Blog for America ran down the "myths of the myths" at the time. Do I need to point out that three years after this memo, the Republicans now control ALL levels of the national government? And not because they appealed to the "center" of their party, or any real ideological positions at all. In fact, a
Salon article from July 2003 makes the point that was pretty evident even at the time:
But in the end, victory might well go to the boldest candidate, despite the carping of the cautious and centrist. "Americans don't vote for someone who has positioned himself in the center," says Curtis Gans, former director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "They vote for a human being who they trust to help them solve their problems."
Bush didn't win because people agreed with his policy ideas. He won because he seemed like a "straight-shooter"... and he had legions of Repubs (from all ideological sides) pushing that notion, in lockstep. While the DLC is happy resting on their laurels and touting the Clinton presidency as their one great accomplishment, they forget that it was NOT Clinton's centrism that got out the vote. It was the fact that he came across as a "good guy with strong beliefs".
Now, let's look back at May '03. dKos was just a year old, and the "blogosphere" was in relative infancy. Howard Dean was THE story, because he wasn't afraid to state his opinion, while most of the Washington Dems were scared of looking unpatriotic if they disagreed with Bush. Dean, a Washington outsider, went from being an unknown to media sensation in a short amount of time, with the help of the new "netroots" and other Democrats looking to excite the party. He wasn't taking cues from Washington consultants, instead he went to the "regular" people, even Kos, to help with his campaign... and it was effective. It was so effective, the insider Dems came face-to-face with their irrelevance, and possible extinction.
Instead of adapting to the emerging change, and trying to bring EVERYONE into the party, the DLC made the decision to divide.
At the time, Kos had very few negative comments towards other Democrats. In fact, the first sign of possible criticism came from Steve Gilliard in July of 2003
Maybe its time other Democrats remind From that there is one party and one goal, defeating George Bush. Polls like this are doing Karl Rove's work for him and he's doing such a good job of undoing it, why is the DLC trying to help him?
The other netroots candidate then was Gen. Clark. But over the summer, his campaign fell into DC-insider hands, and the entire Draft Clark movement was
almost completely shut down. It sent a pretty clear message: The internet, populist movement needs to be eliminated.
Kos picked up on it, and wasn't going to take it lying down:
We are taught from early on to use initiative and be proactive, and to solve our own problems. Yet political campaigns had failed to adapt, insisting volunteers take orders from those at the top of the campaign hierarchy. "Lick envelopes" they would say. Or "canvass a neighborhood". But we are no longer programmed to take orders.
In
November 2003, Kos has a great post about the "insider vs. outsider" phenomenon. Yet, even then, his criticisms are tempered with a hope for unity:
The optimist in me hopes that this "establishment" will realize the power of what Dean (and SEIU in the union world) is building and embrace it, whether Dean wins the nomination or otherwise. There is no mystery as to why Dean (and Clark, to a lesser degree) have captured the fervent support of so many people, while their opponents struggle to make an impact. The establishment throws away that kind of success at its own peril.
Winning is the key, not who holds the levers of power at the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and other Democratic Party institutions. No one should lose sight of that goal.
By the end of 2003, the rift was growing, and the establishment Dems persisted in their attacks on Dean and his supporters. But Kos showed once again that his issues with the establishment weren't ideological. He was even
VERY supportive of the centrist NDN, to the point of even speaking at their conference the following spring. That's when all hell broke loose.
Spring 2004 held mixed emotions for many Democrats. On the Dean front, the media enhanced "scream" provided DC-insiders the ammunition to rid themselves of his rebel canidacy. But the passion that Dean provided, spurred most of his supporters to continue their activism. Also, we see the debut of Air America, a refreshed New Democrat Network, the start of Media Matters, and more political blogs than you can shake a net-root at. However, the DLC had gotten so used to attacking other Democrats, that it became a hard habit to break, even amidst the burgeoning Democratic movement:
[Sen. Mary] Landrieu was attacking Democrats for calling for the repeal of the No Child Left Behind law, while only reluctantly laying the blame squarely where it belonged -- on a Republican administration that had made a real mess of the law.
This was a vintage Democratic Leadership Council approach to intra-party disagreements -- turn the guns inward, attack internally. Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
[...]
As for the DLC, it's time to euthanize the organization. Whatever role it may have played is spent. As of now, it's the single most divisive Dem-affiliated organization, refusing to play nice with others even in these desperate ABB times. As such, it deserves nothing but exclusion and ridicule.
As has been said over and OVER and OVER, from the very beginning, it's not about "left" versus "center" Democrats... or even "liberal" versus "conservative" Democrats. It's all about "Democrats who want to make the party great" versus "Democrats who don't want to lose their consulting jobs".
The DLC was scarred of Dean, because they claimed he was too "liberal". So Kerry, while not the DLC goldenboy Lieberman, was still acceptable, and From hailed him for building on the "Clinton foundation". It would seem that since the DLC's plan was falling into place, Kerry's moderate message would run away with the election in November 2004. Well, we know how that story ended. Surprisingly (or maybe not), From and Reed persisted in the notion that the reason Democrats lost was because we're too liberal:
Democrats owe the country a muscular strategy of our own. We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore.
What?!?! They even dredge out the "we helped get Clinton elected" crap again, eventhough Kerry was supposed to be the new Clinton. In response,
Kos echoes the "it's not the ideology" sentiment again. It became mindboggling as to why these people would stay this course, but
March 2005 provided some insight:
...the DLC's Ed Kilgore...complained to me that while the DLC did a lot of GOP bashing, the only time the press paid attention was when they attacked fellow Democrats.
It really becomes the Zell Miller tactic. If you call yourself a Democrat, then criticize Democrats, any reporter will talk to you and you get a headline. If you stand firm with your Democratic brethren, the party is benefitted, but you don't get your name in a news article's lead.
Armando offered a few consilitory remarks, even suggesting that the DLC could still be part of the netroots movement:
I think the DLC has learned that commands from the DLC Altar and calls for purges don't do them any good. Well, I think everyone at the DLC but Al From seems to have learned that. And what the DLC can do is what I understood it was intended to do - be an idea and analysis place from a Democratic centrist perspective. Indeed, we Democrats need that. We may disagree with what they come up with some, or even most, of the time. But the process of thinking and discussing, testing and trying, all will help make our ideas stronger.
And he sums up the problem with Lieberman:
So why the disdain for Lieberman? Pretty simple - not a team player. Always undercutting the Democratic position, always on TV cutting Bush and Republicans slack. As many often point out, Lieberman's overall voting record is not that bad. Some votes are particularly irksome, but, I believe Lieberman's big problem is he forgets he is a Democrat, and that means fighting for the Democratic Party, not just for himself.
The rest of 2005 saw the DLC continue droning on about how Democrats need to "be more like Clinton". And From drops
this piece of wisdom at a Hofstra speech:
Clinton's New Democrat philosophy is the modernization of liberalism. It is a modern day formula for activist government: progressive policies that create opportunity for all, not just an entitled few; mainstream values like work, family, responsibility, and community; and practical, non-bureaucratic solutions to governing. It reconnects the Democratic Party with the its first principles and grandest traditions by offering new and innovative ways to further them.
It almost sounds like the DLC had been swayed by the blogs' message. Then five months ago, we find out what
their true motivation is:
The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left.
Get their money... get their man-hours... but don't have your picture taken with any of them. Even the previously consilitory Armando
realized what was happening:
What is shameful and despicable is [Marshall] Wittman's continued aping of the Republican Party's New McCarthyite tactic of labeling disagreement with him and Bush as "defeatism."
[...]
Attacking the patriotism of Democrats for disagreeing with you is not what I expect to hear from Democratic organizations. As many negative things as we have written about Joe Lieberman, we have never, and we never will, question his love for the United States. His loyalty to the Democratic Party? Well, I think he has left himself open to such questioning.
The DLC's influence is waning.
Two DLC supported primary candidates have lost, and they've finally realized that bloggers can not only raise money, but can cause action against those that seek to undermine the Democratic principles we fight for.
And now they're too scared to openly criticize the movement that they were more than willing to criticize 3 years earlier.
Here's a suggestion to DC-insider Dems: Just stop it!
Kos doesn't want to "wreck" anyone's business. Heck, he probably doesn't care if consultants get to keep their jobs. Just stop marginalizing us, stop trying to coddle Republicans, and DON'T undermine the Democratic party. It's pretty simple really.
The success of YearlyKos and your need for anonymity shows you understand that we have influence. It now falls at YOUR feet to stop this. The new movement has grown immensley in a short amount of time, and it's only getting bigger. When us "everyday" Americans finally put the country back on course, we will be happy to include any consultants who may have differing political views, but support the over-arching cause. The rest of you will be looking for new jobs... and those newspaper headlines won't be so easy to get then.
Permalink | 67 comments