Are we headed for schism (progressives / DLC)?

[redqueen]

Poll question: Are we headed for schism (progressives / DLC)?

The DLC and those that subscribe to their brand of republican-lite has obviously not got many fans around here.

I'm curious how a poll might look...

[ecstatic]

1. I think the DLC thing is not cut and dry because almost all of our current Dem leaders

have tainted themselves by approving bad policy at one point or another. What about Kerry? What about Gore? How is one excused from DLC? Through an apology? It's best to just focus on the issues without getting caught up with who is DLC or not.

[redqueen]

3. How elected officials deal with issues

is often closely related to whether or not they are affiliated with the DLC.

It was just brought to my attention that as recently as last summer, Al Gore was on TV lying about NAFTA's effects on immigration.

Just when I start warming up to the guy again... UGH!

[porphyrian]

4. Perhaps the distinction should be populist-corporatist.

The DLC strategy, which is corporatist, pretty much abandons most of us for money in the name of "winning elections," although their strategy actually lost us 2000, 2002 and 2004. And, while they like to claim credit for 2006, that was actually the success of Dean's populist strategy, so they lose again.

[redqueen]

6. The thing is, those that support the DLC

would balk at labeling the group as 'corporatist'. They would ask you for proof of this. As if history is not a reliable indicator...

[porphyrian]

9. Their history, and their membership, is their proof. They are lying or delusional if they deny it.

They have consistently put money above people in the name of winning, which they haven't been able to do since Clinton left office. Their one-trick pony doesn't work any more, and I see no reason to continue repeating their failure in hopes that it will work again when the populist approach has been proven to work now.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Why not? I get caught up in who is in the progressive caucus, who's working with Move-on,

who attends the morning prayer meetings with Nyquist, and all sorts of other stuff.

The DLC has taken lots of policy positions on lots of issues and those are certainly worth examining. They aren't official Democratic Party Platform issues, although the DLC certainly attempts to make them so.

I think the Democrats need to run on peace and justice in Iraq and Iran, Single Payer Health Care insurance for all, and strengthening Democracy at home including but not limited to open citizen run/citizen viewed paper ballot auditable elections, no political speech rights for for profit corporations, felony penalties for attempting to fraudulently disrupt or dissuade voters from exercising their franchise.

I know the DLC wouldn't back those demands, so yes, it's important to understand the issues and which candidates support which issues before choosing a candidate.

The DLC doesn't represent me and my families priorities. So I tend to view their candidates with extra caution.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Primaries bring this out. It's the proper time for reflection and pondering,.

[quinnox]

5. I put I don't know

only because there wasn't a satisfactory option besides support and don't support. DLC is just another political organization and i don't care one way or another who is or isn't a member. The whole DLC controversy is a manufactured crisis that is only important to the 'netroots' IMHO

[redqueen]

7. Only important to the 'netroots'?

Their method of triangulating our interests away was a threat before the netroots existed.

[Seabiscuit]

8. Headed for????

Hell, there's been far more than a "schism" between the DLC and the progressives right here on DU for longer than I've been posting here. More like Moses parting the Red Sea.

I've seen freepers in freeperland that are more palatable then some of the DLC'ers on this website.

[catmandu57]

12. That's what I thought

There already is a deep divide, I stand firmly with the progressive arm.

[Cerridwen]

10. Other - I think the schism that exists has existed throughout

the Democratic Party's history. Now we have labels for the factions, DLC, Blue Dog Democrats, the New Democrat Network and so on and so forth. Now we have access to information which allows us to know the labels and the members of the various factions. Now we have the information to see the "interests" represented by each faction and we can investigate to see "who benefits" which then influences which faction we support based on our own "benefits" or perceived benefits.

I think the myth of a monolithic party is dieing a slow, painful death.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. More like an acknowledgment of a schism between left and right.

It's always been with us as Democrats. The DLC is just the current manifestation of the right wing of the party preaching "moderation" and "practical politics" while selling the left down the river.

[Greyhound]

25. ...and keeping Republcans in their seats. n/t

[Lerkfish]

13. AFAIK, the DLC admits to being the elite minority of the democratic party who feels

they need to bring the rest of the party to heel.

at least, that's how they look at it.

Personally, I welcome them under the big tent, but I don't let them walk away with the tent pole just cause they think they deserve to lead.

[bryant69]

14. Too early for a purge

The truth is that those who have more radical agendas around here still need the Moderates - you haven't gotten rid of Bush and the Congress isn't a lock either. So as much as you might wish you could get rid of us Moderates (including both those who support the Sellout DLC and those (like me) who don't), you can't afford to just yet.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Greyhound]

27. The notion that the DLC is moderate is another piece of their propaganda,

they are the fifth columnists of the corporate party that attempt to coopt the moderate label, and thereby give their heinous agenda the appearance of legitimacy.

"Ignore what they say, watch what they do."

[Gryphons Eyre]

16. I have already gone on record regarding this but...

Many comments being made here are true such as there has always has been a left, middle, and right to the Democratic party.

This is a difference though. Lately in investigating the DLC, Th Jewish Lobby, The Council for National Policy; Cato institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute; you start to see patterns emerging. The same names keep popping up. Funding coming from the same people producing the same results.

You start looking into the origins of the DLC and you will not be so sure this is like anything else.

Consider this:

Jackson and Moynihan: The Missing Links

To show exactly what the DLC's and Brazile's invoking the legacy of Scoop Jackson means, a brief look at the 1970s, when the neo-conservatives in the Democratic Party grouped themselves into the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM), is necessary. The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators Jackson and Moynihan. The Cold Warrior and fanatically pro-Israel Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today. The DLC's former President, Sen. Joe Lieberman declares he is proud to be identified as a " 'Scoop' Jackson Democrat." It was these two Senators' offices that housed the Leo Straussian "Children of Satan" behind the no-exit Iraq War.

From Jackson's staff came:

* Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense and a leading Straussian chicken-hawk;

* Richard Perle (on Jackson's staff from 1969 until going into the Defense Department in 1981), and until his recent forced resignation, chairman of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board. It is reported that Perle maintains Democratic Party membership to this day, out of fealty to Scoop. Perle later brought along Doug Feith, now Rumsfeld's Undersecretary for Policy, who has been a Perle "groupie" since the late 1970s, largely due to Feith's family background deep in the terrorist movement founded by Zionist fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky. In the 1980s, Feith financed Perle through the International Advisers Inc., a firm in which Feith was the only stockholder;

* Frank Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy, a "private" neo-con group which cheerleads for imperial wars and brutally anti-Palestinian policies;

From Moynihan's office came:

* Elliott Abrams, an Iran/Contra convict who now tries to shape Administration Middle East policy from the National Security Council staff;

* Abram Shulsky, who heads the Office of Special Plans under Feith in the Pentagon, which concocted fraudulent intelligence estimates used by the Administration to justify the Iraq War;

* Gary Schmitt, the head of the empire-promoting Project for a New American Century and a close collaborator of Shulsky. Schmitt worked under Roy Godson of the National Strategy Information Center in the early 1980s. Anti-LaRouche operative Godson was active in the CDM in the 1970s, narrowly escaped prosecution in the Iran-Contra scandals of the 1980s, and now is a consultant to Feith and Shulsky's Office of Special Plans.

Any names you recognize in there?

The CDM was perhaps the precursor to the DLC. I would suggest people here defending the DLC look a little closer at who is associated to whom. I have always believed if you belong to the same club it most likely means you have similar thoughts on things or am I wrong on that.

Lastly and most importantly we can no longer do along to avoid confrontation hoping to remain centrist. I believe Democrats need to be bold in their leadership; the nation is ready for new direction but if Democrats continue to appear as what might be considered Republican-lite then the policy changes imperative to the very survival of the United States let along the party agenda remains in doubt for me.

g

[redqueen]

19. THANK YOU!

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. 'Schism' as in 'separate political parties'?

That sounds unlikely to me. Both camps have too much to lose.

And if you don't split into 2 parties, it's not a 'schism', in my view.

[Infinite Hope]

18. You didn't include a neutral category for those who do know enough about them, but remain neutral.

Further, the post title is different from the poll question. You should put the actual poll question in the title instead of some other question.

[redqueen]

20. I didn't think that was possible.

To remain neutral, I mean...

As far as naming the poll the same as the subject line... eh.

[Infinite Hope]

32. The world isn't black and white. It's not "for or against." I support good Democrats regardless...

...of various caucuses and groups they may belong to. Al Gore and Howard Dean would both have made great presidents. One's a DLCer and one isn't.

[LeftishBrit]

I may be wrong, but my impression has always been that the within-party differences were actually

greater a generation ago.

E.g. there probably isn't a Democrat now who would be anything like as right-wing as George Wallace or James Eastland.

Or am I wrong on this?

[Redbear]

21. I tend to see it as two separate groups who have a common interest

in defeating Republicans.

Does a lot of stuff (i.e. triangulation) Hillary does and says make me angry? Yes

Will I do all I can to get her elected if she is the nominee? Yes

[redqueen]

24. Yes, I'll work for the nominee as well.

I just would like to see more than baby steps toward progress.

[k_jerome]

22. flamebait post. nt.

[Cerridwen]

23. Yours you mean? Yep, I agree. As to the rest of the thread

it looks like a lot of even and somewhat reasoned debate back and forth; for almost 3 hours now.

Slow burn?



edit typo

[H2O Man]

26. I do not

support the DLC. I do not believe that I have much in common with that segment of the democratic party. I support the liberal/progressive/left wing of the party. I think that I have far more in common with the left-of-democratic party folks (Greens, Socialists, etc) than with DLC-types.

[Greyhound]

28. It appears we have our own 30%ers.

Will we let them cost us yet another election?

[gravity]

29. I'll support them

until the democrats win the presidency, along with both houses of Congress. For me its more important to kick the republicans out first. Afterwards we can resume to party infighting, which is inevitable with the dems.

[Cerridwen]

30. :D

I think we're going to work at winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress as we continue the infighting. Something a little new and different, maybe? LOL

[redqueen]

31. See post 28. I agree with greyhound

that it's the milquetoast "repub lite" crap that's costing us votes.