Crossposted at
My Left Wing.
Unlike the majority of Kossacks, I am not one to uncompromisingly rip the DLC. I think they have some points that make sense. But their focus on criticizing the activist base and on dismissing the core values of the Democratic Party makes them, on balance, a negative at this time, in my opinion.
In essence, the DLC argues for a political strategy of fear -- fear of Republicans and fear of ourselves. Consider my friend Ed Kilgore's reaction (Ed is a very astute fellow, but not on this) to the silly Third Way report on, in theory, the "Politics of Polarization":
But the real value of the paper is that it hammers home three fundamental realities of contemporary partisan politics that cannot much be denied: (1) the GOP-engineered polarization of the two parties along ideological lines has made Democrats much more dependent than Republicans on sizable margins among self-identified moderate and independent voters (and thus more vulnerable to base/swing conflicts) (2) George W. Bush's 2004 win was produced as much by persuasion of a sizable minority of moderate voters (particularly married women and Catholics) as it was by mobilization of his conservative "base;" and (3) a changing issues landscape has reinforced the importance of Democratic efforts to deal with chronic negative perceptions by voters on national security and cultural issues--efforts which fell short in 2004.
Consider the 3 points: The first one is nothing new. For the last 20 years more folks describe themselves as Moderate, then Conservative and then Liberal. What do these labels mean? Not much really. As Chris Bowers has aptly demonstrated, the "Polarization" effect has been felt negatively by Democrats in the South. And have benefitted to a lesser extent, in the North. Rather than dealing with that reality and understanding the need to cobble together a new Democratic coalition built around Democratic values, the DLC argues for a strategy to appeal to Conservative voters. And that is simply ridiculous.
The second one is a reinforcement of the first in many ways. Because to understand the DLC's point, you must understand why they think married women and Catholics went more strongly Republican in 2004 than before. They think it was "values" just as much, if not more so, than national security. And they think that is the end of the story. What they miss on this is that Bush did better in virtually every group than in 2000 predominantly because of national security, not "values."
And the third point is really the explanation for the 2004 result - national security was the deciding issue for Bush. The DLC accepts national security as a partial explanation, but has no valid views on how to overcome the problem and thus switch to their favorite hobby horse - the "values" voters.
More importantly, the DLC misunderstands the huge opportunities the "polarization" strategy of the Republicans presents to Democrats. Because of their fear of the Republicans and of Democratic values, they fail to perceive that Republicans are ripe for branding as extremists, and thus separating them from from a majority of self described "moderates." Because they are defensive in mindset, they don't see the new opportunities presented, and basically attempt to undermine any approaches that do.
More on the flip.
Consider the DLC's
analysis of the 2004 election. After rightly highlighting the national security problem and identifying an opportunity issue, the corruption issue, the DLC goes off the rail here:
The third "trust gap" that hurt Democrats was another hardy perennial: values and culture. And here the evidence of a Democratic handicap is overwhelming. As every exit poll has shown, "moral values" was the number one concern of voters on November 2 -- more than terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care, education, or anything else. And among voters citing "moral values" as their top concern, Democrats got clobbered.
Overcoming the cultural trust gap is not just a matter of carefully calibrating positions on specific issues like guns, abortion, or this year's big wedge issue, gay marriage. Indeed, John Kerry did not repeat Al Gore's mistake of leading with his chin on such issues. The problem is that many millions of voters simply do not believe that Democrats take their cultural fears and resentments seriously, and that Republicans do.
. . . There will be a powerful temptation for Democrats to simply go to the mattresses, fight Republicans tooth and nail, and hope for a big midterm sweep in 2006. That would be a mistake, just as it was a mistake to believe that Bush's weakness would be enough to produce a victory in 2004. It's time for Democrats to clearly stand for values, principles, and ideas that will earn us the opportunity to become the majority party of the future.
Here's the problem, if there a voters who prefer the Republican values on social issues, and see that as the decisive issue they will NEVER EVER vote for Democrats. We can't get those voters.
But there are many voters who don't vote for Republicans on social issues. Indeed, they disagree with Republicans on social issues. If these voters voted on the social issues first, or placed a higher priority on them, they would be voting Dem.
And of course, that is where I think we can gain some votes. As well as on other issues. But the "values" issues require a Politcs of Contrast, not a fear of the issue.
And that is why the DLC is harming the Democratic Party -- it is instrumental in closing off a political opportunity while creating unnecessary friction in the Democratic coalition. And another harm is how this leads to nonsense like this in the Economist:
The reason for this is as simple as it is potentially lethal: the Democrats are split down the middle on everything from Iraq to gay marriage. Centrists believe in working with business, protecting family values and fighting terrorism. "We believe that the September 11th attacks changed America for ever," says the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), "and defeating terrorism is the supreme military and moral mission of our time." Liberal activists believe the opposite: that corporations are bad, family values are hogwash, and the war on terror a delusion.
Thanks to the DLC, this type of horseshit passes as insightful commentary. As for the rest of the article, it is stunningly ill informed and stupid, but that is the least of the problem. The DLC's complicity in tarring the base of the Democratic Party is the problem.
And that's why the DLC is hurting us right now.
