Is there any place in the Democratic party for the DLC/centrists?

[DLCfromGA]

I've been sort of disheartened by the political atmosphere of the past year. I pretty young (22) and I got into politics during the Clinton era. I was a big fan of him and members of his administration (Rubin, Cohen, Clark, Albright, etc.) I was drawn to his centrist wing of the party-- I am a big supporter of free trade, balanced budgets, but also support more spending on education, health care, etc. The "New Democrats" seemed to be delivering on that agenda.

Now, it seems like the New Democrats and DLC are on the run. I think Bush has done a horrible job in a lot of areas (lack of commitment to trade, bungling Iraq, disregard for allies, huge defecits, horrible farm bill, political flip flopping, etc.) I would love for Bush to be pushed out in 2004...

For someone with beliefs like Clinton. However, a lot of the people on this board and in Democratic circles seem to disagree. I want a president that supports health care and education funding, free trade, is not a mindless corporate basher, is solid national defense, and is generally socially liberal... but I don't know if one (Lieberman) is going to win the primary. I don't know if I could support a candidate that wants to revoke NAFTA/GATT, have "reregulation," and weaken national defense, even over G Dubb. It seems that Democrats want an anti-Bush instead of a solid candidate with solid policies.

A lot of you guys seem to rail against the DLC, though they form a large part of the elected officers.

So I ask you guys... Is there any place for the DLC or people like me (pro business, pro-national defense, pro health care/education, pro social liberties, pro free trade, pro-balanced budget) in the Democratic party?

[audibledevil]

1. Yes

But this isn't the right website, there are a lot of fringe lefties here.

[aquart]

2. Yes.

This party will not go the Republican route and purge those who see things differently. There used to be a liberal wing of the Republican Party.

The centrists are our conservatives. Frankly, it's useful to hear more than one opinion before making a decision.

The phrase "fringe lefties" remains as offensive as it was intended. It is, of course, the Republican way to speak of us. I'm sure you were being facetious, just not funny.

[Jerseycoa]

3. Even if

There is a lot of anti-DLC sentiment here, don't let it push you away. This is a place for all Democrats. (Well, not Lieberman, but everybody else!) There are more Clinton admirers here than you may think.


http://www.clark04.com/

[KC21304]

4. Most of us are anti-Bush because of his policies.

His policies are anti- health care, education, social liberties, and especially anti- environment. If someone is truly for these things, than of course there is a place for them in the Democratic Party.

[dpbrown]

5. Bilateral trade agreements & Pentagon accountability fit your position

Strong defense requires that we know where we're spending our money.

According to this report that was on NOW with Bill Moyers, Inside the Pentagon, and other reports and books, the Pentagon hasn't been able to meet its basic legal reqirement, imposed under G.H.W. Bush, to certify that it has spent the money allocated to it by the Congress in the way that Congress authorized. It's had to be specifically exempted from the requirement in every year since 1992 - it has never successfully passed the requirement.

A Pentagon expert and insider, Chuck Spinney, has writen a series of articles written for THE WASHINGTON POST, in which he chronicled his findings while working in the Pentagon. In October 1988's "Look What $2 Trillion Didn't Buy for Defense," Spinney summarized his defense spending philosophy, criticized the government's obsession with defense spending as a distraction from meeting more pressing military needs and fulfilling Constitutional responsibility to account for expenditures.

The Pentagon can't keep us safe if it doesn't know how it's spending the taxpayer's money.

Only one candidate is willing to break the Pentagon's unhealthy obsession with fantastic, expensive boondoggle technology marvels like "Star Wars" that won't keep us safe even if they do work, and find 15% more efficiency in making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers.

That's fiscal conservatism and keeping America safe.

As to NAFTA, many Republicans have favored bilateral trade agreements over multinational free trade agreements for a long time, although for different reasons. Republicans favor giving the nation free rein to keep competition for businesses in check, Democrats favor protecting jobs and the environment.

Withdrawing from NAFTA is one of the planks of the Texas Republican Party.

If NAFTA is broken, then we should come up with a system that works better, not just put a band-aid on it. Only one candidate is willing to improve on what worked - bilateral trade agreements - and get rid of what's not working - NAFTA.

There is a road to healthy free trade, but NAFTA seems to have proven that it's not it.

I think the DLC can serve a role as another special interest group that influences the Democratic Party, but I think their losses have outnumbered their gains for the Party since they got too much influence. If the pendulum is swinging the other way now, then it may just indicate that the Democratic Party ought to pay some more attention to the socially liberal part of its agenda for a while.

I hope you'll take a look at a solid Democratic candidate with 30 years of experience and plenty of demonstrated appeal among Democrats and Republicans alike in this nomination season.

www.kucinich.us

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[DLCfromGA]

8. Most Republicans...

Are blind protectionists that are wrong on free trade... lately, the GOP has been horrible on free trade (steel tariffs, agribusiness corporate welfare, etc.) Democrats should not be looking to Republicans for guidance on trade...

[dpbrown]

15. Democrats aren't looking to Republicans for guidance

But politics is about compromise.

The only reason I mentioned Republicans along with bilateral trade agreements was because this is one issue in which there are already supporters from both sides of the aisle, albeit for different reasons.

Republican obsession with protectionism is wrong. Democratic denial of existence of a global marketplace is wrong.

But NAFTA is wrong, as well.

What works, and what satisfies both sides as a starting point for reorganizing the framework upon which we build "free" trade, is bilateral trade agreements.

This is a reasonable position that would find bipartisan support. It doesn't mean that Democrats are looking to Republicans for guidance on this issue.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Webster Green]

6. This board offers a wealth of information to anyone......

Perhaps you will even change your mind about some of the issues mentioned in your post. For example, how anyone can support the current FTA policies is beyond me. Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that agreements with other nations are always accompanied by provisions that allow US corporations to force their farmers to grow patented genetically modified crops. Valuable heirloom seed strains are being lost in the process. The GMO's are dangerous to the environment, and they cross-pollinate with the native crops. Corporations like Monsanto actually obtain patents on ancient varieties of crops to prevent farmers from growing what they have been cultivating for centuries. US corporations move in to privatize water supplies and then start charging the indigenous people exorbitant prices for what belongs to them in the first place. The term "free trade" may sound great, but the reality is anything but. If you care to explore this a little more, here is a place to start:

http://www.noticias.nl/global_eng_artikel.php?id=283

Go to Google for lots more info on "Free" trade.
Democratic Underground always has lots of links posted for information on all the other issues you mentioned as well. Welcome!

[DLCfromGA]

7. While...

I don't know if I would support corporations charging farmers for water, genetically modified crops have the potential to feed billions of starving people in the third world at a fraction of the cost...

Those that care about global poverty should support research on genetically modified crops...

[Webster Green]

9. Wrong!

That of course, is what the corporations would have us believe. Unfortunatly, they lie. If you think corporations like Monsanto give a shit about feeding the starving people of the world, well...what can I say...!! GMO's are an abomination, designed to give the companies that manufacture them a monopoly on the seeds that are sold. Naturally they disguise the true nature of their plans in all kinds of propaganda designed to make them look like heroes, just like Bush's "no child left behind" propaganda actually does exactly the opposite. His healthy forests initiative turns the national forests over to the timber barons. The clean air act guarantees more pollution than ever. It is ALWAYS about the bottom line for the corporations. It is NEVER altruism.

Do a little research, and you will discover that the crops they are trying to replace are much better than the GMOs both in nutrition, and impact on the environment. I am not making this stuff up. I attended 5 days of FTA/GMO protests and workshops in Sacramento not too long ago. We heard the horror stories from farmers both here and abroad. GMOs are not going to feed billions at a fraction of the cost. They very well could destroy agriculture altogether. These corporations must be stopped! Don't believe their bullshit throwaway lines for a second. If this is an issue that interests you, then sniff out the details. You will be amazed!

Here's another page with 30 or so links:
http://www.ipjustice.org/FTAA/resources.shtml

I will try to dig out some more links to post on this board. I have a lot of good pamphlets and stuff I gathered in Sacramento, but try a little googling please! (googling is now a verb, OK?)

[Undecided Okie]

10. Liebermann out in the cold?

Gore for Dean, Whose idea was this?


Follow this reasoning;
Gore endorses Dean.
Gore cold-shoulders Liebermann.
Gore is controlled by Bill & Hillary Clinton.
The Clintons want Dean to run against Bush and LOSE.
Liebermann has a chance against Bush as Dean id a bit too far to the left for the majority (IMHO)
The Clintons want Hillary to run in 2008 against a non-incumbent GOP candidate and NOT a sitting Democratic President.

Do you see where this is going?

DU

[Mairead]

11. Not as far as I'm concerned, no

Because it 'somehow' always works out that 'pro-business' means 'anti-labor', and 'pro-fiscal-responsibility' means 'preserve the entitlements of the wealthy at the expense of working people'.

[DLCfromGA]

12. So

Where do moderates from BOTH parties go? Third party in the center?

By the way, the point of running in the "middle" is that you believe moderate policies, not ones on the far right OR far left...

[Mairead]

14. I think you should keep in mind that 'far left'

doesn't mean something banal like 'unions are allowed'. On the full political spectrum - the one still recognised in Europe, for example - people like Kucinich and Sharpton are very clearly centrists who lean slightly to the left, maybe a 5-degree tilt. Someone like Chomsky might possibly be considered 'far left', but Zinn as a vanilla socialist would only be 'left'.

So your 'middle' is actually quite far to the right of center, on the real spectrum.

As to where you should fit in? Yes, perhaps a third party comparable to the non-fascist right parties in Europe. Or you could take the Republican party back--it was yours up through Nixon, after all--and demand that the PNAC fascisti take a hike.

[poskonig]

13. I'm a centrist and I support all our candidates.

I tend to be center-right on foreign policy matters (I'm around Snowcroft/Eagleburger foreign policywise), center-left on economics (I support some government spending as long as it's fiscally responsible) and am very liberal on social issues.

I also support Howard Dean.

[genius]

16. In the Dean campaign

Dean's plan is DLC all the way. The pretended opposition may have confused some Democrats but not those who looked at the issues.

[Zomby Woof]

17. yes

You're soaking in it.

[Iverson]

18. Relax ...

... it's Napalmolive.