![]() |
By Rob Kall (about the author) Page 2 of 3 page(s)
"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration; the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home," From and Reed wrote in a fiery memo titled "The Real Soul of the Democratic Party" on May 15, 2003. Four days later, after Dean won the endorsement of the 1.5 million-member public employees union AFSCME, the DLC denounced the union as "fringe activists." But others were having second thoughts--about strategy and the DLC. As Dean surged ahead, DNC chairman and Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe told From to quiet the attacks. All nine Democratic contenders skipped the DLC's annual convention in Philadelphia.
Berman describes how the DLC rejected Howard Dean. I'm guessing they probably did all they could to keep this upstart from winning. And they ended up with a more malleable John Kerry. Berman describes,The media coverage of its attacks, plus Dean's own implosion, breathed temporary life into the DLC, as it assumed a large role in John Kerry's policy shop. As the Anybody But Bush movement mobilized, the DLC quietly pushed Kerry rightward, dubbing him "a pragmatic centrist in the Clinton mode."
s. The organization now claims hundreds of state elected officials in the New Democratic directory published on its website. Some, like Bayh or Lieberman, are true believers. Others are happy for the free publicity gained from attending a conference or being named "New Democrat of the Week." And for politicians in red states, joining the DLC offers political cover. "It's the easiest, cheapest way for a politician who wants to be equated with a 'different kind of Democrat,'" says former Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, who endorsed Rosenberg for DNC chair. "It doesn't mean anything anymore."
After Kerry's defeat, the DLC promised to "avoid the circular firing squad" mentality but then quickly broke the promise, reverting to its favorite target: the Democratic base. Instead of labor unions and feminists, the DLC fixated on MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. "We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore," the DLC wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, of all places. "What leftist elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon," the DLC's Will Marshall wrote in Blueprint, the group's magazine, in a rant worthy of The Weekly Standard. "Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." The DLC continued this vitriol into March.
For example, fourteen members of the House New Democratic Coalition earned perfect ratings from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action in 2002 or 2003. "The mothership idea of a New Democrat was never shared by the DLC's rank and file, and it's less so today," says Teixeira. The House Coalition lost thirty-six members over the past two years. "Their universe of federal elected officials is relatively small," adds Baer. Of course, the fact that a New Democratic Coalition even exists is testament to the DLC's past success in creating, identifying and marketing a New Democratic brand.
Centrist elected officials have prospered with the DLC's institutional backing, a luxury never afforded to alternative groups like the House Progressive Caucus, which has failed to translate its sizable membership into lasting influence. (Its website hasn't been updated since the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action in June 2003.) In the Senate, progressives are even less organized. The fact that conservative Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln speak through the New Democratic Coalition while center-left Dems like Patrick Leahy and Byron Dorgan lack institutional support is one way the DLC survives.
Berman's article goes on to describe the downfall of the DLC:Now the DLC's archnemesis is in charge of rebuilding the Democratic Party.
Dean won't be alone. The progressive infrastructure that helped keep Kerry alive and began crafting a sharper Democratic message--America Votes, Progressive Majority, Camp Wellstone, Democracy for America, Center for American Progress, Air America Radio, Media Matters, the blogosphere--now exerts a greater degree of influence, bankrolled by new, wealthy outsiders and small donors who share similar goals. George Soros and Peter Lewis have pledged $100 million over the next fifteen years to support a permanent idea factory rivaling right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the mushy centrism of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute. "We've come to represent a way of doing politics that is dangerous to people in DC who have a nice little niche," says MoveOn.org executive director Eli Pariser. "Bringing in the grassroots will mean a loss of influence for some of the establishment folks."
The fact is, the DLC is built upon a highly dishonest attempt at presenting a liberal, progressive image. Take a look under the hood of this decrepit jalopy being sold by sleazy used car salesmen and you find a piece of junk that parasitized its reputation on the back of Bill Clinton's charisma. But now, we have the DLC's Queen Hillary, embracing and leading in the selling of these stale, non-Democrat ideas, these republican-lite ideas. She is, as the chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative, unerasably tied to their backwards, conservative policies.
The future of true progressive politics includes making war with the DLC, running primary opponents against and defeating DLC sponsored incumbent Democrats, and running the leaders and ideas of the DLC out of Washingotn D.C.. They misguidedly believe they are the future, when in fact, they are, as Obama has characterized Hillary, the past.
So, to wrap this up, I want to be clear. The reason I oppose Hillary Clinton is because she is a leader of the DLC, which is anathema to progressive politics. She's bad for the Democratic party, bad for the future, bad for America. The only way she'll win the primary is by destroying Barack Obama and very possibly, the Democratic party along with it.
It is sad that this particular woman has raised the hopes of women, nationwide, even worldwide, who would so much like to see a woman president. I prayed to see a strong woman candidate enter the primaries. It didn't happen. We ended up with Hillary. She's a bit better than some of the Republican members of congress, but not a whole lot. If she somehow trashes Obama enough to cause him to lose the primary (I don't want to call causing someone to lose the same as winning,) I may even vote for her. But it will be a dispirited, unenthusiastic vote and I will certainly not go out and canvas and work hard for her.
Here in the suburbs of Philly, where I live, where they say, the toughest part of the coming primary will be fought, I attended a meeting of local democrats in a township that is predominantly Republican. Even here, the vast majority of the Democrats are supporting Obama.
It's unlikely that PA will make a big difference for Hillary, in terms of delegates or popular vote. It will be close. She will not win a landslide here, even with the help of DLC Governor Ed Rendell.
By the way, two years ago, at a progressive conference, I asked Ed Rendell, in front of a lot of people, if he would work with progressives in the state. He encouraged me to fax him. I did, but got no response. I saw him at the grange fair and handed him a copy of the faxed message I'd sent him, calling for the beginning of discussions between him and progressives. No response.
The DLC leaders want to see progressives and progressive organizations just disappear. Too bad. It looks like the opposite is happening.
I'm not one of the Obamamaniac who go gaga over him. He's a bit more conservative than I would like and I preferred Edwards and Kucinich. But I can get used to him, and will love to see the day that Obama hammers the nails in the coffin of the DLC, by taking their flagship, superstar candidate out of the picture. Once Hillary loses the primary, the DLC will drop that much lower in power and influence and that's great news for progressives.
A last remark. I write this from a personal perspective, not in my leadership capacity at OpEdNews.com. OpEdNews.com has made it clear that it is open to articles supporting all candidates for president and will continue to take that approach, even bending over backwards to publish articles that might not ordinarily be accepted based on writing standards, if they represent candidates who are under-represented on the site.
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 13 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |