FYI: The DLC takeover of the Democratic Party

[Guest guest]

The following post from THE PROGRESSIVE is sent FYI

to document the change of focus in the Democratic Party.

The DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council or what Jesse

Jackson has called the Democrat's Leisure Class. Make no

mistake, Gore-Liberman is pro-status quo and " pro-business

as usual. " Gore is likely more right-wing than Bush...

Feel free to pass this on.

 

Vote Green for real change. Nader offers a better alternative.

 

Behind the DLC Takeover

 

By John Nichols

 

At the national convention of a major political party, an

ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph.

It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the

Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful

corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private

club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the

delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully

monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization

had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured

and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team

of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the

party's grassroots.

 

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford

or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the

Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)

burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

 

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as

the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party

dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful

than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter

Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of

mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that

their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to

the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans,

Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

 

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America,

who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a

movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the

American political debate has been dramatic. The group now

controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic

Party.

 

A day is soon coming when " we'll finally be able to proclaim that

all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats, " declared DLC

President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National

Convention.

 

The triumphalist talk was backed up by the reality of the

convention. Vice President Al Gore, a man present at the

founding of the DLC and loyal to the organization ever since, was

nominated for the Presidency. Connecticut Senator Joseph

Lieberman, the current president of the DLC and very possibly

the truest of its true believers, was nominated for the Vice

Presidency.

 

And, with virtually no debate, the convention endorsed a platform

that, on the vast majority of issues, deviated radically from the

views of most party members. According to a New York Times

survey of convention delegates, traditional liberalism remained

the most popular ideological stance. Trade union members made

up a quarter of the delegates, and people of color were better

represented than at any major party gathering in the nation's

history.

 

" We have all these progressive Democrats here ready to fight on

issues of economic and social justice, Democrats who know these

are the winning issues and who know that when we fail to run on

them we lose, " said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat

of Illinois. " But, in the leadership positions of the party, we have

the DLC trying to pull us in an entirely different direction. "

 

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. " There

are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like

kinder, gentler Republicans, " he said. " I want us to compete for

that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for

working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt

the benefits of the economic upturn. "

 

It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold,

Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional

Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the

AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and

other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the

DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological

force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.

 

Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, whom the DLC

dismisses as " a cranky peddler of corporate conspiracy theories, "

says publicly what many veteran Democrats admit privately.

" You had Al From and the DLC and the corporate lobbyists

running the Democratic Party convention this year, picking the

candidates, writing the platform, just as they'll run things in the

fall and after November if they're given a chance, " says the

consumer activist. " Even if Al Gore wanted to do the right thing,

which I do not suggest that he does, he would be told by the DLC

and its corporate contributors, 'We're sorry, that's not in the

script.' "

 

Those corporate contributors--whose names fill the lists of givers

to the DLC and a closely linked political arm, the New Democrat

Network--include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont,

General Electric, the Health Insurance Corporation of America,

Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, the National

Association of Mortgage Brokers, Occidental Petroleum,

Raytheon, and much of the rest of the Fortune 500.

 

" With the DLC in a position to influence the Democratic Party,

Wall Street wins either way, " says populist Jim Hightower, who

has abandoned his lifelong loyalty to the Democratic Party this

year in order to back Nader's candidacy. " If the Republicans win,

the corporations have a party in power that will do their bidding.

And if the Democrats win, Wall Street knows the DLC will keep

them in line. "

 

How did the DLC become so powerful? In part, by grabbing hold

of party machinery and hanging on for dear life. As far back as

1988, just three years after the organization's founding, DLC-ers

mounted a full-scale effort to reshape the party. First, they

engineered the development of the Southern " Super Tuesday "

primary in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the Presidential

nomination for a Southerner such as Gore the first time around.

Next, they installed another DLC co-founder, Michigan Governor

James Blanchard, as chair of the party platform committee.

 

But the DLC was unable to shape the course of the party at that

1988 convention.

 

" Although many DLC members found their way into some of the

most important roles at the convention, it did not mean that the

New Democrats had the upper hand, " observes Kenneth S. Baer

in his new book Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of

Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton (University of Kansas).

 

Four years later, however, it was a different--if still somewhat

disappointing--story for the group. As the 1992 campaign geared

up, the DLC and its then-chairman, Arkansas Governor Bill

Clinton, engineered a historic clash between what DLC theorist

Will Marshall describes as " party traditionalists " and the New

Democrats. Long before Clinton's carefully calculated

denunciation of rapper Sister Souljah, the DLC pointedly denied

the Reverend Jesse Jackson a speaking slot at a high-profile 1991

session in Cleveland. (Jackson once memorably said that DLC

stands for " Democrats for the Leisure Class. " )

 

Jackson identified the DLC leadership, most of which hailed from

the Southern states that had made up the Confederacy, as

" Dixiecrats " --a reference to the racist Democrats who blocked

civil rights. The battle of Cleveland was on. The well-publicized

confrontation exposed the DLC's fiscal and ideological ties to

distinctly non-Democratic groups and individuals. Then-Senator

Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, said he was dismayed

that a top Ohio Republican had provided $50,000 in funding for

the DLC gathering and that the event was awash in Philip Morris,

RJR Nabisco, and AT & T money. Then-Representative William

Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who had been a DLC governing

board member, said the group's agenda on affirmative action and

other issues of concern to African Americans " sounds like David

Duke. "

 

Such talk led some liberals to believe they had gained the upper

hand in the struggle with the DLC. But most Democrats,

determined to retake the White House by any means necessary,

chose to ignore the DLC--which was fine by From and his

associates.

 

After the Cleveland debacle, the DLC abandoned the " big tent "

approach that had characterized its early years--when it proudly

counted the likes of House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt,

Democrat of Missouri, in its ranks. The lack of a grassroots base

would have made this narrowing of constituency dangerous for

some groups, but not the DLC. Secure in its corporate funding,

the organization had the money to continue operating as a sort of

upscale fifth column, " an elite organization funded by

elite--corporate and private--donors, " explains Baer.

 

DLC operatives assumed key roles in Clinton's campaign. And

they simply gritted their teeth when the 1992 Democratic nominee

jettisoned the DLC line for the more populist " putting people

first " rhetoric that would ultimately carry him to the White House

with crucial support drawn from labor, minority, and feminist

constituencies.

 

Clinton's 1992 scramble away from DLC language came as no

surprise. He can read a public opinion survey as well as the next

politician. As Democratic pollster and Clinton confidant Stanley

Greenberg noted several years ago, the President's approval

numbers did not begin to rise " until he rejected the advice of

conservatives of the party " and began to adopt populist and

distinctly non-DLC rhetoric on issues ranging from tax policy to

protecting Social Security.

 

Clinton learned early on the dangers of following the DLC line

too closely. After the 1992 election, giddy New Democrats inside

and outside the Administration did much to define the first two

years of the Clinton Presidency. The result was the worst

Democratic electoral setback of the century--a sweeping rejection

of the party caused, in no small measure, by the failure of

millions of working class voters to go to the polls. They were

angered by Clinton's over-the-top backing of the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a DLC signature issue.

 

After the 1994 election, DLC cadres set about shaping political

structures that would give it greater influence within the

Congressional Democratic caucus. They formed the New

Democrat Network, a well-funded group dedicated to electing and

reelecting corporation-friendly Democrats. It expanded the House

membership after both the 1996 and 1998 elections.

 

Today, the DLC is not merely the favored club of Al Gore and

Joe Lieberman. It's also at the center of a web of think tanks,

lobbying groups, and electoral activity designed to create a

new-model Democratic Party. This new party favors Wall

Street-approved free trade pacts, privatization of public services,

school " choice, " business-friendly regulatory " reforms, " and other

planks of the Republican Party's economic platform. The

DLC-tied Progressive Policy Institute has become the prime

Democratic exponent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce line on

globalization: free trade good, protests bad.

 

The DLC got so excited about putting expansion of NAFTA on

fast track in 1997 that it hired lobbyists and aired its first-ever

television ad campaign, a $200,000 initiative that urged viewers

to tell Congress to hand over trade negotiating authority to the

President. Congress said " no " then, but the position resurfaces as

a plank in this year's platform.

 

The Progressive Policy Institute is head cheerleader for the World

Trade Organization (WTO). The institute issues papers with such

titles as " The Progressive Case for a New WTO Round. " And it

was in the forefront of efforts to discredit critics of

corporate-designed trade liberalization. An institute briefing paper

penned by Jenny Bates condemned the rhetoric employed by

WTO critics, arguing that " the approach being adopted by many

of these groups goes beyond reasoned criticism and enters the

realm of vitriolic hyperbole, not employed with such passion

since the activism of the 1960s. "

 

Now, the DLC and its allied groups, particularly the New

Democrat Network, have stepped up efforts to assure that future

trade votes will favor Wall Street over Main Street.

 

" I believe the Democratic Party has to reposition itself on

international issues, " declares California Representative Cal

Dooley, chief of the New Democrat Network.

 

Powered by generous contributions from groups such as

Americans for Free International Trade and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce, the New Democrat Network intervenes on behalf of

business-friendly Democratic Congressional candidates in

primary and general elections. The group already has more than

sixty members in the House Democratic Caucus, and it hopes to

push that figure to eighty after November's election--a goal that

will be advanced with a budget expected to exceed $5 million.

 

Democratic Leadership Council members such as From can

barely contain their glee at the prospect of Al Gore and Joe

Lieberman winning the White House and Democrats taking charge

of the House with a majority that depends on the New Democrats.

 

But rhetorically, Al Gore is not singing from the DLC prayer

book. Like Clinton before him, he has cranked up the populism.

At campaign stops in blue collar cities along the Mississippi

River, the Democratic nominee was bashing " big tobacco, big oil,

the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, " and a

host of other corporate targets. These " which-side-are-you-on "

speeches were decidedly un-DLC in tone and represented an

implicit admission of something most Democrats know all too

well: The DLC message has very little appeal beyond the

beltway.

 

But even as Gore hit the campaign trail with a " give 'em hell "

stump speech that borrowed the old Roosevelt, Truman, and

Ralph Nader critique of economic royalism, Lieberman was

busily assuring a Wall Street Journal reporter that Gore's attacks

on corporations were just " rhetorical flourishes. " The ticket is

" pro-business, " he declared, adding, " Political rallies tend not to

be places for extremely thoughtful argument. "

 

Using the code that conservative Democrats and wealthy

campaign donors have come to understand, the Democratic Vice

Presidential candidate assured corporate America that he and

Gore stood " ready to keep America changing in the New

Democrat direction. "

 

http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

 

John Nichols is Editorial Page Editor of The Capital Times of

Madison, Wisconsin. He wrote " A Minnesota Populist Tries to

Crash the Millionaires' Club " in the September issue.

 

This page, and all contents, are 2000 by The

Progressive, Madison, WI.

[Guest guest]

I'm all for voting for third parties. It's not wasting your vote, it's sending

a message that the two party stranglehold is loosening and that neither the Dems

or the 'Pubs represent we the people any more.

 

-Anna

[Guest guest]

>

> http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

>

 

It is likely that a vote for Gore or Bush will

cancel out all other AR/vegan acts in our lifetime...

one giant step backwards cancels all the little ones

forward...

 

Should give one pause to think about that!

 

It's not enough to just say " no " by not voting at all.

Your refusal to vote gives more weight to all those who do.

 

It is not enough to be vegan in isolation. We must adopt

the most inclusive and comprehensive actions we can engage.

The only way to change the world is to be an agent for that

change in all ways " reasonably " possible and open to you.

You must decide what is reasonable and yet inclusive to

the larger society.

 

I don't see that the Democrats or Republicans offer

much to vegan action. The Green Party is a quantum

leap beyond either. It isn't perfect. But it is farther

along the right path.

 

The Green Party has no chance if we move on as usual. The

Greens should have at least 20% of the vote. If that were

so, we could change the " situation " much more quickly.

 

~Ernie

[Guest guest]

, scottishwitch3@a... wrote:

> I'm all for voting for third parties. It's not wasting your vote,

it's sending a message that the two party stranglehold is loosening

and that neither the Dems or the 'Pubs represent we the people any

more.

>

> -Anna

 

I hope that it is more than just sending a message.

" Sending a message " is an important step, I'm sure.

But the next step is to empower change and reform.

If each party needs reform, as I believe they do, then

they should be defeated. Loss creates change. The change

can be for the better or the " worse " as I believe the

DLC change that the Democratic Party experienced was

a change for the worse. Hopefully, a loss by Gore might

result in a change for the better. We won't know until

that happens. However, I think the Greens represent a

far better choice. I believe that Nader, although he'll

not win, can make a substantial change for the better.

 

End of soap.

 

~Ernie