Seems the "intellectual leveraged buyout" of the Democratic party has worked quite well.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-13-10 11:41 PM
Original message

Seems the "intellectual leveraged buyout" of the Democratic party has worked quite well.

That is a statement made by Rob Shapiro in 1992 about the goals of the Democratic Leadership Council. I never have forgotten this article from that year entitled "Al From, the Life of the Party".

It was written by Lloyd Grove, then of the Washington Post. It painted a picture of what our party has faced since then.

Al From, the Life of the Party

Senator Herman Talmadge attributed Al From's Southern twang to his hanging around so many Dixie Centrists.

But some would suggest a different explanation for From's -- pronounced "frahm's" -- strange and mysterious mode of speech, which occasionally recalls former Georgia Sen. Herman Talmadge, jaw chock-full of tobacco juice. It's all those Dixie centrists he's been consorting with during his seven years at the helm of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Rob Shapiro, the DLC VP at the time, and a Clinton advisor, spoke clearly about their purpose.

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.

Unprofitable mind-sets sold off to be more efficient. We have learned through the years that a whole lot of Democratic ideals were considered "unprofitable mind-sets"...and they had to go.

I have been thinking of this comment from 1992 as we see a commission appointed by the president putting Social Security on the table and not backing down at all.

I have thought of it as I realize this group is getting their long-time goal of charter schools accomplished finally under this administration.

They are still lecturing the left, the liberals to stop complaining. There was a July article at their website saying just that, warning journalists on the left not to complain.

Less of the complaining ...

As midterm elections approach, administrations invariably find their critics most irate -- and often find their friends least helpful. So it is today, as the Obama administration and the 111th Congress find not only conservative attack but a steady drone of complaints from the left. Columnist Eric Alterman, in a long Nation piece this month, is typical of the latter: The health bill lacks a public option, Congress hasn't passed a climate change bill or changed labor law, the political field is tilted, "the Obama administration has been a big disappointment," liberals should indulge themselves in a big pout.

We gently respond: Less of the complaining. In circumstances more difficult than those most presidents face, the Obama administration and Congress have built a remarkably good record. Eighteen months ago they inherited an economy in free fall, losing 700,000 jobs a month. They made correct and courageous decisions on financial system rescue and stimulus, which prevented a crisis from evolving into a 1930s-style disaster with no exit. And they followed up with a remarkable legislative record -- not in health alone but in education, trade adjustment, financial services reform, and more.

It never crosses their minds that we on the "left" might be right, that we actually might have been right about invading Iraq, about the public option, about keeping public education out of private hands.

I have come to hold Robert Reich in high regard lately. I remembered something from a review of his book in 1997. The book was called Locked in the Cabinet. It was a strange section that was quoted in the review.

Review of Locked in the Cabinet

The reviewer sets up the scenario by saying "Reich and his wife Clare, and Bill and Hillary go to Kinkaid's, an elegant restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue. It's a good-bye dinner for Clare, who is going back to Cambridge with their two sons. Over dessert, Reich can't help himself."

Reich says:

'After all, we're balancing the budget and sacrificing public investment so that corporations have more money to invest. At the least, we should expect them to invest with their employees and communities in mind.'

There's an awkward pause. Have I overstepped the line?

'It seems to me,' says Clare, weighing her words carefully, 'that corporations are downsizing not only themselves but also a big part of the middle class.'

She's bailed me out. I want to kiss her on the spot. I throw caution to the winds and ask B, 'Would you be comfortable saying what Clare just said?'

'I have to keep myself from saying it everyday,' he says softly. 'I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing.'

See, that is what is so wrong about all of it. Why in the world would a president say he can't be criticizing, he can't be "out in front" on these issues? Why in hell not?

And our party leaders are still not "out in front" on the issues that are vital to people in order to live with dignity? Why in hell not?