The DLC emerged at a time in history when the Dems were trashed. It was during the Reagan/Bush I era, a long 12 year spell of frustration for progressives. They arose as an alternative path to political viability, power and the ability to move forward the core progressive values in a changing era.
more ...
Many people who had been radicals or alternative-minded in the 60's and 70's, got involved in business, Wall St, etc, in the 80's. The culture of wealth, BMW's, having something, working inside the system, started to grow. Most people take that for granted now, ie, upstarts of all persuasions drive fancy cars, almost everyone is into technology and the fruits of the system.
But prior to the Reagan presidency, there was a heavy theme of opting out and just living a very different life, dreaming of totally different systems, and wishing the reigning ones would just go away or collapse. This anti-government sentiment actually contributed to Reagan's win, since he presented himself as a Libertarian (turned out to be a total lie). Many people tried opting out for a while, and for a long period did not develop skills that would be needed if they were to rule.
The anti-government theme contributed to a walking away from issues like security and capitalist economics, which in turn contributed to defeats. Out of power and perceived as unskillful when in power, Dems were powerless to deliver the goods to Labor and other core constituencies, and these groups either lost membership or flirted with other parties and became targets of opportunity for Repubs.
People saw this, were frustrated, got scared, and decided to try something new.
The DLC represented an attempt to preserve the good that Dems could deliver in a time when the lifestyle definition of Americans was shifting. Seeing Carter, Mondale and Dukakis get trashed, people were ready to win. They made compromises with power, and learned to speak a language that business, globalist and military people can understand, while preserving key values of broad-based opportunity, justice/fairness, a vision of a better world to counter abject Repub cynicism and power-obsession.
As such, the DLC has been a noble effort, that has kept the Dems alive politically. It's actually grown the Dem base over the years, allowing entrepenuers, technologists and globalist-better-worlders a home.
It has erred on the side of the pragmatic, and has used corporate interests as sounding boards to assess the viability of its political proposals.
In this sense, the DLC has mirrored major media, which is a weird blend of personas who were once rebels in the 70's, and funding/control which is greed-based corporate/establishment.
You can argue at least that being willing to get into the system and power, allows you to in the end have a more powerful positive effect than just opting out. You become viable.
None of this might have happened if the numbers had been there to elect any Dem presidential candidate between 68 and 88 (other than Carter) and had they been able to show (or had Carter been perceived to have shown) that they could govern effectively and bring prosperity and success to the nation.
So, you can curse the DLC, but that's what Dem has needed to look like to be viable in the environment of the last 25 years.
It's now time for another shift.
There's a huge difference between the electoral map of McGovern->Dukakis->Kerry. In fact, Kerry almost won. The long-term trend is there to at some point elect a truly progressive leader, it's simply what life on the planet is calling for, after all.
There are enough of motivated young progressives now, to take over the party, but not yet enough to win enough elections (Pres, House, Senate) to rule the country.
So, we must go with a coalition.
To have a coalition, you need to set forth the coalition agreement.
It can't look identical to the identity statement of a faction in the coalition, even the biggest faction. It has to be higher-level, and preserve space for the other factions to breathe. To create this space, certain factions may need to bite their tongue a bit. The payoff they get is winning and seeing the core of their agenda enacted.
We should make some genuine attempt to discover who other people and factions are, and why they are that way.
What are they getting from the deal?
Is it working, from their own point of view?
Would they be willing to shift or open their perspective somewhat if they could be shown it would not jeapardize their position?
What is driving them?
If they leave the coalition, what do we honestly lose, politically?
We need to be honest about viability on every level.
It's good to have a plan to take over and be committed, but not to fly blind or recklessly.