Published over at TruthOut on Wednesday, Boston-based journalist Michael Corcoran’s historical review of the rightward shift of the Democratic Party, “Hillary Clinton's Ghosts: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right,” easily qualifies as the most powerful piece about the Third Way, the DLC, New Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Al From, and Markos Moulitsas, among many others, that I’ve ever read. Period.
Simply stated, if you’re a Kossack—and while I know the term’s over-used—Corcoran’s essay is “a must read.”
Personally, I don’t believe I’ve ever read anything that so closely mirrors my own sentiments about the current zeitgeist within the Democratic Party than what Corcoran just published, 48 hours ago. His commentary is nothing less than profound.
Here are just a few choice quotes from the piece (while I’m certain I could easily obtain rights to republish the entire article with an email to Corcoran or to Henry Giroux, who’s on the TruthOut Board, I’m simply going to publish a little more than the standard three paragraphs from it, because it’s a very lengthy piece; so, we’re still talking “fair use”). And, yes, if you’re a Clinton supporter—and hard-hitting, reality-based reporting and news analysis isn’t your thing—I’d strongly suggest that you stop reading right here.
By Michael Corcoran
Truthout | News Analysis
Wednesday, 02 December 2015
…voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated, but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy. For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was "crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton, the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely critical of Clinton. Now, he is helping her do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean, it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican," said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment is shared by many Vermonters, on both the left and right.
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns for an establishment DC paper and is a major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her. Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements he has made for many years. Many on his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply fear....
# # #