DLC: "white male-pandering, union-bashing, corporate wing of the Party."

[Q]

Kerry's DLC versus The Pirates
The BLACK Commentator
April 22, 2004
Issue 87

---

"Clinton’s tenure marked the triumph of the Democratic Leadership Council, the southern-born, white male-pandering, union-bashing, corporate wing of the Party."

---


"...The Bush-Cheney regime is a criminal enterprise following a blueprint for world conquest and bent on liquidating what remains of the public sector and the domestic social contract in the United States. Its core electoral support is derived from the most racist and fascist-minded elements of society.

The Democratic Leadership Council, which now writes John Kerry’s scripts, is the corporate-financed faction of the Democratic Party, conceived as a mechanism to diminish Black and labor influence and to slow the defection of southern whites to the GOP. The DLC blunts the party’s ability to act as a counterweight to corporate power, domestically, and cultivates a mass base for “American” business objectives abroad. Through its role as dispenser of corporate (and corporate media) favor, the DLC wields decisive influence far beyond its membership.

After three years of Republican rule, it is madness to say that John Kerry’s DLC rump of the Democratic Party is even remotely equivalent to the rampaging Bush regime. The Bush men have a plan to “change the world”; the DLC have none. The Bush men are driven by a triumphalist ideology; the DLC have their hands out. The DLC attempts to obstruct and co-opt progressive ideas and movements within the Democratic Party; the Bush men are determined to snuff out all who oppose the absolute rule of capital on the Planet Earth, the U.S. included.

"...Just as destructively, the false analysis (or non-analysis) that equates the DLC with the Bush cabal – as if they are tame people, operating on the same imperatives – discourages discussion of what Blacks and progressives face if Kerry succeeds in capturing the White House. Our job is both to defeat Bush and to prevent Kerry from taking us where he wants to go – back to the Clinton era. There must be an opposition in place in January of next year, and no honeymoon. We must anticipate the political lay of the land under a Kerry administration, and quickly move towards a strategy for dismantling as much as possible of both the George Bush and Bill Clinton legacies.

Continues: http://www.blackcommentator.com/87/87_cover_kerry.html

[Q]

1. The Black Commentator 'seems to' back Kerry...

...but hopes the Black Community and Progressives can influence him to 'turn Left' after the election.

- Another quote:

"The biggest threat from the DLC at present is that its hold on Kerry may cause a second term to be delivered to George Bush, without the necessity of theft.

Readers may be surprised to learn that we are not overly concerned about Kerry’s vague promise to send even more troops to Iraq. Kerry is no more capable than Bush of sustaining the doomed U.S. occupation. The Iraqi people will shape their own future, independent of the American electorate, who have no right to a say in the matter. However, Americans do have it in their power to disconnect the Pirates from the reins of power in Washington. That would make a world of difference."

- It's clear that the DLC EXPECTS the Black and Progressive vote...without having to work for it. Blacks AND Progressives are voting ABB...but will fight to get the DLC's influence out of Democratic politics after 2004.

[el_gato]

3. I agree with this editorial

We cannot relax once bush is out.

[ACK]

13. Oh hell no

We get Bush out and then its time to turn Kerry back to his liberal roots and take out the DLC once and for all.

Remember the moderation on the death penalty, gun control and other issues but chunk the rest.

Even on the national stage you can be progressive about every other issue and need to be at least left of center to forge a new populist progressive vision for the party.

I am behind you.

_

[comsymp]

19. Problem with that is, IMO,

that Kerry will probably want a second term. How far to the left do you think he'll be willing to go during the first?

[Q]

2. Yeah...I know...

...the Party doesn't want to think about such things right now. Bush* and Iraq are the focus and the party must line up and walk in lockstep until after the election.

- But there's a very good chance...as quoted by the Black Commentator...that the DLC might allow Bush* to win 'without theft'. Why? Because they've pissed off many Progressives with their pandering to the Right and corporate interests. They gave Gore bad advice and then refused to back him during the recount. When Gore adopted a more 'populist' campaign...they literally abandoned him to the RWing wolves.

- The DLC has advised Kerry that he must move to the center in order to 'win'. But meanwhile...the DLC's center replaces the true Democratic base with those who may or may not vote Democratic. The DLC agenda provides for even more compromises and concessions without getting anything in return.

- There will come a time..hopefullly after November...when Blacks and Progressives demand that the Party move back to their grass roots...or face the consequences of a mass exodus to third parties.

[library_max]

12. Games People Play.

This one is a classic. It's called "Look What You Made Me Do." If the left and the "base" refuse to vote for Kerry and get Bush put back into office (elected, this time), it won't be the DLC's fault, it'll be their own fault. The far left can't change the way politics works in America (the center always wins) by making threats, and they can only change it for the worse (Bush in 2004) by carrying out those threats.

[Redleg]

15. Well stated. Like it or not, Dems have to play nice nice with big money

in order to get elected since campaigns cost so damned much nowadays. It is easy to blame the DLC as being too cozy with big business (and I believe some Dems are) but how does one get elected in this country if they are painted as anti-business?

[Cocoa]

4. excellent article

a great non-hysterical analysis of the DLC.

I agree with most of it, except for the part about the media destroying Howard Dean. I think third place was a pretty good showing for him.

[Q]

6. It was the 'corporate media' that destroyed Dean...

...just as they any other 'progressive' candidate or those who challenged the DLC's approach to Democratic politics.

- I posted over a year ago that the DLCers wouldn't allow a nominee that didn't back THEIR agenda. The DLC's control of the Democratic party may be its undoing. I'll blame their centrist advice to Kerry if he can't win against loser Bush* in November.

[IrateCitizen]

8. First, Dean was no "progressive"...

If you look at what happened when he was Governor in VT, his most staunch opposition came from the VT Progressive Party (i.e., from his left flank).

Second, while the corporate media was certainly culpable (i.e. the "scream" being played over and over ad nauseum), Dean the candidate didn't help his own cause either in many instances, by displaying some shifting positions at inopportune times, along with being less than an inspiring figure on the stump -- in spite of his most welcome straightforwardness.

[Q]

11. BC's point on the Dean issue:

Rightward, Ho!

"Until he was assassinated by the corporate media, Howard Dean seemed poised to destroy the DLC’s corporate stranglehold on the national Democratic Party. Progressives (including ) focused their attentions on Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, the DLC’s most ideologically outspoken candidate. Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards kept the DLC at a distance – in Edward’s case, almost in the closet."

- The Black Commentator points out Dean's 'assassination' by the corporate media because Dean was 'poised to destroy the DLC's stranglehold on the national Dem party". I agree with BC on this issue. The DLC DOES have a stranglehold on the party...which is why the party is constantly moving to the Right against their will.

[blm]

10. The corporate media tried to destroy Kerry first. Kerry toughed em out.

Dean did not. And Dean did not govern as a progressive. He governed for 11 years as a centrist who most often sided with the Republicans. Why pretend he didn't?

Dean helped pull the party to the right for 11 years while Kerry maintained a liberal voting record. Dean was one of the furthest right of the DLC while Kerry was the furthest left.

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know the difference between primary campaign rhetoric and actual governance.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. Great article...

Though I'm not at all convinced that Kerry has any intentions of "moving to the left" after he's elected.

[CTLawGuy]

7. the DLC is pure poison

and needs to be eradicated from the party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. No. If anyone needs to go, it is the progessives

Look at the primary results:

Kerry, a long-time member of the DLC won.

Edwards, another DLCer, was the runner-up.

How did the progressives do? Kucinich and Sharpton finished dead last in almost every primary that other candidates competed in.

This is a party of moderates. The extreme liberal wing of the party has shown how much support is has. Kucincich will have his few dozen delegates at the convention, and the convention will pass the platform that Kerry want.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. So in other words, you want a one party fascist state?

Thanks for clarifying.

[IrateCitizen]

18. The differences between DLC and GOP are notable

However, it's the equivalent of speeding toward the decline of American society at breakneck speed in a straight line (the GOP) or simply slowing down to a more moderate pace and zig-zagging without any predetermined objective (the DLC).

The problem with the DLC is not that it is centrist, but rather that it is entirely a corporate entity. The end result is that there is no effective counterweight to corporate power in American society -- allowing its worst excesses to solidify themselves in every facet of our lives.

This does not mean that there are still not significant differences between the DLC and GOP -- as the BC readily admitted and presented. It simply means that neither the DLC nor the GOP offer up any real plans nor strategies of how to counteract the runaway influence of corporate power. One side effect of this is the disaffection with politics of increasing numbers of Americans, because they see a system in which those who pay enjoy unfettered influence while nobody represents the interests of the masses.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. No, just majority rule

Kerry has won the overwealming majority of delegates to the convention. Those delegates are not going to support changes to the platform advocated by someone who was rejected by the vast majority of primary voters.

[sangh0]

25. Some "leftists" don't like majority rule

and call any idea that differs with them "fascist"

Sort of like how the repukes accuse Dems of stealing elections, being racists, supporting activist judges, being partisan, etc...

[Q]

9. The Black Commentator also doubts it...

...which is why they're hoping that Blacks and Progressives grow more vocal after the election.

- Let's face facts here: the DLC has abandoned the 'traditional' base of the party in an attempt to scoop up 'undecided' voters. They've abandoned unions, public education and a myriad of other Democratic values.

- Another quote from BC:

"Bill Clinton humiliated, abused, bamboozled and, finally, eviscerated the base of the Democratic Party in the Nineties. His biggest victories were NAFTA and welfare reform, both achieved with overwhelming Republican support. Clinton’s tenure marked the triumph of the Democratic Leadership Council, the southern-born, white male-pandering, union-bashing, corporate wing of the Party. Republicans did a great service to Clinton and his Vice President, Al Gore, by labeling them “liberals” – perversely confirming that the DLC had succeeded in moving the national Democratic Party rightward..."

- But did the party WANT or NEED to go rightward? Why abandon a SOLID Democratic base for fickle centrists?

[IrateCitizen]

14. This article is almost dead-on, IMHO

The BC seems to hold no illusions (like many of us here) that the Democratic Party is somehow a "party of the people". But, they also appear to recognize the significant and legitimate differences between the two parties -- even if they both are, at their roots, pro-corporate parties.

The problem is that I really don't see an end to the downward spiral, short of the ultimate collapse of the empty shell of American culture and society. Our society is so vertically integrated and centralized that I don't see any way out of this cycle short of all-out revolution and the ultimate breakup of the USA. It seems that under Republican Presidents this trajectory toward demise is hastened, and that the best we can hope for under Democratic Administrations is to simply hold off the worst excesses. Rolling back the damage is out of the question.

I guess the best any of us can do is simply to brace for the inevitable....

[Q]

20. The Dem party could begin a process of 'healing'...

...by denouncing corporate welfare and it's influence on elections and government. The trend of both parties to replace social welfare with a corporate version has to be stopped in its tracks and exposed for what it is: the rise of the corporate state...dependent on industry and not the people for its very existance.

[IrateCitizen]

21. Forget about healing -- we've passed that point long ago.

The problem with our society is that its institutions are all vertically integrated and highly centralized. As a result, more and more power flows to fewer and fewer people, along with an increasingly disproportionate share of the spoils.

Talking of "healing" is a waste of time. The only way that things will truly be able to get better is if there is a serious diffusion of power and a figurative smashing of the current institutions of power. Without that, any reform is cosmetic and is destined to only be a speed bump on the inevitable decline and collapse. After all, the rise of corporate power was precipitated by the rise of state power. Even if the state is able to temporarily reel in the excesses of corporate power, what makes you seriously think that the end result will be any different next time around?

[library_max]

26. Without healing, forget about democracy.

To be viable, any democracy requires a certain social contract. All the major factions have to be willing to respect and protect the rights and prerogatives of all the other factions. I'm not just talking about First Amendment rights and other legally-protected rights. I'm talking about mores and institutions they hold dear.

The current problem is that the neocon Republicans aren't upholding their end of that contract. They are trying to rule rather than govern, trying to screw Democrats out of their role in the decision making process any and every way they can. But it won't solve the problem for us to get into power and then start treating them exactly the way they treated us. If the majority won't respect the prerogatives and values of the minority, what on earth impels the minority to abide by the majority's decisions? Does 50.1% of the population really have the right to dictate to 49.9% of the population for no better reason than that there are more of them?

So when you talk of smashing the current institutions of power, it sounds like you are talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than a democratic transfer of power. Are the changes you want to see in the economic system so important that you would shred the basis of democracy in order to get them?

[IrateCitizen]

27. Democracy is little more than a shadow

Congressional districts are gerrymandered to the point that only something like 10% (or less) of all seats are competitive. The legalized bribery known as campaign finance ensures a "pay to play" system that protects elite/corporate interests and the incumbents that represent them. Every four years, we get to vote between Presidential candidates largely chosen by elites beforehand.

Our free press is a complete joke. It focuses on ratings-driven infotainment rather than actually doing the job required of it. The product it puts out could best be described by the term "Nuzak".

You speak of a social contract being necessary in a democracy. I agree. The problem is that neither side -- the Republicans, nor the Democrats, for the most part -- have been terribly interested in enforcing that social contract. The rise of the DLC as the primary power-broker within the Democratic Party has meant that both parties see themselves as having the role of accomodating varying corporate interests. There is no effective counterweight to balance the "general welfare" against the interest of corporate interests to pursue unfettered profit simply for its own sake.

You said, "Does 50.1% of the population really have the right to dictate to 49.9% of the population for no better reason than that there are more of them?" That's inaccurate -- you're talking of percentages of people who actually vote. When applied to the voting-age public at large, the percentage is more around 17% of the population dictating to the remaining 83% of the population. Once again, this is hardly representative of a healthy democracy. Most people just don't care. As said in the book The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman (p.121), "For a zoned-out, stupified populace, democracy will be nothing more than the right to shop...." Our society has devolved into one in which freedom of thought and critical analysis have been successfully vilified. Ignorance is seen by the masses as a badge of honor. People seem to want little more than their mindless junk, television, and soma.

What I am speaking of is a deeper cultural phenomenon -- systemic of a culture that values materialism above inner reflection and transformation, a culture that has confused consumption desires and ownership of goods with "the good life" -- than democracy can even begin to address.

So when you talk of smashing the current institutions of power, it sounds like you are talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than a democratic transfer of power. Are the changes you want to see in the economic system so important that you would shred the basis of democracy in order to get them?

You have completely missed the point I was trying to make, perhaps it was my fault for not stating it clearly enough. My complaint is actually only partially with economics, and in economic matters it is focused on the way that the economy ties in with the political system. Our socio/economic/political system is one that has come to be due to ever-increasing vertical integration. Each crisis that has arisen, each "improvement" that has been made -- be it depression, war, efficiency, increasing productivity, etc. -- has been addressed by adding another layer of bureacracy, by centralizing power, by taking more control away from the individual and amassing it to a distant power -- whether that power be the state, the corporation, or whatever. The inevitable result is that the entire system comes to represent almost solely the interests of this distant elite. It really is only superficially different when you are talking about the communist dictatorship of the old USSR, China under Chairman Mao, or the modern corporate hegemony pursued under the mantle of "globalization" -- and assisted by Western governments. In all cases, the real effect is the transferring of power away from the individual and toward distant, unanswerable elites.

When I talk of smashing these structures, what I am talking about is not a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Rather, I am talking about quite the opposite -- a vast diffusion of power throughout society as a whole. Of course, all of this wishing is really just that, as I don't have the power to do this. Nor does anyone, really. But what I do have the power to do is to reject the current systems as they are, and to seek to live a life that is more in tune with inner transformation, one that will help to preserve the positive enlightenment aspects of American culture while the culture as a whole becomes consumed by the darker aspects of the enlightenment (mass consumption, materialism, obsession with control over the outer world). It's my own private way of "smashing the current institutions of power" while they are overcome by the replacement of true culture with kitsch.

I'll leave you with one final thought from the above-mentioned book:

... corporate hegemony, the triumph of global democracy/consumerism based on an American model, is the collapse of American civilization. So a large-scale transformation is indeed going on, but it is one that makes triumph indistinguishable from disintegration.

[library_max]

28. I think it's called the human condition.

There was never a "good old day" when power was equally distributed among a population which relied upon thought and critical analysis to make consensus decisions.

No matter how you slice it, there are always going to be elites, if only elites of interest (counting, for example, Americans who vote as an elite). No system of government ever invented has resulted in the kind of suffusion of power you describe. And the statement about "adding another layer of bureacracy, by centralizing power, by taking more control away from the individual and amassing it to a distant power -- whether that power be the state, the corporation, or whatever. The inevitable result is that the entire system comes to represent almost solely the interests of this distant elite" could have been shortened to "the country's getting bigger" and said the same thing.

There is no ideal form of government. There is no ideal economic system. The trick is to pick the best we can get from the possible options, to the extent that we can. Tuning in, turning on, and dropping out is an option I suppose, but I don't see how it's productive. Sneering at the cultural preferences of ordinary people is also a venerable tradition, but also not helpful in my opinion. Likewise nostalgia, which I define as longing for a past that never was.

One way to look at widespread apathy about government is that things are going well enough that many people don't see a change from one party or administration to another as any kind of threat to their well-being. You can argue it the other way, of course - that people have become hopeless and see no good choices - but actual conversations with actual Americans don't bear that out, outside the hard underclass and a few small countercultures.

I'm not suggesting that apathy is a good thing in itself, but I think that the way the country is becoming "fired up" politically is a bad thing - it indicates that democracy may be heading for crisis. And while you may not think much of democracy, I think it is infinitely preferable to any of the alternatives.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Boy, you're sure adept at putting words in my mouth!

First, you portrayed my post as embracing Marx and Lenin's call to "smash the system" when I actually proposed that the increasing verticality of the system be smashed. Now, you're accusing me of not thinking much of democracy, when, in fact, it should be clear from my numerous posts here that I am very much pro-democracy -- I just recognize that what we have now ain't a democracy, at least in the classic sense of a government of, by and for the people.

When you misrepresented my points once, I believed it to be an abberation. When you did it the second time, you removed any faith on my end that you are truly interested in an honest, substansive exchange.

Have a nice day.

[library_max]

31. Sorry, but I can only read what you write, not what you mean.

"Talking of 'healing' is a waste of time. The only way that things will truly be able to get better is if there is a serious diffusion of power and a figurative smashing of the current institutions of power. Without that, any reform is cosmetic and is destined to only be a speed bump on the inevitable decline and collapse."

"Democracy is little more than a shadow."

"As said in the book The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman (p.121), 'For a zoned-out, stupified populace, democracy will be nothing more than the right to shop....'"

My point is and has been that restoring basically civil polity in this country is the only way to rescue democracy from an increasingly divisive partisanship. If we cannot restore the proper balance between majoritarianism and mutual respect, we will lose our grasp on democracy altogether. I have been interpreting your responses as saying that democracy is no great loss as it presently exists and that the structural changes you would like to see are more important. If I'm misinterpreting your statements, it's not willful, I assure you. I can't see how any useful reform, structural or otherwise, is possible if we let democracy itself elude our grasp.

[Selwynn]

22. Fantastic article

[FlemingsGhost]

23. Great analysis from the BC. Thanks for posting, Q.

Wonderful comments throughout this thread, too.

Thanks to you all...

[Q]

30. An important issue the Dems should approach with passion:

Bushies now using 'Geneva Convention' as reason not to release evidence of war crimes.

---
"These 'detainees' have information we need and we should stop worrying about how they're treated"- James Inhofe on MSNBC
---

- The Bush* government has 'classified' hundreds of Iraqi torture photos and videos and the Republican leadership is crying that releasing more photos would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. But aren't the events depicted IN the photos the actual issue here? These photos are evidence of war crimes and not releasing them to the public or at the very least a war crimes commission is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

- The Bush* government has insisted from the beginning of their 'war on terror' that anyone captured or swept from the streets were to be considered 'detainees' and not prisoners of war with rights under the Geneva Convention. Several Bush* administration officials are on record as stating this policy...including Rumsfeld and Cheney. But now...with glaring hypocrisy...these same officials who had previously declared that the US was exempt from international law are invoking the laws they rejected in order to escape accountability.

- Democrats need to keep this issue front and center.