No, this isn't another diary out to bash the DLC for its positions and statements. This is a diary out to offer some criticism, perhaps even constructively, of the strategy of the DLC as it attempts to change the Democratic Party. The liberal blogosphere seems united in opposition to the DLC, but much of this is caused by the DLC's insistence in pushing an agenda that manages to offend not one, but two major factions within the Democratic Party. A DLC candidate that 'leaves the reservation' and tries to reach out to one of these anti-DLC factions may find success in his or her quest for the 2008 nomination.
Let's face it, for all of their incompetence in attacking the liberal blogosphere and calling opponents of Lieberman "liberal fundamentalists", the DLC is at least interested in trying to win elections. The DLC in fact offers some insight into how to win in general elections, but I find that too often their tone toward other Democratic factions is arrogant and condescending. Their incompetence comes from their refusal to rethink their strategy for winning over Democratic activists. If they care so much about winning in the general election, you'd think they would learn how to compromise with the rest of the party.
A large block of the base of each party is determined by social, cultural, ethnic, and religious characteristics. What this means is that you will start off in the primaries with a sizeable group of voters that will react very negatively to any candidate that is trying to move the party toward the center on social issues. They might not be enough to block the candidate's road to victory, but they shouldn't be underestimated or ignored.
Look at how John McCain is pandering to the Religious Right in order to win in 2008. Most wise Democrats would realize that some degree of social liberalism is required in order to win. Some degree of opposition to the Iraq War and the foreign policy of the neoconservatives is also a requirement. I strongly agree with the observation that foreign policy views are increasingly tied to one's cultural and social views. So called maverick John McCain may be popular with the Republican base, but that's because he stays with the party on social issues and foreign policy. His friend Chuck Hagel is far less popular among Republican activists. Supporters of the Iraq War, like Joe Lieberman, are defying the Democratic base on an issue near and dear to their hearts.
On top of this base, each party has a history of favoring certain economic policies. This has wedded certain industries, professions, and groups to the major parties. Through their support of traditional New Deal politics, the Democratic Party appeals to union members who may be more socially conservative than the 'tribal' base of the party. The Republican Party managed to appeal to the affluent and many suburban through economic appeals.
It is worth noting that the economically liberal faction of the Democratic Party is better organized than the economically conservative faction of the Republican Party. Unions, even while on the decline, are a powerful force in getting out the vote, especially during low turnout primaries. Affluent Republicans are not involved in associations that would make it easier to mobilize them as a force. Sure, they have money, but they don't have feet on the ground. This may be one reason why they are having a difficult time in stopping the shift toward big government conservatism, although this shift also benefits some affluent Republicans who are focus more on government policies that line their pockets than commitment to any free market ideals.
This gets to an observation worth making. The economic factions are really two different groups, although it's hard to separate them out. We could generally view them as the 'means' group and the 'end' group. There are some people who are economically conservative, by which I mean supporters of the free market, because they really believe that ideologically it's the best economic policy. Others are the same with economic liberalism. These are the 'means' groups. The opposite, the 'end' groups, focus on the results. Some people are economic conservatives because they believe it's the best policy for the rich and the affluent. If they were convinced that they could use government intervention, economic liberalism, to become even wealthier, they'd change their policy views. We've already seen a lot of Republicans do this. Some economic liberals are focused not on the means, but the end result of helping people in need. Although for most of the 20th Century they've seen economic liberalism as the best way to help people in need, for much of the 19th century the free market was seen as a powerful force for elevating people out of poverty and many on the left were also supporters of the free market and opponents of mercantilism and centralized economics.
We've identified two (technically three) factions in the Democratic Party. There are those who affiliate with the party because of 'tribal' politics and then those who affiliate with the party out of economic self-interest. While there may be some overlap, we shouldn't assume that these two groups will work together. In the Republican Party, the 'tribal' faction is in the process of purging the 'economic' faction. Within the Democratic Party, the DLC has a political philosophy that manages to offend both of these groups.
First, the DLC believes that the Democratic Party must moderate itself on social issues despite the cultural and demographic changes over the last two decades. Tied into this has been advice to Democrats to "get tough" on national security. This advice, which I strongly disagree with, offends the "tribal" faction of the Democratic Party. And in my own opinion it's where the DLC is wrong. Shifting toward the center on these issues isn't going to pick up voters, the people that care passionately about social issues and foreign policy are already partisans.
On top of offending the socially liberal voters, the DLC preaches a modern economic platform that can certainly be seen as a break from the big government liberalism of the New Deal and the Great Society. At times the DLC buys into false free market ideas like so-called "free trade." But on the whole they make a strong case for ways to modernize our government and appreciate the importance of markets. Their willingness to support a host of issues from globalization to vouchers wins them the opposition and hatred of unions and the rest of the economically liberal faction.
And here is the incompetence of the DLC. If they were to pick a fight with only one faction, they would have a good chance at winning. But by picking a fight with both factions, they encourage the factions to work together and block out the DLC's entire message. Social liberals may be open to a more free market approach, but because they already have a negative opinion of the DLC they have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose any economic proposal. All proposals from the DLC are judged guilty by association.
Just imagine if a darling of the DLC, someone like Governor Vilsack or Governor Warner, came out with a proposal on pulling out of Iraq. They present it within the context of a broader message on national security and foreign policy that establishes their credentials within the socially liberal faction. Their race for the nomination continues onward with the new respect and admiration of many social liberals, but they are also free to continue to hold true to their market-oriented approach to economic issues. Suddenly, they are able to attack Hillary Clinton from both the left (Iraq) and the right (economic issues). Winning the nomination just became a hell of a lot easier.
On the other hand, there are certainly candidates like Senator Bayh who could stick to the social and foreign policy message of the DLC while focusing on reaching out to the economically liberal faction within the Democratic Party. Already he's defined himself as a Democrat willing to oppose globalization and free trade agreements. Assuming that he wants to be the Anti-Hillary (and at this point, who doesn't?) his pathway to victory is to go after Hillary from the left on economic issues and the right on social issues.
Of course, I doubt very much that anyone will be this smart. Looks like Feingold vs. Hillary!