What exactly is a "New Democrat"?

[AJH032]

And where do they fit in? Are they centrists? Are they progressive? How different are they from the "old democrats"? I was reading their philosophy on ndol.org, trying to figure out what makes them different from "old democrats" and Republicans. This is what I kind of figured out. Let me know what you think.

New Democrats are still pro-choice, pro gay rights, so they still lack morals as our Republican friends would say. They believe in strong environmental laws, universal health coverage, public education. They believe that shifting the tax burden more to the wealthy and corporate world would have no negative effect on the economy and would help keep the budget in balance. They believe in gun control. That's how they're the same.

New Democrats say they're in favor of "free and fair trade." This seems to be a deviation from traditional Democratic values. They're in favor of welfare reform, but it doesn't seem like they're in favor of the same kind of welfare reform that Republicans/libertarians would promote (which is probably just to eliminate welfare completely). Just going by what Clinton did, they believe that welfare can be a "second chance, not a way of life." How exactly is this different from the "old" democratic values? Or is it at all? The New Democrats say they are pro-business in a democratic way. What exactly does this mean? Does this imply that old democrats are anti-business, or socialist? Does this mean that they believe in capitalism but imposing limits on it so that it doesn't rob the middle/lower classes? Isn't that the same as other, "old" democrats? They believe that the private sector is the engine of the economy, but is that really only a new democrat concept? The one way I know they are different is the death penalty, which they promote, at least somewhat.

I'm just trying to understand how different New Democrats really are, if they even are all that different to begin with. Any responses would be appreciated. Thanks.

[OzarkDem]

1. Term used by DLC

referring to their members and their POV. Many of them feel they re-invented the Dem Party. These days, since DLC seems to be losing its popularity among rank and file Dems, its probably a way to distinguish themselves w/o the negative connotation.

[wyldwolf]

36. "since DLC seems to be losing its popularity among rank and file Dems"

Not so.

[Chan790]

45. Denial of measurable phenomena typically equals...

/

Seriously, you DLC types are getting to be as funny as the Freeps who think McCain is going to pull it out.

There isn't a question of whether rank-and-file Democrats have lost faith in the DLC...they have. It's been documented. The question is why shouldn't we...all you do is lose and capitulate. Every recent chance handed to DLCers have been abject failures.

We'd have to be stupid or easily-manipulated to have not lost faith in the DLC. It's not what have you done for us lately but what have you done for us ever?

We're running a presidential candidate who isn't a DLCer, isn't part of the DLC's pro-southern strategy and who rejects both your economic and social philosophies...and we're actually going to win for a change. Really. Imagine that.

Just to make it more clear, John McCain and Sarah Palin have turned this election into a referendum on Socialism and liberal economics (which is amusing because Barack Obama is no socialist) and are still losing. The American people are completely repudiating the shared economic philosophy of the the GOP and DLC. Imagine that as well.

Go cry in your corn flakes. The DLC is dead.

[MisterP]

2. generally, they only pay lip service to those old-Dem ideals,

for starters

[ikojo]

3. A moderate Republican

or a DINO (Democrat in Name Only)

The DLC aims to distance the Democratic party from its traditional base of minorities and union members.

[kevsand]

20. Ding, ding, ding!

In cozying up to the corporate funders, they frequently end up in opposition to the interests of organized labor.

[brainshrub]

4. A pro-corporate politician in sheep's clothing.

Synonyms: Republican, Neo-Liberals, member of the DLC, DINO.

Examples: Lieberman, Zel Miller, Bill Clinton.

ON EDIT: "napi21" made a good point: I can't lump Lieberman & Zell with the Big Dog. But stand by my original assertion that Bill Clinton was a pro-corporate "New Democrat." (Although not nearly as rabid as the other two characters.)

[napi21]

13. Brainshrub, I usually always agree with you, but

how in the world can you put those 3 in the same catagory?

Zell is a senile redneck idiot who has lost his senses!

Although I didn't agree with Clinton on everything he did (Mostly NAFTA) he stood his ground and made the Pubs suffer (remember when the Pubs shut down the gov't and it backfired?).

Lieberman is something I can't even explain. He's not a Dem, not a Pub and not an Ind. I think he's closer to a senile nit like Zell but without the meaness!

[brainshrub]

16. Okay, okay... you're right.

I edited the post.

The problem I have with the Clintons is that they cemented the corporations control over the party infrastructure for short-term gain.

In the 80s the Democratic party got spooked by the funding that Reagan recieved. The DNC decided that in order to survive, they needed to suck at the same teat the Republicans were feeding from. In order to do this, The Democratic leadership had to abandon its populist roots.

The Clintons helped transform the Democratic party from the party for the common-man into the party for the common corporation. If you don't have a peoples-party to vote for, then you might as well vote for bible-thumping conservatives: At least they believe in something.

[napi21]

18. I can't disagree with that. I can also see whay they did it.

I was sure happy with Soros last year!


Problem now is, how can the Dems still get funds without selling us out? I don't know the answer to that!

There really a valid point in trying to keep at least close to to the available funds your opponent has. I'm not sure us little guys can do it alone!

[brainshrub]

22. Dean showed us how.

Dean proved that the internet can free a presidential campaign from depending on large corporate doners... and that's why the pro-corporate wing of the DNC fear him.

If corporations are not needed for campaigns, what the heck do candidates need them for? In the long run, corporations are lousy supporters: Big businesses break the law constantly, they donate money to your opponents and they constantly force politicians to make choices between the public good and what is good for the election war-chest.

Dean (potentially) represents the beginning of the end of corporate control over the political system in the United States.

[napi21]

25. Oh man I hope you're right.

One thing concerns me though. I don't want to give up the Soros support (or his $$) and all we've gotten from MoveON. They've obviously accomplished a lot of the RW wouldn't be bit*hing about them all the time. Is Soros a "Corporate Donor"?

You understand what I mean. I don't think Soros got any benefits from any candidates, but I don't know. I don't want the Dems to be non-competative because we don't want Corp donations!

[Liberal_Christian]

53. "how can the Dems still get funds without selling us out?"

By actually staying true to their ideals and convincing people they want to work for them and not the corporations. Case and point; It's true Obama got some kick backs from corporations during his campaign but millions upon millions of dollars were donated by regular taxpayers that wanted him in office.

[Ken Burch]

31. Lieberman's reelection slogan this year

"Joe: A SENILE NIT, WITHOUT THE MEANNESS!"

[wurzel]

5. New Democrats accept the primacy of Corporate interests.

And in return they expect Corporations to accept the same kind of social responsibilty as citizens. There is no evidence that such an expectation is viable.

[AJH032]

6. so clinton was a republican?

why do so many progressives like him then?

[brainshrub]

11. I don't think many progressives liked him per-se.

But we don't live in a political system with real alternatives. The United States is run by two wings of a pro-corporate party.

I was never a big fan of Clinton; but for all his short-comings, he was a brilliant individual, a talented politician and a wise leader who cared about the people of America.

Oh, and he was actually elected. Twice.

[AJH032]

24. He did shift the tax burden to the wealthy

by raising income taxes on the top bracket and raising the corporate tax (among other things), which are definitely progressive, democratic ideas. In fact, I would say having higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle/lower classes is central to democratic economic policies (anti-supply side/trickle down economics). This is what Clinton did, so at least with regard to econimc agenda, it's hard for me to label him pro-corporate, or Republican.

[thegreatwildebeest]

29. And what was NAFTA?

And NAFTA just bloomed out of his administration, as well as work fare, as well as only moderate nation building and galivanting around the world?

[AJH032]

39. This Clinton bashing surprises me

I know some of you don't agree with him on everything, but he was still a Democrat who pushed for progressive policies while in office. He tried for universal health care coverage, signed gun control legislation, elminated the medicare tax cap, raised the social security tax cap, raised the top income tax rate, gave tax credits to working class families, put in place strong environmental legislation (including Kyoto), appointed pro-choice supreme court justices, cut corporate subsidies and defense spending from the budget in favor of domestic programs, pushed for a BTU tax to help the environment and raise government revenue, and much more. Just because he took a moderate stance on one or two issues doesn't mean he's not a good Democrat. Don't forget, he had to deal with a Republican congress for most of his term, so he was forced to compromise. Another thing, he gave America the best economic record in our nation's history. Our economy between 1993 and 2001 grew at a faster rate than at any time before or after. Why would we want to push Clinton away, and at the same time, his record? If we Democrats push it away, then we don't get credit for it. Do we really need to give the Republicans credit for something that isn't theirs? That's just not smart, on our part. So while you guys may not agree with Clinton on absolutely everything, we still need to recognize that he was very important to this party, and still is. We should embrace the record he left America, as a strategy to win in the future.

One more thing, Republicans love to hate Clinton. That says something right there.

[clarence swinney]

46. CLINTON THE GREATEST BY FAR

CLINTON-GORE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
ALL AMERICAN TEAM
SHOW ME A BETTER RECORD
GDP--rose from 6,300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME- 5,000 to 8,000 Billion--
JOBS CREATED—237,000 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record of 218,000.
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say this-except Reagan)
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+43------300% increase over prior 12 years by Conservatives.
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%-----+80% under Reagan- who is da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000. All it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world. Amen”.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.

[Ken Burch]

33. By 1992, a lot of progressives were willing to settle

for victory in name only.

Those who stayed loyal to Clinton for the whole eight years were the ones who had the greatest capacity for voting with their teeth clenched.

No progressives actually celebrated when Clinton was reelected, because by then he no longer disagreed with Republicans on anything that mattered.

Which was a pointless political direction for him to take, since he would have defeated Bush and Dole on ANY platform, simply on the strength of personal charisma.

He could have used his personal story to discredit the Republican attack on the poor, but he just surrendered to it. He sold out gays with "don't ask, don't tell." He sold out labor on NAFTA.

Clinton is probably great fun AT a party, but we should never have given him absolute control of OUR party.

[clarence swinney]

41. CLINTON GREAT no matter the label

CLINTON-GORE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

SHOW ME A BETTER RECORD

GDP--rose from 6,300 to 11,600

NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--

JOBS CREATED—237,000 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record of 218,000.

AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478

AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's

UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%

MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15

MINORITIES--did exceedingly well

HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say this-except Reagan)

DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS

DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior 12 years by Conservatives.

FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---+80% under Reagan- who is da true conservative?

DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000. All it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it

NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it

VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom

FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?

POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.

STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.

BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world. Amen”.

THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.

clarence swinney-political historian-Lifeaholics of America- burlington nc
author-LIFEAHOLICS
[e-mail]
6-28-03

[clarence swinney]

42. GREATEST RECORD=POPULAR

CLINTON-GORE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
SHOW ME A BETTER RECORD
GDP--rose from 6,300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--
JOBS CREATED—237,000 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record of 218,000.
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say this-except Reagan)
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior 12 years by Conservatives.
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---+80% under Reagan- who is da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000. All it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world. Amen”.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.
clarence swinney-political historian-Lifeaholics of America- burlington nc
[e-mail]
6-28-03

[Political Heretic]

52. Economically? Yes, he was. Progressives "liked" him on some social issues.

He said of himself, "I'm a pro-business pragmatist"

He aggressively promoted free trade.

He was a massive derregulator.

He happily signed the law that basically paved the way for the current deregulation mess we are in

He was a major friend of privileged business interests to the detriment of the working class, however he was socially left leaning about things such as choice and privacy.

[BlakeB]

7. I think the DLC gets a bad rap around here.

They are a bit more conservative but they are still Democrats that do good things for this country. Bill Clinton was a New Democrat and just look at what he did.

[OzarkDem]

30. The old DLC was a group w/ promise

They had some good ideas and innovative approaches to public policy back in the early 90's. I know, I was a member for several years.

But somewhere around 1996 and later, they became lazy. For some reason, after Clinton's re-election, they got the idea in their heads that all Dems needed to do was run as "Repub - lite" candidates to win. Repub - lite doesn't really stand for anything. They no longer worked on creating new ideas or approaches, they just took Repub ideas and softened them up a little. They lost their creative edge and became shills for corporations.

Lately, you can't tell the difference between DLC and GOP when it comes to policy.

They had a bright future at one time, but they blew it. Their candidates don't get elected, their ideas don't win voters.

[Beaver Tail]

8. In Canada

A New Democrat is a Social Democrat (Social Democracy). They support Government funded (social) programs such as Medicare, welfare, unemployment insurance (etc…) as well as capitalism and individual rights (It is becasue of New Democrats that Canada as its Medicare program). This is different from Democratic Socialism which uses democracy to disassemble capitalism to eventually end up as a truly socialist society.

Edited for clarification

Note: This is a Canadian Definition. I am not sure of the US definition.

[AJH032]

9. Does that mean

that the "old" democratic party of the United States is a socialist, anticapitalist party?

[Beaver Tail]

12. Its Not Socialist

In general in a socialist society all property is owned by the the state. In a Social Democracy your personal property IS yours.

The Socialist Democracy believes supporting specific programs that cover common interests of the people of that country.

Corporations don’t like the Socialist Democracy because they have to pay out more to take care of their employees. It hurts the bottom line.

[brainshrub]

14. Good question. The answer is no.

I consider myself an "old" democrat. (Otherwise known as a Liberal Democrat.)

Democrats believe in capitalism, but understand that it works best with wise regulations that prevent corporations from externalizing their costs onto the rest of society.

A socialist does not believe that Capitalism is an efficient distributer of wealth the way Democrats do.

[AJH032]

15. I agree with your take

I too believe in capitalism with regulations. I just don't see how "New Democrats" are different. They claim to be in favor of capitalism but still promote the social democracy programs that Beaver Tail mentioned, don't they? At least, I know Clinton did.

It seems to me that what the DLC did to the Democratic Party is made them more aware of the need for balanced budgets (or was that always a priority of the Democrats?)

Sorry about all the questions. I appreciate everybody's responses.

[brainshrub]

17. You can be a conservative and still support social programs.

Teddy Roosevelt founded the National Park Service. Eisenhower picked up FDRs idea of a national highway system and ran with it. Nixon passed the Clean Water Act of 1968, and even supported a living wage law!

Republicans (real ones) are not against government programs per se, but programs that create high-taxes or encourage fiscal irresponsibility.

[Beaver Tail]

19. Thats is true brainshrub

if you look at politics as a 2 dimensional plane (left, right representing economics and up, down representing individual rights and freedoms) instead of a 1 dimensional plane. Communism would be an extreme version of an conservative socialist state. The Liberal version would be Liberal Socialism

Edit here

However an extreme capitalist conservative government would be fascist (the current direction of BushCo) while a Liberal Captialist government would be libertarianism on the extreme side

[brainshrub]

23. The dual system of political ideology is obsolete.

A better was to measure ideology is the "Political Compass" which takes into account social freedom and economic policy.

I suggest you check out this site for a full explanation:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

From the site:

The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?

On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

[Beaver Tail]

27. This is exactly what I was talking about

Looks about right. I'm Social Democrat

LoL.. Looks like I would get along well with The Dalai Lama

[Ken Burch]

32. Correction: some of us are Democrats AND Socialists

don't presume to make a sweeping statement on what the whole party thinks on economic issues.

[Ken Burch]

34. Although, to further clarify, the New Democratic Party of Canada(NDP)

is the successor to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation(CCF)which WAS, in fact, a left-wing socialist party for much of its history(which ran from the 1930's through 1961, when the NDP was formed.)

And there are many members and supporters of the NDP today who still proudly consider themselves "democratic socialists" and want their party to take a more clearly left political stance.

[punpirate]

10. As mentioned...

... they are DLCers trying to reinvent themselves with a new name.

They are pro-business and don't take stands on social issues (leaving those up to individual members). They vote with Republicans far too frequently for the Democratic Party's (and the country's) good.

They are, or have been, funded, by right-wing foundations. Fifteen or so years ago, they would have been considered conservative-to-moderate Republicans. They have, especially during general elections, tried to push the Democratic Party further to the right, in the mistaken belief that such will ensure the election of their members.

The nominal founder and guru of the bunch is Al From, who's buddies with people such as Thomas Friedman, if that's any help.

When Ted Kennedy said that "the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties," he was very likely talking about the DLC.

Cheers.

[Fridays Child]

21. Some might call them appeasers...

...and sometimes, I think so, myself. During Bill Clinton's presidency, however, the so-called "third way" of getting things done earnestly sought to navigate a middle passage toward accomplishing good works.

[Kurt Remarque]

26. a republican national guard member who was sent to iraq

[brainshrub]

28. That is the best answer in this whole thread.

LOL! Very true!

[wyldwolf]

35. to get a better understanding, try wikipedia

...great comparison on the three main Democratic "factions" - The Blue Dog Democrats (most conservative), the New Democrats/DLC (moderate to centrist) and the more liberal left wing:

Blue Dog Democrats tend to differ ideologically from another coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The DLC describes itself as new Democrat and positions itself as centrist while taking liberal positions on social issues and conservative positions on economic issues and trade. Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be social conservatives, but have differing positions on economic issues ranging from fiscal conservatism to economic populism. For example, most Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, many have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups, which cannot be said for most members of the DLC...

If the DLC are the "new Democrats", the Blue Dogs are almost surely "old Democrats", hearkening back to the party's past during the eras of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, and to the party's former electoral stronghold in the southern United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

also:

New Democrats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat

[musical_soul]

37. I think the "old Democrat" was misunderstood.

It's believed the old Democrat was for laziness and immoral behavior. Too bad that some seem to actually believe that because it causes division.

[wyldwolf]

38. Let's put it into the perspective of Dems from FDR to present day

"Old Dems" or "Old Left." FDR - McGovern
"New Left" - McGovern (Actually late 60s) to present.
"New Democrats" - Mid 80s to present.


Old Dems/Old Left: Liberal/populist on economic issues, moderate/conservative on social issues, moderate/conservative on national defense.

New Left: Liberal on social issues, liberal on economic issues, liberal on national defense.

New Democrats: Liberal on social issues, moderate/conservative on economic issues, moderate/conservative on national defense.

New Dems more closely resemble old Dems of the two (New left, new dems.) However, the seldom mentioned Blue Dog Dems appear to be more directly descended idealogically from the Old Dems.

[meow2u3]

40. That makes me "Old Left"

Paleoliberal, and damn proud of it!

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

43. A moderate Republican posing as a Democrat. NT

[dem75]

44. The First Debate is over. Give us your feedback

Please take part in our study on U.S. Presidential Candidate Momentum by answering the short survey posted at this link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=l0TkLx7LaMm8Ws9TsbmicQ_3d_3d

We are using the survey to track the momentum of each candidate throughout the election season. We'll issue a similar questionnaire several times over the next few months to see what sort of fluctuations happen over the course of the campaigns.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

[dcsmart]

47. progressive democrats

these two sites offer good info on what any democrat should have on his or her mind

http://timetofight.tumblr.com/


http://combat.tumblr.com/


Progressive Democrats of America and Democratic Socialists of America have excellent platforms for political action. See their websites.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

http://www.pdamerica.org/

This is now a workers political climate. Forget about Blue Collar, White Collar. Those are dead class distinctions perpetuated by capitalism. We are all working class because we do not own the means of production and for almost all of us their is no "golden parachute." Look at the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs and tell me who is blue collar and who is white. WE all have collars around our necks and we are not holding the chains.

[mathisen]

48. Third way centrist

Seems like this is an awfully old thread, but still an interesting topic. My principal belief is that a 'New Democrat' is a person who adheres to the ideas and statements described in your original post, but also one who believes in expanding, transcending, the rigid setup of the electoral and political map. With that said, I do not support the policies of the DLC, nor their congressional strategies.

The origin of the DLC and the New Democrat label may be found in the works of Anthony Giddens and his theoretical framework on the Third Way in the nineties. Both British Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder built their respective political agendas upon his ideas, as did Bill Clinton during his presidency. Hence 'New Labour' in UK and 'Die Neue Mitt' in Germany. It's in its purest form a method of shifting the liberal/social democratic (depending on continent) to the middle of the political spectrum in order to render a greater share of centrist votes.

The main problem with this approach is that it has major flaws when concretely applied. Both in Europe and the U.S. the legacy of the Third Way has failed to redraw the politcal map in favor of progressive policies. Instead is has succeeded in locking the debate in a sometimes centre-right universe, Reaganesque in the U.S.; Thatheresque in the U.K.; Kohlesque in Germany.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

49. Someone who believes in Reaganomics-lite, basically.

"New Democrats" don't want to restore tax progressivity, at least not above Clinton levels. They don't fantasize about a stronger labor movement or a lower Gini coefficient, either. They are basically content with the higher inequality levels of the past 30 years, though perhaps they see the GOP as taking the idea too far nowadays.

On social issues they are a mixed bag: generally pro-choice and anti-discrimination, but are still willing to teach "abstinence until marriage," perhaps with the footnote that gays should practice "abstinence until domestic partnership." They agree with the idea that a 15- or 16-year old is too young to hear the word "fuck" in a movie or musical album.

They generally have trouble seeing that Israel has a problem with right-wing religious nationalism just like the Arab world does. And they don't want to piss off the military industrial complex.

==========

Whether New Democrats' relatively conservative positions are caused by fear of Republicans, or a misunderstanding of the real world, or a genuine commitment to moderately conservative principles, I cannot answer that one.

[votervoice]

50. Communists infiltrate Democrats

Communists infiltrating the Democratic Party? Get the story here: <http://www.examiner.com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m1d26-Communist-infiltration-of-Democrats-has-created-identity-crisis-for-Marxists>

[Political Heretic]

51. It's very simple: New Democrats = Corporatists Democrats

Socially liberal, Economically conservative, internationally hawkish, though typically in a somewhat more subdued way than your garden variety neocon.