The centrist think tanks appear to have succeeded in neutralizing the Democratic party.

[madfloridian]

I refer to this meaning of "neutralize" which I found on Word Web.

"Make politically neutral and thus inoffensive"

Their stated goal has been to change policy so that no one would be tempted not to vote for a Democrat.

The DLC's former head, Al From, said it just that plainly. This is from a 2009 interview with him at the WP.

Al From interview

"One of the important things we had to do in 1992 was remove the obstacles that kept people from voting Democratic in the first place," he said.

That included addressing issues of welfare, fiscal discipline and crime. "As long as people thought we were going to take money from people who worked and give it to people who didn't work, they didn't want to listen to anything else," he added. "The Republicans have to make people understand that they're not just a right-wing, southern party."

Notice how hard it is to get anything done for the poor, needy, the unemployed. Notice how easy it is to get stuff for the rich who don't need it.

Here is more from that interview about Obama and "post-partisanship." Note the similarity to what has happened recently on the national scene.

The other advice he offered was for Obama to make good on the campaign promise to create a post-partisan politics. Swing voters are especially important in this era of polarized politics, he argued, and Democrats should do nothing to cede the center to the Republicans. Because nothing in politics is permanent.

"Post-partisanship is not going to be a compromise between the two old orthodoxies. It's sort of creating a new politics," From said. "I think we're pretty early to make a judgment as to how the administration's going to go, but I also do think it's important for Democrats to remember that if we aren't careful, it's possible to get pulled back into some of the bad habits that got us in trouble two decades ago."

Bad habits? Really? Like listening to the traditional constituents of your party?

Another founder of the centrist think tank echoed Al From.

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

That "ideological" freedom is showing itself clearly now.

The decision to become a "business-led" party began a couple of decades ago. It is seeing fruition now. We knew it was happening. Trouble is the only way to stop it would be to hurt the party ourselves, and most of us never wanted to do that.

From The American Prospect in 2001

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse–style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, pro–free market outlook.

It's hard to argue that they haven't succeeded.

Today's is not your father's Democratic Party. Though the dwindling chorus of party progressives provides counterpoint, today's Democrats are proud to claim the mantle of budgetary moderation. They oppose President Bush's $2-trillion tax-cut plan not by arguing mainly for more spending on health, education, and welfare, but because it risks the new sacred cause of paying off the national debt. They are the party of increased military spending, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and partnership with religious faith. They are the party of Ending Welfare As We Know It, the party of The Era of Big Government Is Over.

I remember this post from a blog called The Horse's Ass. I have quoted from it before because of the not so elegant way the blogger spoke about bi-partisanship.

From 2007

When the media establishment moralistically calls for more bipartisanship, this is what they are talking about: Democrats caving and crossing the aisle to vote with the Republican block. It almost never happens the other way around on the most important issues of the day. Almost Never.

The issue here was simple. Is simulated drowning torture, and thus illegal? Mukasey, soon to be our nation’s top law enforcement official, refused to say. So this noble display of bipartisanship now confirms that the United States of America is a nation that condones torture.

Fuck bipartisanship.

This is almost exactly like 2007 when the whole media scene was yelling for bipartisanship. The difference is that we have a Democratic president who is actually carrying out the "bipartisan" theme.

From 2007... sounds like today unless you look at the date.

Since we won the election in November 2006, the spokespersons for this group have been front and center on TV. They are pushing for all of us not to be partisan, not to be angry about what Bush has done to this country, pushing for unity, pushing for bipartisanship.

That means they get to have their agenda, because the right wing is going to keep fighting fiercely. It looks like our side is the only one getting the shaft.

I love some of the bloggers today, they are really digging in their heels on this.

Digby's Bipartisan Zombies...a great read

Bipartisan Zombies

"Today we have none other than the centrist drivel king, David Broder, reporting that a group of useless meddlers, most of whom who were last seen repeatedly stabbing Bill Clinton in the back, are rising from their crypts to demand that the candidates all promise to appoint a "unity" government and govern from the the center --- or else they will back an independent Bloomberg bid."

The unity movement did not make headway. So they called it the new No Labels movement.

The DLC has ceded real power apparently to the Third Way.

Other than that it's all the same.

[upi402]

1. Yeah, big vacancy

:wind whistling:

[HillbillyBob]

2. and the evilgelicals etc made it impossible for sanity to be heard

fuck them fuck the pukes. and ostracize the selfservative dems. Lets get some progressives going.
I still have a hard time believing murikkkans are so gobstopping stupid sheeple.

[madfloridian]

3. No Labels idea of "bipartisanship".

http://nolabels.org/blog/building-bipartisanship/

It speaks of what a great job the deficit commission did.

It's really all just words.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I visited their web site just a few days ago. That is one scary group. Scary because they manage . .

. . . to sound reasonable.

[madfloridian]

21. Check out their about page.

Lots of DLC PPI players in the founders. And some of the Republicans worry me.

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. Too true.

[madfloridian]

8. The fight on the "left" the "liberals"...by whatever name...is intensifying.

It is getting ugly.

Anyone who disagrees with the party leaders is fringe, left, liberal...not terms of endearment.

It's getting scary.

[ohiogringo]

5. More like neutering, especially with Obama at the helm...

Please forgive the sexism, but for the last two years I have not seen a national Democratic Party with any blankety-blank BALLS! Obama has caved to the Republicans at every opportunity, and sometimes, like with his latest giveaway-to-the-rich tax deal, has done so without even being asked by them! It was only yesterday that House Democrats finally stood up and actually said, "Just Say No!"

Is Obama really a Democrat? He sure acts like a Republican, does he not, MadFlo?

[boppers]

6. TLDR eom

[madfloridian]

9. Urban Dictionary on TLDR....

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TLDR

Interesting comments, read them.

[boppers]

33. They were all too long. :)

(And, another kick for the OP)

[bobbolink]

7. ""As long as people thought we were going to take money from people who worked and give it to people

who didn't work, "

And that is precisely what we now hear frequently on DU.

It doesn't matter who you hurt or kill, as long as you perceive yourself to be getting votes.

[Starry Messenger]

10. k&r

[David Zephyr]

11. k&r.

n/t

[Cerridwen]

13. "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/soul-new-machine">"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist">grover norquist quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey">dick armey.

[madfloridian]

14. Ah, thanks for the link to that telling article. I need to read it again...

and again. And again. THAT is what we are up against.

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

15. You're welcome. *That* is exactly what we're up against.

*That* is exactly what we were up against 20 years ago...and further back in history. I know that and you know that.

I fought these people in the trenches. The women who came before me fought them in the trenches.

No truce was ever called.

You and I can NOT be the only ones who know that.



:hi:

[Marr]

16. Post-partisan = two essentially identical, corporate parties

It describes a state run by and for the corporatocracy, with only the a thin, unsubstantial illusion of democracy.

[bluestate10]

17. Incremental progress is better than no progress.

Name any important policy victory of the last 80 years. Every single one was delivered by a moderate democratic President, from FDR to Clinton. Read FDR's full record, you will see that he was the commensurate moderate who took piecemeal victories when insisting on more would have produced nothing.

[madfloridian]

18. We are going backwards on some issues...

Sorry but that is the truth. Cutting payroll taxes on SS...will lead to real problems. Not necessary.

Selling out our public schools.

We did not have to have piecemeal victories with the majority we had.

[Cerridwen]

19. So, you're saying nothing has changed? It's all "business as usual"? n/t

[bobbolink]

20. You *do* realize that poor people are going backwards, don't you?

Of course you do, but it doesn't fit in with your scenario, so it is of no consequence.

Its a really good thing you don't need our votes.

[bluestate10]

24. I am first and far most a democrat, who cherishes the party's core principles.

Please do not attempt to dismiss me. I was born and have lived most of my life as part of the poor. I understand that struggle, but my approach is to do something concrete every day to be helpful in the fight against poverty, joblessness and hopelessness. I don't think complaining and viewing even small efforts to progress toward a more equitable society as bad is helpful at all. Could Obama have done better? I don't know, I did not get a look at the information that he had before him.

[madfloridian]

25. We can NOT afford 2 yrs of tax cuts for the very very rich.

And at the end of those two years, the GOP will be in power and extend them.

I thought we gave them a big enough majority to get something done.

[bluestate10]

29. There was never a majority. There never will be a majority that votes

liberal. Look, it easy for me to write it because I am a moderate, but the best governance for the country is moderate to moderate-progressive (but far from liberal). It served them for the midterms, but the republican's drift to the far right will destroy that party once they get more power on Jan 1. My prediction sounds counter intuitive, if one stay fixated on the midterms. Republicans with power start trying to impose regressive social policies, the great majority of the country is moving forward away from those policies. The people that do like republican policies and gave them a powerful boost during midterms are aged and will largely die off over the next decade, leaving a more concentrated moderate to moderate-progressive base of voters. If Obama taps into the center and is seen by that block to be better than any republican rival when push comes to shove, Obama will win re-election in a walk, even without many liberals and all of the far left.

[madfloridian]

30. Of course he will win. That is not my point.

He is just another in the long line of capitulating party leaders who have lead us to this place in history.

We worked our butts off and cared with our hearts in 2003, saw Dean brought down by a party that considered him fringe.

We worked again in 2006 and 2008.

Look where we are. Our president just insulted those he considers liberals, whether they are moderate or left or whatever. Anyone who doesn't go along is labeled left or fringe.

No one forced our Democrats to do this. They got to this point by wanting corporate money more than they wanted to stand for their beliefs.

I don't care if you are a moderate. I was raised in a fundamentalist mostly Republican with career military...the stereotypical conservative family.

I have changed because I see the danger in capitulating anymore.

This is a sad time in our country. And I and others must walk on eggshells in criticizing or we won't be here anymore. So many good ones gone just lately. Heartbreaking.

[madfloridian]

31. And there was a majority. They just did not stand for the people.

They stood with the corporations who funded them.

Yes, indeed, there was a majority. They just went in the wrong direction.

[bobbolink]

35. I wish this system wouldn't give false reports of a post not posting. :(

......

[bobbolink]

36. And therein lies the problem. Most of us are for the country and its citizens "first and foremost"

(Notice: it is FOREMOST, not "farmost")

Anyone or any group who has made changes for the better throughout history has "complained", and been vilified for it by the status-quo keepers.

Your same words were applied to those who fought for Civil Rights, abolition, environmentalism, the rights of children... the list goes on and on, throughout history.

I came of age during the second wave of feminism, and the very same things were said then, "You're not helping your 'cause'", and worse.

Telling someone who is suffering and working for change that they are "complaining" is RW tactics, and very insensitive and uncaring.

I'm guessing that "doing something every day" involves charity of some sort... we have dealt with homelessness with charity now for over 30 years, and you may have noticed it isn't getting better -- it is getting worse by leaps and bounds.

The true struggle is always for JUSTICE, and when your party decides that is important to them, THEN the "change" will happen.
Not until then.

[bluestate10]

39. reply

(Notice: it is FOREMOST, not "farmost") - Oh well, if you want to cast a stone, do so.

Anyone or any group who has made changes for the better throughout history has "complained", and been vilified for it by the status-quo keepers. - groups that have brought about change DID NOT complain, they highlighted problems then took concrete action to fix those problems. A far cry from the crying that I see on the DU.

Your same words were applied to those who fought for Civil Rights, abolition, environmentalism, the rights of children... the list goes on and on, throughout history. - You wrote a key word, they "FOUGHT". What I see from many is complaining with no practical, actionable solutions offered. If one thinks big business is greedy, start up alternative companies. There is opportunity to make lasting change everywhere out "there". Those opportunities will not be realized by insular, preaching to like minds, complaining.

I came of age during the second wave of feminism, and the very same things were said then, "You're not helping your 'cause'", and worse. - Moderates are most responsible for bringing about positive change for women. Moderates voted in politicians that made change. Liberals and feminists did not have the numbers required to accomplish change.

Telling someone who is suffering and working for change that they are "complaining" is RW tactics, and very insensitive and uncaring. - I work for change every day. I want more moderate and progressive people to quietly bring about change. If I insulted you in this area, I plead for forgiveness.

I'm guessing that "doing something every day" involves charity of some sort... we have dealt with homelessness with charity now for over 30 years, and you may have noticed it isn't getting better -- it is getting worse by leaps and bounds. - I contribute to charities with donations of cash and by buying extra when I shop and giving to food banks. You are right, the problem is getting worse. Jobs are going away that will never come back unless we change our buying decisions, buy from companies that resist the urge to export jobs, those companies are out there, just web search "USA made products" then view the rich source of information on companies that are fighting the destruction of our economy and american workers. Many people want jobs and can't find them, I donate to food banks because it is better to help feed them until enough business people that work to keep jobs here in the USA have had time to work their magic.

The true struggle is always for JUSTICE, and when your party decides that is important to them, THEN the "change" will happen. - I agree with your point that the central theme is about fighting for justice and equality, it is just that as a moderate, I prefer to work quietly and relentlessly in the shadows. My running the risk of a cop rearranging my cranium with a nightstick is not how I want to try to bring about change.
Not until then.

Keep fighting in the way that you fight. We have different methods and different viewpoints, but I am confident that we are trying to get to the same place.

[laughingliberal]

22. K & R nt

[JDPriestly]

23. So we need to start educating the public.

Send the Bernie Sanders link to all your friends and family as soon as it is up. He talks the language everyone understands. That's what the Republicans have done -- focused on the language -- on communication. We haven't that very well until now.

We progressives are on the right side on all the policies that people are concerned about.

[bobbolink]

37. Yes, sadly, it is up to us... and we should have been doing it LONG ago.

"We progressives are on the right side on all the policies that people are concerned about."

Not all, unless poor folk aren't considered "people".

There is NO Democratic Party action on poverty.... it is going backwards.

[WCGreen]

26. I got suckered into the idea back in 1994...

But by 1995, I realized they were just republican light.

the problem was that the people who made up the Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Ohio) Democratic Party were mostly conservatives who shut out any liberal talk because they felt it would threaten the overwhelming number of democrats holding office and thus turn off the base by losing control of the jobs needed to secure votes from unions and minions.

Idealism is a wonderful thing in theory. In practice, too often self interest trumps the greater good which is why, I believe, conservative ideology is so attractive to people in capitalistic economic structures.

The main question most people think of first is what's in it for me...

[Jefferson23]

27. I was just listening to an interview with David Brooks on Charlie Rose.

Brooks is singing the exact same song..same talking points. This was a good week he said, Obama's vision is
for one America. Sounds nice eh? A DemoRep Party.

Creepy is what it is.

[madfloridian]

28. A one-party country.

Heading toward the right. It's so obvious.

[Hardrada]

32. Heard this before as in Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Fuhrer

They just haven't found the right Fuhrer for us yet.

[Jefferson23]

34. I wish it were not true, but they are pushing it right...so right it is scary.

The last straw for me has been the continued tax cuts for the rich..there was NO fight/push-back....nothing from Obama.



Your threads, always a great read mads. :hi:

[madfloridian]

41. Unfortunately it is true. That is what "post partisan" means.

Thanks for the kind words.

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. "Neutering" would be a more apt term.

[madfloridian]

40. ....

I agree, but I decided the other word was safer. :-)

[Crowman1979]

42. WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR BIPARTISANSHIP!!!! WE VOTED FOR F***IN CHANGE, WHICH WE DID NOT GET!!!

How many times do the damn democratic party have to be told that? We shouldn't compromise with Rethugs whose sole mission was to stab us in the back.

[Jefferson23]

43. Mayor Bloomberg doing his part in the neutralizing agenda:

The organization, known as No Labels, kicks off Monday in New York with a series of panels discussing some key political problems in America and how it can help find common ground.”

If you don’t have a side, you don’t get to play when it comes time to make the deal.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-11/why-new-york-mayor-michael-bloomberg-wont-run-for-president-in-2012/


More here:

“No Labels” promises to bring centrist Democrats, Republicans and independents together to form 50 state chapters and support middle-of-the-road policies and candidates. Much of the initial pundit chatter has focused on whether politicians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Connecticut U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman—both of whom plan to attend Monday—will seek to use the group as a base for 2012 candidacies (Bloomberg for president, Lieberman for reelection as senator).

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/will_no_label_a_harm_charge/id_32006


No Labels says it all, nice cover.