Al From recounts rebuilding of Democratic Party/AP

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

A few tidbits from the article of how the New Democrats "rebuilt" the party from being a pretty good party into a "not as bad" replica of the Republican party.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOOK_REVIEW_THE_NEW_DEMOCRATS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-01-07-14-17-55

He recalls how party leaders, including many moderate governors and members of Congress, met to discuss the future direction for the party. They concluded that putting together "a coalition of liberals and minorities" was not a winning combination; they had to develop their appeal in the South and West and had to develop a message that could attract political moderates and conservatives.

The group pulled together a nucleus of moderate Democratic leaders to travel around the country and spread the word about the new philosophy for the Democrats. In a carefully coordinated campaign of political events and high-profile speeches, the DLC began to gain momentum and the kind of media coverage that would sell its new message, even though it fell short in the 1988 presidential campaign. But the council had gained national credibility and an important new devotee - Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

The partnership was valuable to both the council and to Clinton. He became chairman of the council and launched a successful campaign for the White House. While the new administration struggled at first, Clinton was re-elected and ended his term with the economy booming.

The 1992 Democratic ticket had two DLC members at the top, Clinton and Tennessee Sen. Al Gore, and Al From and his group were widely praised for helping provide a winning formula for the Democrats. The centrist group continued to offer Democrats input for almost two decades after Clinton was first elected, then finally shut down in 2011. From writes: "We had accomplished our mission and there was no reason to keep it going."

[Bandit]

1. "a coalition of liberals and minorities" was not a winning combination

And there you have it......Can't spell it out any plainer....Liberals and Minorities need not apply...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Yep. Can't have those crazy hippies, reds, et al, tainting the party.

[Shrike47]

3. I kept reading the headline and saying, 'Al From where?'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Just follow the 3rd Way to the DLC/New Democrat Highway.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. This deserves recs, by gum.

Good ole NAFTA Clinton.

Article does explain a whole lot.
I keep hearing here on DU, folks asking "what happened to the Democratic Party?".

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. See?

It was all Nader's Perot's fault!

Nothing like a group of Coors - Koch funded corporatists to advance the cause of progressivism in America.

[pampango]

7. At the link: Ironically, now the GOP has do something similar in order to compete in the future.

The book is particularly timely because the Republican Party's leadership has set a goal of broadening its appeal after losing the last two presidential elections. And the Democrats will need to look closely at their political direction after President Barack Obama, with his unique coalition of supporters, leaves the White House.

From, a veteran party operative, could see that the Democratic Party had evolved into a political operation seen as beholden to its many interest groups and increasingly unappealing to the middle class, particularly middle-class whites, who had drifted away from the Democrats in the previous two decades.

From helped remake a Democratic Party more than two decades ago that was at a low point after Democratic nominee Walter Mondale lost 49 states to Ronald Reagan in 1984, just four years after President Jimmy Carter lost by almost as big a margin.

From notes the GOP's job of reinventing itself may be harder "because their party is much more ideologically homogenous" than the Democrats were in the early 1990s, when the party had a strong contingent of moderates and conservatives to support the swing to the center.

[woo me with science]

9. One party, two faces.

It is continually necessary to recalibrate the game, on both sides, so that the illusion of two different directions can be maintained while ensuring that both parties serve the same corporate interests.

[pampango]

13. To some extent, but the 'recalibration' was to bring one party back from 'too far to the left',

while at least some elements in the other party are trying to come back from 'too far to the right'. I'm not so sure that 'corporate interests' occupy the center towards which both 'recalibrations' were/are aimed. The Democratic party is too close to the center now, but the republican party tacking back in that direction would not create the 'illusion of different directions'.

My reading is that political parties have always struggled with the "purity" (right or left versions of "we have to stand for something&quot vs. "we need to win the center to get into office" factions going back through our history. In the 1980's perhaps the Democratic party was too "pure" on the left and lost elections. Now republicans are too "pure" of the right and are destined to lose elections as a result. The frustrating thing is that our 'purity' in the 1980's did not drag the national political conversation to the left to the same extent that the republican "purity" has dragged it to the right in the decades since.

[geek tragedy]

8. a mediocre party that wins elections is better than a great party

that loses them

the DLC's big problem was stupid strategy and a lack of vision. Its assessment that the Democratic party needed to be more competitive after the debacles of 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 was pretty obvious.

[woo me with science]

12. You are seriously trying to peddle this absurdity AGAIN?!

This utter idiocy AGAIN about traditional Democrats' being too "left" or "fringe" for the electorate?

The corporate talking points brigade SERIOUSLY needs new writers.

As you already know but persist in ignoring, polls consistently and repeatedly show that that the electorate is far more on the page of traditional Democrats than the corporate candidates we are offered, over and over again. Across party lines, voters favor protecting SS and Medicare, they despise austerity, they want to curb the surveillance state, they want to invest in schools and infrastructure, and they want to cut military spending.

And the proof of the lie is that candidates pivot LEFTWARD every single election season to win voters. They lie and say that they will support a public option, or protect Social Security, or rein in the NSA, because they know that is what voters want to hear. But as soon as the election is over, it's back to the business of the one percent.

The Tea Party is bankrolled by big business. So is the Third Way. The Third Way was never a grass roots phenomenon. It is a deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party, bankrolled by corporate interests.

We have a systemic problem of corporate money driving policy in both parties now. That is what happens when corporations buy elections. And posts like the one you just made are what happens when corporations buy the media.

[Chan790]

10. Al From always makes me think "From where?" and wish he'd go back there.

I firmly believe a better Democratic party is one that rejects his existence and input.

He should be shunned, ignored, shamed, and only spoken-of in whispered tones.


This is the face of evil.

[Zorra]

11. History will not be kind to Mr. From because of what he did to Democrats. nt

[Dawson Leery]

14. By 2016, the coalition of women/minorities/educated professionals/social activists

WILL BE a winning one.

[Scuba]

15. I was once told that the reason we had a Democratic Party was so that ...

... there would be no alternative to the Republicans.

[MisterP]

16. the differences are there to get you to vote for the similarities

(in case the wrong cat gets in!)
we have two Powellite/Reaganite parties and a neckbearded "rebel" movement of owellite/Reaganites

[Luminous Animal]

17. Like we don't hear from enough assholes.