Having frequented both DailyKos and MyDD, I have noticed a recurring dislike of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). It has gotten me to think about the history of the DLC, and "New Democrats" in general, and how it relates to the politics of the Democratic Party today.
The DLC was formed in 1985. This year, in my view, is not an accident. It followed the massive landslide victory by Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale. Granted, Reagan was very popular, but an election where Mondale carried only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia definitely had no silver lining for Democrats. Change had to be considered. Clearly, a lot of soul-searching needed to be done, and one of the results was the formation of DLC. One of the founding members of the DLC, and a future DLC chair, was the then-unknown governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton. Per "My Life", by Bill Clinton, the DLC was "dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense" (Bill's words, not mine).
While the DLC had grown by 1988, the traditional wing of the Democratic Party was still firmly in charge, as evidenced by the nomination of Michael Dukakis as our nominee to face Vice-President George H.W. Bush. Traditionally, it had been difficult for a sitting vice-president to directly be elected President following his VP term; however, Bush Sr. bucked the odds, and won a solid victory over Dukakis. By the end of the campaign, Dukakis had been battered by the Republican Right-Wing Machine and had the label of a wimpy, Massachusetts liberal. I think we all know the details.
The defeat of Dukakis was for all intents, the defeat of the traditional wing of the Democratic Party. A very winnable election had turned into another demoralizing defeat. The DLC, positioned with a new outlook, was now poised to take control.
By 1992, the first Bush administration was in the midst of a recession, and looking very vulnerable. Still, recent Democratic performances in Presidential elections did not give us a lot of hope. However, a five-term governor from Arkansas emerged from the Democratic primary as the nominee. And from the outset, it became very clear that Bill Clinton was not your father's Democrat. He was a "New Democrat" in every sense of the word.
In November 1992, Clinton earned a solid victory over Bush (don't let the Republicans fool you...exit polls showed that Perot took votes from both sides equally). For the first time in 16 years, we had won the presidency.
At this point, it would have appeared that the DLC was now the ruling wing of the Democratic Party. One of its own had become President, something the traditional wing had not had in a long time. And at that point, the DLC was on top. However, what looked like the beginning of a long reign for the DLC became the beginning of the end.
The question is, why?
Well, victory can do one of two things. It can embolden you to strive for better things, and further your desire to bring more people into the fold. Or it can make you arrogant, pompous, and bloated. Unfortunately for the DLC, the latter happened.
Clinton's victory in 1992 provided the Democrats a golden opportunity to unify and grow. Unfortunately, the traditional wing was not yet completely sold on Clinton, and the DLC wing made no effort to communicate with them. This deepened a division that should have been remedied. Seemingly, the DLC was just happy to be the big man on campus, and disregarded everyone else within the Democratic Party. This was wrong-headed, because while the traditional wing had lost some influence within the party, they were still crucial. The evolution of the DLC from 1985-1992 had transformed into a political malaise.
During Clinton's two terms, it can be argued that he carried the DLC. He couldn't really rely on them for support and organization; the DLC was living off the capital of having the President on their side. At Clinton's worst moments, where was the DLC? When he needed support on crucial issues, where was the DLC? And when the Republicans attempted a coup with impeachment, where was the DLC? Maybe someone can answer this question, because all I remember was no response.
By 2000, Clinton was left to represent "New Democrats" by himself. This caused campaign problems for Al Gore, himself a member of the DLC. The Monica Lewinsky situation was still fresh in the minds of the public, and Gore felt that he had to distance himself from his boss. Personally, I think this was a major mistake; Clinton had done a great job as President, and Gore was an integral part of this success. Why let the Republican coup attempt taint this. He should have stood up for their great record.
While Gore ultimately must take responsibility for this decision, it did not help that he did not have a strong DLC to help him make the case for the Clinton-Gore Legacy. An effective DLC would have been able to help minimize the effects of the scandal, and help put the political focus on the prosperity and policies of the Clinton-Gore years. Instead, the DLC was non-existent and Gore was left on his own.
As a result, the Gore campaign reflected the traditional wing of the party from a strategy standpoint and this resulted in his downfall. Had he run on the Clinton-Gore "New Democrat" record and had a strong "New Democrat" backing from groups such as the DLC, the Supreme Court would have not gotten involved, and Al Gore would be President.
Fast forward to 2004. For the first time in 12 years, we have a wide-open primary race with 10 candidates to challenge George W. Bush (sorry, I like Bill Bradley, but the 2000 race doesn't count). One of the candidates was Joe Lieberman, our 2000 VP Candidate, and for all intents and purposes, the DLC candidate for 2004 (he was a former chair of the DLC).
Now, I know a lot of folks around here don't like Lieberman, and the reasons have merit (though I must admit, I probably don't feel as some do on this topic), but I liked Joe in 2000, and thought he would run a strong campaign in 2004. Boy was I wrong! He ran a Republican-lite campaign, to say the least. At the various dinners shown on C-SPAN during the pre-primary season, you could hear a pin drop when he spoke. Needless to say, he generated no excitement. And his primary performance showed, as he was resoundingly defeated everywhere he went.
This was also, in the end, the proof of the ultimate fall of the DLC. Once a vibrant force in the party, it had become bland and stale. The DLC had now resorted to attacking Howard Dean at every turn. This was truly ironic, for the DLC was attacking a vibrant leader who had many "New Democrat" Ideas that had brought the DLC to prominence. During the primaries, I felt that Dean and John Edwards had both assumed the "New Democrat" mantle.
Well, here we are in 2005. George W. Bush is still president, and Howard Dean is DNC Chair. Where does the DLC go from here?
Well, in my view, the days of DLC being the dominant wing of the party are over. And in reality, was it really that dominant after 1992? It probably was the most influential wing by default due to Bill Clinton. But it never reached the vibrant potential that it could have, and, though many disagree, this is a shame. The petty attacks against other Democrats since the election have not the helped the DLC's cause.
Still, it would be mistake to write off the DLC. I have seen a lot of their policy proposals, and I see a lot of good stuff that has been well thought-out. Policy does matter, and we need a diversity of voices to get good policy in place in the future. Issues that one may have with the DLC should not be personal; this is just another impediment to getting things done. The DLC can and should be a vital policy incubator for the policy. I just don't think that it can be a political force again unless it begins to work better with other elements of the party.
So, what is the dominant wing of the Democratic Party today? Well, this will have to play itself out. Howard Dean is definitely a major player, and has energized the grassroots, which I believe is the most important development of the past year. Harry Reid has performed well as Senate Leader to date. I don't think that John Kerry will run for President again, but he still has a voice, and will be a factor in some fashion. Hillary Clinton has the name recognition to be a strong player. And we certainly haven't heard the last from John Edwards.
Of course, the presence of Bill Clinton is never far away, nor should it be. He was our only 2-term president since FDR
In the end, as strange as it sounds, I hope that no dominant wing of the Democratic Party emerges. We are all good at talking, but we also need to start listening to each other. In a previous diary, I talked the importance of organization to our Party's future. I hope it is in this area that we make progress over the next four years, not in deciding who will dominate us. We won't worry about whether the DLC or some other group having the most control; rather, we will work to build a better party that expresses its core values, is organized, and wins elections
Well, I have talked a lot in this diary, so it is now time for me to listen. I would love to hear your thoughts.
