII?

Goofy tangent that actually is on topic, but I'm a Robert Vaughn/Man from UNCLE fan. Which means I'm fully aware of all the things Vaughn did to try and stop the Vietnam War.

But I've heard him say, and I've also heard Kerry say, that they aren't anti-war. They were anti-THAT-war. Know what I mean?

Alot of folks who were in agreement with Afghanistan are up in arms about Iraq. We are not going after the guys who attacked us. Osama been forgotten.

[paulk]

20. I would get so pissed when Cheney would get on the t.v.

and sneer at Kerry's ideas that the war on terrorism was fundamentally a police action. The whole Bush/Cheney idea that the transnational terrorism is state sponsored is so wrong - so dangerously wrong - that I despair...

And our media never pointed out that those stump speeches of Bush and Cheney promised war, more war, war without end - then when he gives his inauguration speech and basically declares war on the rest of the world - they're just shocked, shocked!

I think the idea of sending in elite forces (and/or the man from UNCLE) to take out known enemies, even pre-emptively, is a good one. Clinton should have sent in troops to take out Bin Laden - we knew they were behind the embassy bombings in Africa, we knew they were behind the USS Cole bombing (and the first WTC attack) - but Clinton let himself be intimidated by the Republican outcry after the cruise missile attacks against Bin Laden's camp - (wag the dog!). Another failure to lay at the Republican doorstep.

Bush should have reacted to the Cole bombing instead of sitting on his hands - hell, as BLM has posted lately, he refused to even read the Hart/Rudman report - it continues to amaze me that the media, instead of pointing out Bush's culpability in the 9/11 security failure, they instead turned him into a hero!

Grrrr! Now I'm going to go have ANOTHER cup of coffee!

[ginnyinWI]

19. JK's stance on war makes sense to me

He was clear about it during the campaign--you only go to war because you have to. It makes me so mad the way people misunderstood his terrorism/nuisance statement, because it was so forward-thinking and on target. (are people really that dense?)
Terrorism is a problem best dealt with by treating it as crime, not as a war between countries. The terrorist has no country--they are closer to being a gang, a mafia. It takes the use of intelligence to get inside and destroy them. It takes diplomacy with the countries that have the terrorists within their borders. If you can't get anywhere using intelligence and diplomacy, then you are faced with military action against a country. Then it becomes a whole different ball game, because you are fighting a country because they protect terrorist organizations. And it should always be the last resort, and have the support of your allies.

[paulk]

21. agree

see post above

[blm]

22. Advisors should be from the entire spectrum, from left to center-right.

That way you know what arguments are being presented by all sides and you can take all of them into consideration when formulating your policy.

Marshall is one of the PNAC crew, but, for all we know, he could be one who gives his opinions from the center=left to balance out those who are even further right.

It is better in the long run that SOME with lefty tendencies get in their two cents with the neo-cons, so just so they understand there are still a number of us out there. It's playing within the system and it's one way to stay informed on what they are up to.