In the words of the DLC, why they seek corporate funding. 2002 article.

[madfloridian]

Rosenberg: ""We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020805&s=borosage20020726

SNIP..."At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way...."

Corporate scandals:
SNIP.." New Dems joined with Republicans in diluting efforts to clean up the current mess. New Dems in the House offered bipartisan support for the Republican accounting reform bill that was certified as harmless by the accountants' lobby. Before the WorldCom revelations, when it looked like reform was going to be bottled up in the Senate, Lieberman and DLC head Al From launched a PR drive to warn Democrats against being antibusiness and doing too much...."

I also have an article with New Dem Clinton saying we need to be careful regulating the corporations

AND FINALLY: the icing on the cake.
SNIP...". The DLC champions privatization of Social Security as a centerpiece of its program for the new century. Or in DLC speak, as Will Marshall, one of its founders, puts it, "using choice and competition to advance...the big social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare." The DLC provides bipartisan support for a Bush folly that, as Senator Tom Daschle says, would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a gamble...."

What's that you say? The DLC just wants to help us? I don't think so.

[Robbien]

1. See, exactly the same as the Republicans

DLCers want the big money of big business and will sell our country down the drain to corporatists just the same as the Republicans are doing today. The reason DLCers are mad is that the GOP is getting all the big bucks and the DLCers have to go begging to the little doner progressives.

[madfloridian]

2. More: they helped block good drug plan for seniors..oh yes.

SNIP..."Led by Senator John Breaux, New Democrats have helped to block a real prescription-drug benefit for seniors. The key issue is whether the benefit will use the power of Medicare to negotiate the best price for seniors. For drug companies, this is heresy. They headed a multimillion-dollar fundraiser for Republicans last month, after which President Bush repaid them with a speech opposing efforts to limit drug prices. New Dems are less expensive. According to a study released by Public Citizen, the New Democratic Network pocketed some $475,000 from drug companies over the past twenty-one months, and its single biggest donor was the drug lobby, at $50,000. Breaux is also leading the efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher program, which would increase risk and cost to seniors already struggling to pay soaring health costs on fixed incomes. "

What's that you say...the DLC is our friend?

[Metatron]

3. To me, this all reads as pro-business, anti-worker.

The DLC does not support the average American family, no matter what rhetoric they use.

[madfloridian]

4. They want to marginalize the unions and their demands.

That is part of it. They have done a good job of it, sadly.

[Metatron]

5. I agree.

I think it evolved out of the Republicans demonization of unions in the 80s and 90s. It's like the DLC is able to coast along on the coat-tails of Republicans, and then are heralded as "progressives moving to the center."

[madfloridian]

7. Right about the demonization of the unions...we went right along with it.

The 80s was a really bad time for union folks. Florida never recovered, and they are still demonized here.

But we are supposed to say okay to this group?

I don't think so.

[no name no slogan]

6. DLC = Rockefeller Republicans

They're not much different from the Nixon-Rockefeller wing of the Republican party: moderate to liberal on social issues, but solidly pro-business/anti-labor on economic issues.

For example, look at the top economic advisor for Kerry's 2004 campaign: Robert Reich. Reich is not only a former Clinton man, he's also head of CitiGroup, one of Wall Street's largest firms.

How many advisors from the SEIU (sp?) did Kerry have on his staff? How many working Americans really got their messages heard by the campaign?

If the Dems want to win on the national level again, they need to propose real solutions to the problems of working people-- NOT just "lip service" like we've seen so far.

[LimpingLib]

9. Reich is Pro labor but that aside I agree with every post EVERY POST!!!

Wow!

Maybe we can start a movment in our party toward putting REAL issues to REAL people on the map even if the corperate media doesnt present anything of the sort.

This thread is a reality check moment.

[madfloridian]

8. "Tone down populist rhetoric" "distance selves from unions"

SNIP..."8. The DLC's political advice is often wrongheaded. The most recent DLC insight is that Democrats should target affluent, white, office-park males-one of the most Republican constituencies in the electorate. To appeal to that constituency, the DLC says, Democrats should abandon any populist rhetoric, tone down the drive for corporate accountability, embrace fiscal austerity and free trade, and distance themselves from unions. That may make for good corporate fundraising, but it's hard to imagine a better recipe for defeat....."

I don't see any of the DLC messengers defending this. I would like to hear your side of it. I really would. I want you to defend this.

[Telly Savalas]

13. This is where the DLC is steering us wrong...

Populism is what makes inroads into red areas. The GOP already has the market cornered in the socially conservative anti-gay and anti-reproductive choice brand of populism. We need to give the voters a reason to vote for us instead of them. Saying "we hate gay people too" isn't going to cut it, because people already trust the GOP to meet their homophobic policy needs. (In addition to the fact that it is WRONG.)

We need to have a different message, and that message should be economic populism. By orchestrating their economic agenda to kiss the asses of the corporate elite, the Republicans are handing us this issue on a silver platter. We need to grab it.

[Zhade]

18. "I want you to defend this." So do I, but I doubt they can.

It's pretty indefensible, especially to anyone who has democratic principles.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. they want to attract to the party the very people

who are the most obnoxious of the republican base.

[Zhade]

60. And people say the DLC isn't Republican Lite.

*snort*

They need to WAKE THE FUCK UP!

[KoKo]

10. Well....they're in it now. They will be depending on Coporate Money

totally in the future...as I told the person who called me soliciting funds for the DCC.. Yes, it was the DCC (Dem Congressional Committe) who called me and not the DNC just three days after this last "Selection" but I told them: I have donated heavily to my two Congressional House Candidates running here in my state and to a few running in other states but I will never again give to any "Organized Party" effort by the Democratic Party Heirarchy.

If the DNC/DLC solicit me anymore I am going to find a way to get off their mailing list. Writing in red pen and returning their solicitation envelopes hasn't gotten me off their list...so I need to take futher action.

Three days after this election and they have the nerve to CALL????? Have they no shame? Putting Harry Reid in? Staying with Pelosi? Give me a break here. The DNC/DLC/DCC and the rest can go to hell.

I'm supporting candidates on my own. Let them snort in the pig trough if they want. Until they clean out their Campaign Ops who make the big bucks and figure out how to win they won't get a penny of my hard earned money when there are so many other groups who DO have the balls to fight against Bush....

[a new day]

11. Now, would those hair splitters who say moderate Democrats NE DLC

please explain the difference?

[Walt Starr]

12. We have a word for members of the DLC where I come from

Republicans

[madfloridian]

14. And this really hurt us, this part.

SNIP..."New Democrats joined with conservative Republicans in contributing to the current mess. DLC icon Senator Joe Lieberman and other New Dems joined with Gingrich and Republicans to pass securities "reform," a centerpiece of Gingrich's Contract With America, over President Clinton's veto. The measure, which the DLC touts to this day, made it harder for shareholders to hold executives and accountants liable for misleading reports. Clinton is surely right to now point to this measure as contributing directly to the current scandals."

[KYDEM]

15. Kick

n/t

[madfloridian]

16. Gee, no one wants to know about their funding.

:kick:

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Trojan horse trojan horse trojan horse

It may not be how they started out, but it is who they are now.
The best way to beat the opposition is to become them. That is what conservatives have done and they need to be expelled from positions of power.
If people are looking for war for the soul of the democratic party, they have found it and it is about time real democrats fought back.

[Zhade]

17. Kick for the in-house ostriches.

Wake up, guys and gals -- the DLC does NOT represent your best interests any more than the Republican party does.

[madfloridian]

20. No one wants to hear it.

The DLC is for corporate interests, against the wishes and needs of the people....but it is still supported by many against their own best interests.

[Q]

19. The DLCers know that it would be too difficult to start a party of their..

...own, so they've become parasites on the Democratic party. They don't even pretend to represent the traditional base of the party...but demand their votes simply because they call themselves (d)emocrats.

- When Republicans lose...they try even harder next time to appeal to their base. But when Dems lose, they go back and find ways to appeal to the GOP's base.

- Could it be that the New Corporate Democrats realize that there will always be a large segment of the party base that would never vote for their candidates? Is this why they insist on going after the conservative vote instead of the populist vote?

- The Democratic party will become much healthier when they can rid themselves of these parasites and get back to the original purpose of being the opposition to Republicans and the Party of the PEOPLE.

[Walt Starr]

21. Yep, PURGE the DLC

We would be a better party for it.

[fujiyama]

22. This is troublesome

and regardless of whatever criticisms I've had of Dean, he proved that the party need not be reliant on corporate cash.

Unfortunately the DLC seems to be hooked on it like a drug. Dean actually showed that it can be done in unique ways with a true grass roots effort.

That's why I think he would make a good chair. My hope is that DFA can eventually override and lessen the DLC's influence. It will take time, but we have to get the leadership out of DLC...but we must do this within the loose confines of the party. I think Dean understand this as well, which is why I'm sure he won't do something stupid like starting a seperate party.

[Zorra]

23. Join the PDA. In the immortal words of real Democrats everywhere:

"The DLC really sucks."

Progressive Democrats of America:

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[madfloridian]

24. Here is the DFA link. Don't forget that.

www.democracyforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

Grassroots funding that scared them so badly, they had to stop it. So we are just working from the bottom, not the top.

[Zhade]

25. Another kick...

...just to push this under the noses of the DLCers-in-denial here on DU.

Come on, justify these comments, guys. I mean, you have no trouble justifying the DLC normally. Is it just that these words expose the truth - that the DLC does not care about any of us?

If you're intellectually honest, you'll admit now that you were probably wrong to defend a group that does not appear to believe we should have a say in how we are governed.

[madfloridian]

26. Still waiting for a good reason to be this pro-corporate.

:kick:

[Metatron]

32. I'm waiting, too.

I've seen thread after thread portraying Dems opposed to the DLC as reactionary, short-sighted, too far left, etc. Yet, no pro-DLC Dem has even tried to defend the DLC's tactics in this thread.

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. Amazing.....

I've never seen the DLC ops wait this long to respond to a thread.

They must be on the hotline to Evan Bayh or Will Marshall right now desperate for excuses ;)

Excellent work, Madfloridan ! :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

28. Maybe they like corporate funding?

You think? I have more articles about their funding, but one at a time is enough. I know because that is why Dean had to be gone. His grassroots funding was threatening corporate interests.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. No, it's just past their interns' bedtime

:-)

They'll get their assignments tomorrow morning.

(I'm making the assumption that these are interns no more than 21 years old, based on the ignorant things they say about past campaigns.)

[KYDEM]

30. Kick again

n/t

[madfloridian]

31. Now that is funny.

:hi:

[Zhade]

62. Keep 'em coming, MF - the DLCers here (the non-ops) need to see them.

The disruptors who lie about other posters aren't going to change, but those who aren't well-informed about the DLC really need to know the truth about that organization.

Just remember, DLCers: this is the DLC view in their own words. No slanting or spinning required to find them guilty of criminal negligence toward democratic ideals.

[Forkboy]

33. I can think of about a dozen that would normally pounce on any DLC thread

Oddly,they seem to be missing from this one.We'll have to keep it kicked for awhile in special honor of their cowardice :)

[ElectroPrincess]

34. Yes, they should be lauded as role models for all the wannabe

a** kissers, pansies, yes-men/women, tutu wearing, GUTLESS WONDERS everywhere!

The DLC does NOT represent the values of working class Americans,

I hope (and pray!) that Democrats abandon the DLC propaganda like the plague until they purge their corporate identity and return to a genuine "reality based" mindset in support of WORKING America.

[Selatius]

36. The DLC is a bunch of girlie men!

When it comes down to it, they're not man enough to stand up for the American worker! In this party, you either stand up or get the hell out.

[ElectroPrincess]

40. Hey cease with girlie = bad

My little "girlie" can kick a** in Tae Kwon Do.

[greenohio]

52. Does everybody hate Bill Clinton?

What a bunch a idiots. They love the former governor of Vermont who steered the party over the cliff but hate our former president.

"In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation....

I opened the convention with a keynote address designed to make the case that America needed to change course and that the DLC could and should lead the way....

...I was amazed by some of the criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left, who accused us of being closet Republicans, and from some members of the political press, who had comfortable little boxes marked "Democrat" and "Republican."

Bill Clinton My LIFE

[Selatius]

57. Hating DLC for taking corporate cash is not the same as hating Bill

Dean didn't steer the party over the cliff. He was the victim of character assassination when he blurted out that he'd bust up the corporate news outlets. His message was populist, and it proved to be a potent force outside the corporate-subsidized DLC.

[Lerkfish]

71. Dean was lynched by the media and the RNC, and NO ONE came to his

support.
And I can say that objectively because I wasn't a deaniac.

Did the DLC defend him and I missed it?

The way his candidacy was torpedoed was shameful. It had nothing to do with his electability among the people, but the movers and shakers he scared.

[Zhade]

64. Straw man argument. Does not compute. Irrelevant.

"Does everybody hate Bill Clinton?"

Straw man. No one said that. And it doesn't even matter, because BC is not the DLC and vice versa.

But yes, I did have a problem with a few things Clinton did:

-NAFTA (bye, American jobs)
-Welfare 'Reform' (bye, American poor)
-Kosovo (bye, innocents targeted from above)
-Sanctions on Iraq that killed 500,000+ Iraqi children (which Madelaine Albright said was "a price worth paying")
-Telecommunications bill (allowed massive corporate media consolidation)
-DOMA
-"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

"What a bunch a idiots."

This is a personal attack, and you're lucky your post wasn't deleted by the mods.

"They love the former governor of Vermont who steered the party over the cliff but hate our former president."

1) Define "they".

2) Who said "they" love Dean? We were discussing the sellout DLC. If some professed fondness for Dean, cool, he should be considered a decent man with a good populist streak.

3) Dean was not the leader of the party, so please explain how he "steered the party over the cliff". Since he didn't, I doubt you can actually back up this nonsensical statement.

4) No one said they hate Clinton. Many of us have problems with some of his policies, but that does equate to hating the man. Your debate skills are being overpowered by your emotion here, methinks.

[Forkboy]

97. Obsessed much?

[Cheswick2.0]

42. Some of them are in on the scam

they are going to ignore the thread because they want it to die.

[Forkboy]

44. Which I why we shall keep it kicked

:)

[Zhade]

63. Perhaps we should send them links to this thread.

:)

[WilliamPitt]

35. Not to defend the DLC...

...because I am no fan, and not to defend rushing into the arms of corporations, because that's just a disaster, but there is some history behind the idea of getting control of Dem 'interest groups' (I hate that term) in order to win elections.

It goes back to the 60s. Recall that Nixon won with a gigantic majority by '72, despite being a blatantly evil asshat. Part of that victory came because Nixon's "Silent Majority" thought the Democratic Party was a Trojan Horse filled with Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion, not to mention mobbed-up Unions and those damn darkies. In other words, a lot of white people saw the Democrats controlled by the same yahoos who brawled at the corner of Michigan and Balboa in '68...and the Southern fallout from the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy was really beginning to be felt.

There was a period of time, through the '70s and '80s, that the party was, in fact, controlled by 'interest groups,' and that caused the Party to get pulled to and fro by these groups. It painted a picture of a party out of the mainstream - fair or not - and they got beat like drums. There is a reason why the first things Clinton did as a candidate in '92 was to de-nut the unions and castigate a rap artist, because it elbowed out some distance between two powerful groups who had previously been kingmakers in a failing party.

Clinton went on to win. So what's the moral? Who knows. Perhaps Lombardi said it best: Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And here we are.

Again, not a defense. Just an explanation.

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. Of course Lombardi said it best.

;)


Goooo Packers! Little levity. :hi:

[Bush was AWOL]

48. Thanks for the explaination

makes perfect sense, imo.

[madfloridian]

59. "when you trade your values...."

"when you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values -- so you keep losing"
Howard Dean 2004

Unfortunately, they went too far and lost all sense of perspective.
Now we are paying dearly for it.

We did not just lose, only Clinton won, really. We lost it all, unless the voting stuff can be changed.

There is no oversight, no checks and balances. Going for the corporate worked very well for the "corporate."

[Metatron]

65. As far as the 72 race -

If you look at the polling during that election, McGovern was crippled after the "Eagleton Affair." The July - September 1972 polls showed Nixon had lost 9% of his primary base and later picked up 15% from elsewhere, while McGovern lost 13% of his base and was never able to recover. This prevented the race from ever being close, and allowed Nixon to hide instead of campaigning. While McGovern's people (Cadell, Hart, etc.) also blamed the loss on "the race issue," McGovern ended up being perceived as incompetent due to the Eagleton thing. (summary of HST in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72)

Thompson goes so far to say that he doesn't know if there was any way McGovern could have won even if the Eagleton thing hadn't happened. He has a laundry list of missteps taken by the campaign that he thinks would have prevented a McGovern win. The interesting thing is that when you factor in the effects of Wallace, Larry O'Brien denouncing McGovern around Labor Day, and a somewhat disconnected McGovern campaign, it doesn't really point to just "acid, amnesty and abortion."

I know this is somewhat off-topic regarding today's DLC, but I have been rereading HST's book about 72 in order to determine if there are lessons to be learned about this past election. I'm not finding the similarities that I assumed I would, although there are some. People thought this year's primaries were bad - 72 was absolutely ugly!

[Zhade]

66. Would Clinton's center-right leanings have won without Perot?

The world will never know, of course.

So, let's say you're right, and that the Dems were (unfairly, IMIO) seen as all of these things. Does that mean that they should sell all of their principles just to gain power?

If they do so to get elected, won't they keep doing the same to stay elected? Is it not, in fact, playing right into the rightwing's hands?

[DinahMoeHum]

70. The flaw in this, though, is that the DLC approach has only worked

for Bill Clinton. Nobody else has succeeded on this DLC/DNC model.

Sorry, but it won't work for Hillary either in a 2008 presidential run. For one thing, she's not a Southerner.

And because of Clinton's alienation of the two groups you mentioned, when it came time to deliver on matters like healthcare, the constituents of these two groups weren't there to back him up. It's also why the Dems got their asses creamed in 1994.

BTW, I just got this from MoveOn, called the November 3rd Theses:
Link:
http://www.3nov.com/theses.html


:bounce:

[PassingFair]

80. Except, this time

WE LOST.
So what's the moral. Better question...
What's the point?

[Cheswick2.0]

37. as I have said before...they are a trojan horse from some right wing

think tank. They leave the party or it will die which may be their purpose after all.

[Q]

38. Isn't the point here that they had to choose...

...between corporate cash and representing the traditional Dem base? That they chose the cash is very telling. They've literally taken People out of the political process...depending on money and influence of big corporations to keep their seats.

- This is why campaigns now cost hundreds of millions of dollars and why the press is no longer 'free'. And why they've stop talking about campaign finance reform and public funding.

[WilliamPitt]

45. But that's the problem

'Representing the traditional base' led to defeat, in their opinion, in 68, 72, 80, 84, and 88. We frankly got lucky with Carter; Watergate elected him, and even with Watergate he barely won.

That's 24 years of losses with only one four-year period in between. One can see why a group would be formed with an eye towards other solutions.

The issue here doesn't have to be black and white. We need to figure out a way to represent that traditional base without leaving ourselves open to another long string of defeats. The traditional base thing didn't work from '68 to '92. The DLC approach has led us to three straight defeats. We need Another Third Way.

[Q]

46. Isn't it a matter of trying harder to make it work...

...rather than the strategy of the DLCers to simply throw them away?

- I mean...some make this sound like an option. The 'traditional base' are those who most need our help and representation. And they also represent a very large portion of the Dem voting population. They're hanging on right now because they have no one else to vote for. Even Kerry admitted that he wasn't campaigning to win their hearts and minds because he EXPECTED their votes.

- Pehaps if we concentrated on doing the right thing instead of 'winning'...things would naturally fall in place?

[WilliamPitt]

47. I agree

but we have to factor in the fact that in today's politics everything - EVERYTHING - depends on money. Nothing happens without money. Winning is a myth without money. It was like this back in the day, and it is the same now. In order to 'do the right thing,' we need the Benjamins. The DLC saw the way to that money going through corporate sponsorship. We need to figure out how to match thast fundraising ability without traveling that route.

[Q]

67. We bypass the corporations and raise money on the internet...

...and a dollar at a time from the 'traditional base'.

- And when you think about it...just WHY does it take hundreds of millions of dollars to run a campaign? My guess is that most of it goes to the corporate media.

- Let's try a truly grassroots movement for once and stick with the candidate with the best ideas and message and not those with the most money or influence with the party bosses.

[unfrigginreal]

49. "We need Another Third Way"

Fully agree

[rniel]

50. Al Franken proudly says

He is a DLC democrat. I don't think he realizes what they are really about.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. I think Frankin is clueless to what they are about

[greenohio]

51. OK the freaks who hate Bill Clinton need to come join the Greens

Clinton was our last guy to cross the goal line. He was 1000 times better than shrub, though not perfect. If all you care about is principle then vote green. If you care about winning, we need to inch to the center.

"Going to the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense. ...

In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation....

I opened the convention with a keynote address designed to make the case that America needed to change course and that the DLC could and should lead the way....

...I was amazed by some of the criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left, who accused us of being closet Republicans, and from some members of the political press, who had comfortable little boxes marked "Democrat" and "Republican." Bill Clinton MY LIFE

[unfrigginreal]

54. "Come join?" So, you're a Green?

[greenohio]

55. Green at heart. I vote to win though.

What happend to all the people who demonized me during the election whenever I defended the greens. Nader and the greens were Satan on this board. Why, because they wanted to win. Well, the question is do you still want to win? If not, vote green. If you do, we need to inch back to Clintons winning DLC formula.

You are going to hold your nose for 5 minutes in the voting booth or for a full four years.

[Zhade]

68. But the center continues to lurch rightward thanks to the Republicans.

So, no, we most emphatically do NOT need to keep chasing the mythical, ever-moving "center", IMIO.

[Forkboy]

98. Hard for Bill!!!

[willysnout]

56. I Think I'll Be The Asshole Here ...

... and defend the DLC. They started in the 1980s as a way of countering Reagan's popularity among core Democratic constituencies. You know, the "Reagan Democrats?" They were associated with something called the Progressive Policy Institute, as I recall. I remember reading something from the PPI that skewered the Democratic interest-group orientation pretty thoroughly, pointing out that the Democrats had strayed badly from its working-middle class roots.

The Democratic Party had come to be seen, with a fair degree of accuracy according to PPI, as oriented toward the interest of non-workers dependent on government benefits. That was what had put the Democratic Party on a road to oblivion, and that's what had to be changed according to PPI. Clinton took that very much to heart, and in '92 he won by talking to people who "work hard and play by the rules."

As an aside: If only he had "played" by the rules in his personal life, we'd be in better shape as a party. I don't for one second condone Ken Starr's witch hunt, not one little bit. But when Clinton did what he did, he fell into a trap that anyone could have seen from a million, zillion miles away and it has just KILLED us on Main Street America. Hope it felt good, Billy Boy. That was some of the most expensive non-sex anyone's ever had.

Anyway, back to the DLC. Their pitch to corporate America is understandable and to a degree smart. I suspect that not very many people on this website have spent much time in corporate America. It's heavily Republican, and even the Democrats there have some trepidation because the party often shows so little understanding for the underlying basics of how a business has to operate. If I were crafting a dialogue between business and the Democratic Party I would do it differently than the DLC is doing it, but I give them credit for at least trying.

If you want to win support among people who don't support you, one thing you must do is speak in their language. That's what the DLC is trying to do. I think they could do it in a way that is more effective on the corporate side and a lot less divisive internally, but the broadsides at the DLC are equally misplaced in my opinion.

Finally, some realpolitik as much as many here will hate it. The unions are badly wounded, some might saying dying. They aren't organizing new workers in the private sector. Until they do, they're going to be a shrinking group in society at large and in the Democratic Party. Minorities and youth have piss-poor turnout at the polls. Yeah, it went up this year but so did turnout among everyone else so it's no great achievement.

I hate it that the unions have shrunk. I'm one of the only corporate guys I know of (well, retired corporate) who is strongly pro-union, but in my opinion this country wouldn't have a middle class without them, and I think the decline of the middle class is directly correlated with the decline of unions. I am mystified, truly mystified, at black people not voting. Same goes for youth.

But none of those things are going to change by ranting at the DLC. You want more liberal influence in the Democratic Party? Great, so do I. But the only way to get it is to bring in the votes. In corporate life, money talks and bullshit walks. In political life, votes talk and bullshit walks. Ripping down the DLC won't gain a single Democratic vote anywhere. It will make some of you feel good by destroying the "right wing" camel's nose poking its way into the tent, but that's not a substitute for the unions organizing new workers and more -- A LOT MORE -- blacks and Hispanics and young people showing up and casting Democratic votes.

But of course those things are much harder to accomplish, aren't they? It's so much easier to turn on fellow Democrats for daring to think impure thoughts. Children: Grow up!

[madfloridian]

58. A "pitch" is ok, but they sold out.

Thus the lack of any oversight or regulation. NAFTA going through the way it did was because of our Democrats.

I am sorry, but we gave the corporations a foot in the door. They shoved their way in. They are now in control.

And our party is not speaking out. When they do, they are told to hush.

What do you think about making your base not count? Is that a practical necessity as well? The party does not listen to the people now. They did not listen during the pre-Iraq-invasion days. I know, I talked to them over and over...congress, the candidates.
The decision was made, and they went along.


SNIP...your quote...."I hate it that the unions have shrunk. I'm one of the only corporate guys I know of (well, retired corporate) who is strongly pro-union, but in my opinion this country wouldn't have a middle class without them, and I think the decline of the middle class is directly correlated with the decline of unions. I am mystified, truly mystified, at black people not voting. Same goes for youth...."

Yes, you are right. There will never be a middle class in America again. At least you see that. The DLC members talked down unions so much that they almost had me feeling guilty for belonging to a teachers' union.

It is too late. They did their job well. Now they have members coming in from the GOP side, one of which was a lobbyist for Pat Robertson and worked with the Christian coalition.

Two of our children are quite well off. They will be ok, they are corporate types as well. Two are just of moderate means. Thanks to the groups like the DLC and the pandering to corporations.....they will not have Social Security when they retire....they will have to keep working. It won't be their fault really, just the fact they are average folks. I don't think they realize it yet, and I am not going to tell them.

Al From, Bill Clinton, Bruce Reed, Will Marshall....they owe our country a damn big apology.

[willysnout]

73. How Was the DLC Anti-Union?

This is not a rhetorical question on my part. I really would like to know. What did they do against the unions? I agree with you that the Democratic Party should never be anti-union.

[madfloridian]

77. Have you read ANY of my posts and articles at all?

.

[willysnout]

79. In this thread, yes

[madfloridian]

82. I have others in GD Politics right now. 3 of them.

Read them, then argue.

I lost my country to the corporate types, and I have no patience anymore.

[willysnout]

85. I Read Them

and have one question. What is "DFA?" Don't bite my head off. I really don't know.

[madfloridian]

96. It is the spin-off organization from Dean's campaign

It is growing, adding new members. It is a PAC to support grassroots candidates on the philosophy that the party must be rebuilt from the ground up into an organization more open to change.

Most every state now has their website up at the blog on the left column. Some have several. Dean and his DFA director, Tom McMahon and the field director, Tom Hughes, work with these state level groups. It is a new concept. They have collected 5 million just since the group started in March.

Many of us who are actually quite moderate in our views, but who were horrified at this Iraq war support this group financially now in lieu of the DNC which has not paid attention. It is open to anyone, Meet-ups are the first Wed. in every month. Next month I believe the Progressive Democrats of America meet-ups may join DFA.
Dean was once a DLC member, but he has talked out against them.

www.democracyforamerica.com
www.blogforamerica.com

[Selatius]

61. Perhaps we could rebuild labor unions instead of taking corporate cash?

The simple fact is most people are small business owners and employees, not employers, and they most certainly aren't CEOs of multinational corporate empires or have the luck of being born into wealth. Labor unions have been in decline through both their own corruption as well as being crushed from the outside by corporate interests. (See Ronald Reagan's strike breaking over the airlines)

Tax reform, public education, and health care, etc. are issues that can be used to appeal to middle class Americans. The minority issue is an ever present issue, but I'd submit that if we encourage investment in the middle and lower class (small business loans and grants, a progressive tax code, etc.), we wouldn't have to come up with a strategy to appeal to minority groups and a separate strategy to appeal to white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. For example, if I were to replace Affirmative Action with anything, I'd replace it with a program aimed at the poor both minority and white with the goal of making it easier for them to finish college and advance up the economic ladder.

[willysnout]

72. The Democrats Didn't Build The Unions ...

... the first time around, and they're not going to do it now. The most we can do is pursue pro-labor legal policies. But the unions will have to build their membership. They haven't been doing that, and one result is that the Democrats have had to look beyond the unions for support. We always did have to do that, but now it's more necessary than ever.

I can't tell you how much I wish the unions could organize Wal-Mart. It would be hugely important. But they haven't been able to pull it off, and my guess is they haven't really tried. I have a close relative who's a retail clerk, and we both see the handwriting on the wall for her $17-an-hour job. The Democrats can't organize Wal-Mart. The retail clerks union has to do it, and to do it they're going to have to work their asses off.

[madfloridian]

81. You need to think in terms of NAFTA and outsourcing.

And standing up for corporations so often that labor unions were weakened.

Hey, my son is a corporate guy. I told him he sees things only in terms of making a profit. It hurt him, but it is true. I told him I see things in terms of the greatness of the America that used to be...in terms of people who held jobs for years and knew they were secure in retirement because they planned.

The party has not stood up for them in years. They have voted to do away with corporate regulation.

Yes, the unions have lost power because the DLC element has married corporate America.

[willysnout]

87. That Explanation Doesn't Cut It

I might agree to an extent on NAFTA because I do think the implications for unions were pretty devastating although it may well be that all it did was send the jobs to Mexico rather than, say, China or Indonesia. I think I'd be more receptive if I saw unions doing some organizing, which they are not doing.

[madfloridian]

88. Are you a member?

Why do you say they are not? I am very surprised to hear you say that. There is a lot of stuff going on now....reorganizing, etc.

Research some of the union websites.

[willysnout]

90. I'm Retired

Not a union member. I'm an ex-corporate type who'd often make the pro-union argument to astonished colleagues. You know, "how long do you think we'll last if there's no one to buy the shit." That sort of thing. Anyway, I don't see much evidence of union organizing out there. I'd love to be wrong, I really and truly would because unless they get their stroke back there ain't gonna be a middle class in this country. We're already halfway back to 1938 as it is.

[madfloridian]

93. When there are no jobs, hard to organize. They are trying.

In Florida, unions are almost dead because it is a right to work state. Very sad.

[willysnout]

95. Here's an idea

Maybe the unions should quietly abandon, for a while, any efforts on behalf of unorganized workers, i.e., in the minimum wage and wage & hour fields. This might serve to accentuate the contrast between union membership and non-union employment. And how long has it been since unions called a general strike, anyway?

[Selatius]

84. Unions have been hit by both internal corruption and corporations

I think the problem with many of the older labor unions and the more well established ones is corruption, especially at the very top. Labor unionists have had to fight against corruption for years, and I assume there's a number of union bosses who are taking kickbacks from certain interests to not "rock the boat" and try and expand unions. Some of these guys' links with the mafia are well documented, for instance. Unionists have to deal with that as well as increasing pressure from business interests.

I'm not saying corruption is the only reason why they've been in decline, but I'd guess it is a little bit of everything: Corruption, poor management, corporate anti-union campaigns, and union busting by some politicians.

The result is what we have today. At least, that's my opinion on why it's this way. I agree that we need policies that take the pressure off of both union and non-unionized workers. With Wal-Mart, I'm surprised workers have not tried to unionize in larger numbers. I assume Wal-Mart regularly brings down the hammer on workers who think too much.

[rman]

69. is the DLC pro-union?

this touches upon the essence of the issue: people's influence in the party and in government versus corporate influence.

[madfloridian]

74. No, they are definitely not.

Read the article to see what I mean. The poster said he was one of the few pro-union "corporate" people.

I edited the last three words on request.

[willysnout]

75. I'm the poster ...

... and I said I was one of the few pro-union people in the corporate circles where I hung out. I didn't say anything about the DLC's stance on unions because I simply don't know what it is. Don't put words in my mouth, o.k.?

[madfloridian]

76. Not intentional. I will try to edit.

You were defending, I assumed. Will fix. OK?

[willysnout]

78. Sure, No Problem

And by the way, I'm just trying to be balanced about the DLC. If they're anti-union I really do want to know about it. Now, being pro-NAFTA doesn't establish the DLC in my mind as being anti-union, i.e., I don't think it's automatically anti-union to disagree with the unions about an issue that's not directly a labor issue.

To me, the unions will have, and deserve, influence in the Democratic Party roughly in proportion to the votes they can deliver. When the unions represented 33% of the workforce it was one thing. Now they're at 10% of the workforce and it's another. It would warm my heart to see the unions get back to 33% and it would be good if the Democrats could find some ways to help them do it.

But the bottom line is that the unions are going to have to go do the organizing, and that's not something they've been willing to really put their heart and soul into. Some unions do it, like the Service Employees, but too many unions just sit on their asses.

[madfloridian]

83. They have been made irrelevant: there is no party for them.

Dean is very pro-union, he has worked with them extensively. He still is partnered with several of them. SEIU is one, and AFSCME is another.

Read the article in a thread I have here about the DLC Takeover.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1373491

[willysnout]

86. The Article Doesn't Detail ...

... any anti-union activity on the part of DLC. I'm not trying to screw around with you here, honest. I just don't see an anti-labor thing going on at DLC, or at least not detailed in anything you've posted. By the way, I'm a lot more interested in SEIU than I am in AFSCME. If the unions don't concentrate on organizing the private sector, they'll be dead.

[madfloridian]

89. Ok, I am done trying to convince.

My son is the same way. He sees no relation between the loss of jobs and outsourcing, and so on.

There are none so blind.....

[willysnout]

91. You Give Up Way Too Easily

[madfloridian]

92. As a teacher, I remember the mantra...."US workers not trained well"

I swallowed it for a while. Then I realized it was the beginning of the movement to dumb down schools. My research is so in depth on this I would have to redo it and reorganize.

To put it simply, it was a big smelling pile of BS. It you say the workers are not good, then it is easier to outsource and make the people believe it is them. It is probably one of the most evil
concepts visited on our country.

Read these articles at the New Dems, read between the lines. The "new" labor...retrain, re-educate....and all the rest of the crap.

DLC Reinventing Unions.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=107&subid=297&contentid=945

Idea of the Week, A New Economy Labor Movement
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=107&subid=297&contentid=3519

Then read some other articles from 2000 and 2001 on this page. You can read it and think American workers were bad and ignorant, or you can read it and think they were being screwed.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=107&subid=297

[willysnout]

94. My Reaction

I read all of the articles and didn't see anything anti-union in any of them. Nothing stirringly pro-union either, but it's the job of the unions to do their organizing. The Democratic Party isn't going to go out and convince workers to unionize. The unions need to do this themselves. All the Democrats can really do is see that the labor laws set a reasonably fair playing field, and if there's any lack of information that I saw it was any commentary about that set of issues.

I'd like to know how Wal-Mart has managed to thwart unionization, and what the Democratic Party could do on the legal front to help. But, as a Democrat, I wouldn't lift a finger unless I saw evidence that the retail clerks and the AFL-CIO were going to the mat to get those people into a union.

I think it's absolutely outrageous that only 10% of private workers are unionized. That's the #1 issue. Everything else is in 8th place. I'd like to see Wal-Mart unionized, followed by the mother of all strikes against those bastards. Do that, and then come to the Democrats and say, "Boys, it's time we had a little chat." Democrats will be on labor's side to the extent possible, but labor unions can't sit there twiddling their thumbs and expect the Democrats to solve all their problems.

The same thing's true of the other constituencies. Look at the gay activists, for instance. Because they held out until the very last minute for marriage and wouldn't accept civil unions, the Democratic Party lost the 2004 election. By the time they went along with Kerry's civil unions formula, it was too late. It was a repeat of 1993, when they forced Clinton into a near-disaster on gays in the military that resulted in a policy that dramatically increased discharges from the services.

Is anyone ever going to have some pragmatic common sense? I really have to wonder.

[Forkboy]

99. "I Think I'll Be The Asshole Here ..."

Glad you could admit it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. So they went for the Reagan Democrats by

allowing the Republicanites to strip the unions of their powers (permanent replacements= de facto no right to strike), restructuring the tax code to favor the rich, supporting the arms buildup, and supporting the immoral interventions in Central America?

And it worked so well. :eyes: