DLC has become such a disdained 4-letter word around these parts, that some use those three letters to define anyone and anything that isn't ideologically true blue liberal. For example, people refer to pro-life or pro-gun Dems as a DLC-like problem. When wanting to appeal to moderate Southern voters, the DLC charges get tossed around if there isn't complete rigidity on gay marriage or abortion or gun control or some other social issue.
Well, those that associate the wrongs of the DLC with so-called "Bush-light" positions on social issues are missing the point. And that's playing exactly into the GOP's hands.
Go read Thomas Frank's
What's the Matter with Kansas. The problem with the DLC has nothing to do with social issues. As others around here have noted, and as Frank describes and concludes, the problem is with "pocket book issues."
What the DLC did to help ruin the Democratic party was eviscerate fiscal differences between the Democrats and Republicans to lure in moderate pro-business independents and Republicans (and their campaign dollars). In fact, where the DLCers did look to draw distinctions was on social issues - abortion, gays, etc. - difference that would not scare off these moderates. Clinton's most significant capitulations weren't on gays and abortion, they were on welfare and trade.
Unfortunately, the DLC played right into the GOP plan of eliminating the class distinction between the GOP and the Democrats. In other words, before the DLC ever began its plan, the GOP was already moving to highlight the social issues distinctions while branding their anti-labor and anti-farmer and anti-middle class in a nice shiny package.
So, as the '90s Democrats abandoned labor issues and embraced NAFTA, and as the working class and farmers fell into unemployment and poverty, the GOP was pitching them a new target for their anger - instead of the historically blamed business class, the new targets were so-called liberal elites and their anti-American, unchristian values: "Wish life was the way it used to be? Blame those hippies and commies and heathens, those elitist eggheads and the godless media and Hollywood - they ruined the heartland. The American way of life was fine until the free-love '60s, and those liberals are still at it. And don't mind us as we cut taxes for the rich and ship your job to China -- only a commie would want big government to regulate business and redistribute wealth."
So, as Frank concludes, the key to winning back these voters isn't to get all squishy on social issues, it's to reset the discourse on pocket-book-issues. It's not about abandoning gay rights and all, it's about getting heartland Americans care enough about the other issues to not worry about gay marriage and to actually go to the polls to vote their pocketbook. The GOP wants every election to be about gays and guns, as you've all noticed. Don't play into their hands. Wanting ideological and message purity on these issues from our candidates and campaigns will doom us from ever connecting again with those Americans that need our help the most. We should demand purity on fiscal issues. That's why the Bankruptcy Bill was such a lost opportunity. That's why CAFTA was such a mistake. And that's why our triumph on Social Security was the beginning of Bush's decline.
We, of course, must defend equality and privacy against every GOP assault. But we need not worry that a handful of pro-life Dems are going to devote their political lives to overturning Roe. No anti-gay marriage Democrat is going to sponsor an anti-gay marriage amendment. With a Democratic majority, our government will get back to governing and creating opportunities and helping those that need it most, rather than try to write equality and privacy out of the Constitution.
Blame the DLC all you want, but blame it for the right reason. Demand purity - but demand it for what should unite all Democrats together ... and with their true constituents.
(Note: I'm not exactly sure to what extent the DLC still operates this way, but if the CAFTA vote and the Bankruptcy Bill are any indication ...)