Why the time is NOW to take a stand against the DLC

[Totally Committed]

I have been at a loss to explain why I have chosen this election to finally draw a line in the sand, and refuse to cross it. I'm so emotional and angry it, in fact, that when I try to explain it, I go on forever, and mostof the time, in circles. But, as I was researching my weekly anti-DLC post, I found the explanation below, and had a welcome moment of clarity. I decided to share it with you.

These are mostly words taken from The Trouble with the DLC, by Glenn Smith. Arranged this way, they are the most comprehensive explanation of how the DLC has trapped all Democrats into voting for their candidates and their agenda.

The DLC has the money, and thanks to the method below, the Congressional and Senate support (as if we couldn't tell, from the lack of representation we have received from those we've elected...) to bypass the Progressive (read: LIBERAL) populist movement growing in this Party. It is why Carville attacked Dean after the stunning success of Dean's 50-State strategy in the 2006 elections. It is why Al From has attacked MoveOn and Michael Moore, and all who support them. And, it is why our Presidential nomination ticket is top-heavy with DLC shills.

Here is how the DLC has virtually taken control of this Party:

:graybox: Most of their "message"is delivered to voters in the course of elections, not between elections. That takes a good deal of money. They have money. So their movement aimed at influencing these messages, making sure no alternative visions or values are discussed.

Hence, the decline in the national and state Democratic parties, and any semblance of a progressive infrastructure. Their monopoly on message was achieved at the very same time the Right was building a message machine -- think tanks, radio shows, magazines, local grassroots networks -- that was all about delivering message and influencing the opinion environment before election seasons ever arrived.


:graybox: Their campaign model intentionally inverts the logical plan, in which you would maximize your base vote and get just enough votes from outside the base to win.

Cynically, the DLC wants to win with just enough base voters and the largest possible number of votes from outside the base. With this "centrist" strategy, the base gets little mail and a few GOTV phone calls, the "swing voters" are the ones who get messaged. The development of so-called "coordinated campaigns" grew out of and advanced this strategy. Coordinated campaigns were pioneered by shrewd strategists in the South. Using efficiency as an excuse, the strategists developed coordinated efforts in which candidates for statewide office would pool resources to pay for base voter programs. These programs were usually light on message. It was all "get-out-the-vote" and very little "we stand with you for these values." Aware that white voters in the region were bolting the Democrats in the wake of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, the plutocrats wanted to reassure white voters that the Democrats remained loyal to their interests. The bulk of campaign money -- television ads for instance -- were targeted to more affluent, white audiences.


:graybox: There are unmistakeble consequences to this strategy:

(1) Progressive base voters, especially in African-American, Latino, and other disenfranchised communities, were abandoned when it came to Democrats voicing their values. Democrats could appeal to voters in the so-called middle with technocratic policies, promises of competence, and wonkish mumbo jumbo that either:

(a) avoided values altogether, or
(b) appealed straight to the "authoritarian strict father" side of white suburban voters.

Example: Crime. The industrial authoritarian "Democrats" promised crime-fighting sprees that would even embarrass Republicans. Forget the root causes of crime are things such as inescapable poverty, illness, crumbling schools, and the disappearance of hope.

(2) Another consequence is the meek response to GOP voter suppression. These "Democrats" seldom challenged the Right's voter intimidation and suppression efforts, including the parade of police that prowled polling places in minority areas, phone banks into black precincts that gave incorrect polling locations or threatened arrest for those who might vote in the wrong place. There was that now-famous felon-purge of the voting rolls, used by Karl Rove in Texas in 1982. It had to be withdrawn after a non-felon, very white candidate turned up on the list.

(3) Little concern for the progressive base. A growing progressive base was viewed as a threat to the industrial authoritarian "Democrats" for the same reason it threatened the GOP. Also, fears of being painted by Republicans as the party of Civil Rights made the industrial authoritarians exaggerate their distance from the true heart of their party. As time went on, of course, their strategy became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It got harder and harder to boost turnout among minorities. Who could blame such voters? No one was listening to them, no one was speaking to them. If you want to have some fun, get a member of the Democratic consultant class to honestly tell you how many African American polls or focus groups they have conducted relative to their opinion research among the so-called "swing voters."

Importantly, this is why we need to make a stand now. Their influence and negative effect on this Party will only grow as their numbers increase within elected office. We've let it go too far for it not to be a bloody and awful process to rid ourselves of their perniciously collusive actions and votes, their unfathomable aherence to "bi-partisanship", even in the face of total deceit from the other side, and their filthy corporate money.

Final excerpt from the article:

At the Rockridge Institute, we look for better ways of expressing progressive values, but we also analyze various reasons for the dominance of conservative values in the political sphere. Our work is not partisan, but the partisan structures that affect expression of core democratic values must be examined. There is no doubt a critical reason is that the industrial authoritarians used their election-cycle monopoly of message to erase messages that spring from recognition of our social responsibility for one another, for the maintenance of an empowering government that protects while allowing every citizen a chance at flourishing. There was no egalitarian messaging from Democrats because those in charge of the messaging were not egalitarians.


The rise of the progressive movement in the early years of the 21st Century challenges this monopoly. The movement is listening to progressives of all kinds and colors, and driving new messages of hope between and right through election cycles. MoveOn, Huffington Post, DailyKos, new think tanks such as Rockridge, growing local and state progressive organizations: all of them influence the opinion environment outside the old monopolized vehicles.


And a funny thing is happening. The core values of progressives are appealing to Americans of all kinds. It turns out that many of those so-called swing voters share these core values. They were longing to hear them expressed just as those formerly identified as the core progressive base.


Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. If they don't, they may face the creation of truly universal health care, for instance. And then what in the world will their friends in the insurance industry do? Why, they won't have the money to keep the industrial authoritarians in power.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1235

TC