New York Senator Hillary Clinton, along with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa will introduce
a DLC set of initiatives today in Denver, Colorado. Some call the
American Dream initiative an answer to the Newt Gringrich-inspired "Contract With America" with which Bill Clinton cooperated in the mid-90s, building on former President Ronald Reagan's dismantling of FDR's safety net for social democracy. (And the thanks he got was a constant "hunting down" of his person and his Presidency by the evil Republicans with whom he sought such unfortunate compromise.)
Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun seems to think that liberal bloggers object to the DLC's centrism.
The DLC's reputation for centrism has made it an object of scorn for liberal party activists, particularly those who post on the busiest Democratic blogs.
In my book, he's off base. As a liberal blogger who is moderate on many issues, I object to the DLC's
divisive nature among members of their own party. The Republicans have understood for a good, long time that you keep your party and your message as united as you can and that's how you win elections (with the help of their pals at Diebold).
The Divisive Difference In Democratic Philosophy Isn't About Supply-Side Economics -
It's About IRAQ
DLC president Bruce Reed says, "We think the American Dream is a better theory than supply-side economics." A no-brainer for most Democrats. None of us go for the Grover Norquist philosophy of drowning our own social safety net in a bathtub filled with tax-cuts for the richest. Reed hit near rock-bottom of my personal list of Democrats when he systematically and divisively worked to destroy current DNC chair Howard Dean and his important populist message during the 2004 campaign. Reed shot his own party in the foot. His favored candidates in 2004 were given a DLC message to relay to the American people that crashed with a dull thud. I happen to think he's poison for Democratic success. Reed warns Democrats ahead of time that his plan is more "moderate" than theirs might be (code words for trying to find a divisive niche - a typical DLC move). "It draws clear policy lines that some interest groups might not like and some Democrats won't agree with."
In an Washington Post article, Al From enhances the myth that the DLC's ideas are independent and different from what some "other Democrats" (note the overt attempt re: party division) might desire:
The result is what Al From, the founder of the organization, called "a set of ideas around which Democrats of all stripes can rally as we head into the fall election." Still, he and other moderates are under no illusions that every part of the party, liberals in particular, will embrace the agenda. Said From, "My guess is that there are some people who will not be happy with the ideas."
I don't think a lot of Democrats would argue with the fact that supply-side economics has made everyone poorer except the richest. Therefore, the unembraceable part of the DLC agenda, for anti-Iraq-war voters, surrounds the hawkish image the DLC is so obviously struggling to create for themselves in their rush to run to the right of any non-DLC Democratic challengers. The problem for me (and other voters, I'm sure) is that they are creating this image for themselves while embracing the failed Iraq war. One look at the
Connecticut senatorial race will tell any rational Democrat which way the wind is blowing. What on earth are they thinking? Salon.com's
Colin McEnroe says:
Hillary Clinton has undergone a gradual but very public transformation into a kind of Bride of Lieberman, hawkish on the war, adamantly pro-Israel and tracking right on social issues. She even likes to bash video games, just like Joe.
What is Bruce Reed's and Al From's version of the American Dream? Here it is, in a nutshell :
- Adding an extra 1 million college graduates by 2015 (combining three different tax breaks for education into a single $3,000 refundable credit and spending $150 billion over 10 years on block grants to states that improve graduation rates.)
- Creating an independent, non-partisan commission to scrutinize and propose the elimination of wasteful, outdated business subsidies. By presenting its recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote, this commission would produce an estimated $200 to $250 billion in savings over 10 years.
Here are some more in what the
National Journal's Marc Ambinder, questioning how this will affect new taxes and who will be affected, calls "
old wine in a new bottle."
--"cutting unnecessary Federal Consultants by 100,000"
--"third party reporting of capital gains"
--restoring paygo rules in Congress
--An American Dream grant that "rewards" states based on the number of students who graduate and attend college. It'll cost $150B over ten years.
--Requiring every employer to open a retirement account for every worker
--Provide incentives for savers
--Tax credits to stimulate innovation
--A "smart energy policy"
--A "home mortgage deduction for everyone"
--A $5K "refundable" tax credit for the down payment of a home
--Lots of health care; a variety of incremental proposals to expand access to care, access to information, etc.
The New York Sun article by Josh Gerstein says that the DLC is interested in articulating a tough foreign-policy vision and they will feature one of the DLC's founders, Will Marshall III, whose involvement in the Truman Project has been a catalyst for much Democratic discussion about national security philosophy. (I've been unhappy with Mr. Marshall's Democrat-dividing tactics, whether or not it is a witting attempt - it's still damaging to the party's image of unity.)
Mr. Marshall gave this definition of patriotism just one year ago:
By putting the war on terror first, ending the party's alienation from our military, and issuing a new call for service and sacrifice, Democrats can define a more compelling patriotism than the GOP's chauvinist bluster.
Who thinks that a Democratic party priority should be "a new call for service and sacrifice" at a time when American foreign policy has become a bane in world opinion? I wonder if Mr. Marshall has considered promoting a positive vision of "
intelligent patriotism"? I blog because I am grateful to those who died on the beaches at Normandy, in the heat at Gettysburg, and in the snows at Valley Forge, but I understand that intelligent patriotism requires me to be vigilant, pointing out those who may falsely employ the flag to subvert our democratic rights and liberties and to divide us into patriots and traitors. After what we've seen from George W. Bush and his administration these past five years, I can tell you that the average Joes and Marys (a group of which I proudly call myself a member) don't want to hear about sacrifice until we hear about vision and sanity. Like Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Hillary Clinton's stubborn refusal to admit that her vote for the immoral fiasco in Iraq was a mistake is not convincing Americans that she has a better idea (or the gumption) to change the course.
I've personally witnessed what is , to me, the encouraging political journey of one particular Democratic candidate. The DLC seems to be in a tizzy about how to make themselves attractive to voters of faith while Senator John Edwards has, for a long time, been openly and comfortably discussing America's moral values with prominent figures like former President Jimmy Carter and the Reverend Jim Wallis. I know because I've volunteered to moderate the One America Committee Book Club where these vibrant conversations have been taking place.
Hear the Conversation with Jim Wallis Part One/ Part Two
Hear the Conversation with President Carter (and my summary)
I am happy to see that John Edwards has separated himself from this DLC thud-tank (the wisest move he ever could have made in my opinion). Al From tells us not to "read too much" into the fact that Edwards wasn't invited to Denver today, by the way. Edwards has looked like a real leader while the DLC has looked like they're still at the stage where they're wringing their hands. He has shown that he has a greater personal long-term vision for the American middle class than the DLC could imagine or allow for, a wider set of ideas for a working society, an offer of tangible hope for the poorest among us, and a charismatic way to relay a message encompassing an intelligent patriotism that does not require the Democratic voter to stay on Bush's Iraq War bandwagon. The "new" tough in National Security is not about muscle alone - it's about wisdom, vision and moral leadership.