HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What is "Third Way" & Who...

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:45 PM

What is "Third Way" & Who here supports it?

I keep seeing references to "Third Way."

What exactly is this philosophy or position?
And who here supports it?

(This is meant as a serious inquiry, so please don't come into the discussion just to post something snarky.)

58 replies, 3397 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply What is "Third Way" & Who here supports it? (Original post)
TheDormouse Mar 2016 OP
yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #1
SamKnause Mar 2016 #19
Baobab Mar 2016 #44
Rhiannon12866 Mar 2016 #55
redstateblues Mar 2016 #2
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #3
think Mar 2016 #4
SamKnause Mar 2016 #16
FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #29
silvershadow Mar 2016 #58
orpupilofnature57 Mar 2016 #5
SamKnause Mar 2016 #15
SamKnause Mar 2016 #18
840high Mar 2016 #37
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #6
SamKnause Mar 2016 #17
The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2016 #7
SamKnause Mar 2016 #11
LiberalElite Mar 2016 #20
farleftlib Mar 2016 #33
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #8
Fumesucker Mar 2016 #9
SamKnause Mar 2016 #10
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #12
SamKnause Mar 2016 #14
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #25
SamKnause Mar 2016 #32
Marr Mar 2016 #42
justiceischeap Mar 2016 #48
dubyadiprecession Mar 2016 #13
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #21
earthshine Mar 2016 #22
Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #23
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #24
noretreatnosurrender Mar 2016 #26
LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #35
SamKnause Mar 2016 #36
steve2470 Mar 2016 #56
Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #57
Autumn Colors Mar 2016 #27
Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #28
TheDormouse Mar 2016 #31
djean111 Mar 2016 #34
think Mar 2016 #30
Baobab Mar 2016 #49
Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #38
Dragonfli Mar 2016 #39
Dragonfli Mar 2016 #40
Marr Mar 2016 #41
hobbit709 Mar 2016 #43
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #45
TubbersUK Mar 2016 #52
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #53
Hekate Mar 2016 #46
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #47
Rex Mar 2016 #50
Trust Buster Mar 2016 #51
redstateblues Mar 2016 #54

Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:48 PM

1. Excellent question for discussion!

I hope the Hillary supporters dare answer.
Here, has popcorn with butter and cola with ice in a glass and a straw
while we wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourpaljoey (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:35 PM

19. They are here.

They are denying it exists or ever existed.

Imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:34 PM

44. Neoliberalism - its a global thing- a global attack on the public-see the two videos I just posted

The "Third Way" is just another name for neoliberalism, which started around 1980 in the US as a response by the very wealthy to the gains in the postwar period, basically it was a pushing back of progress and a set of policies that have successfully reconcentrated wealth at the top, A big portion of the agenda of neoliberalism is disinvestment by governments, transfer of wealth to corporations, disinvestment is also known as privatization- Liberalisation is both privatization and the elimination of regulations, public ownership of anything if framed as another regulation and as a taking from the rightful owners which are claimed to be the business sector, corporations.

So "third Way" activities are focused on privatization and funneling public resources to private entities as efficiently (meaning by spending less on wges and other things) more profits. ("maximizing the value in the supply chains"

It promises the elites and the upwardly mobile, educated members of the haves in the have not developing countries access to the markets in the developed countries, jobs especially.. By doing that it pushes down wages of the middle class and maximizes profits.


Bill Clinton is globally associated with neoliberalism, more than any other American

Similarly with Obama- both are neoliberals- So is Hillary.

What is neoliberalism? See:



and



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #44)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:25 PM

55. Thank you. I was hoping someone would post a serious answer.

I've never understood exactly what it meant, either..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:48 PM

2. It's a straw man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:52 PM

3. please elaborate? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:53 PM

4. ThirdWay.org exists. The DLC & Third Way corporate shilling goes way back.....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:31 PM

16. Oh do tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:58 PM

29. Not acording to the Third Way website

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:25 PM

58. ^THIS

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:55 PM

5. Any Hillary supporter, It's progress for very few, the same amount making the decisions ,a Political

 

society more than a Democracy, they fight all day with the other side, then drink to us at night .Bipartisanship is scary in the third way world, it means both sides of the aisle are resolute in ,Bailing out the rich and putting us in to as many wars as we can afford .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:30 PM

15. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:34 PM

18. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:25 PM

37. .+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:58 PM

6. It's the Boogeyman.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:33 PM

17. It has certainly had frightening consequences in this country

and globally as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:59 PM

7. It's how Democrats "compromise" with Republicans

by giving them everything they want while pretending to uphold "liberal" principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:04 PM

11. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:39 PM

20. ^^^^THIS^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:05 PM

33. What you said

 

It's a game in which the goal is socializing the risk and privatizing the profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:02 PM

8. Think the Clintons, blue dogs, collaborators.

 

They are the "moderate", "not as bad", "lesser of two evils", wing of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:03 PM

9. Basically the corporate cash friendly portion of the Democratic party

Which the current primary has revealed to be the vast majority of the elected officials.

They parsimoniously and grudgingly dole out progressive social issues while ignoring progressive economic ones in favor of trickle down economics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:03 PM

10. Anyone who supports Hillary supports the Third Way.

Early adherents of the Third Way were Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:05 PM

12. Third Way is Republican economic and foreign policies...

 

While adopting one or two liberal positions on social issues to pretend to be 'progressive' and attract single-issue voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:29 PM

14. Excellent description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:52 PM

25. But not very accurate. DLC and Third Way adopt already popular and fully advocated social positions

 

to exploit for their own advantage, they opposed marriage equality until the public was getting behind it, once the work was done. This is why Hillary and her big name endorsers are like a list of the last Democrats who stood against marriage equality. They fool no one in such communities because those issues take years of work and those who took part know who did what. They also remember who did not do what. That applies to the Reagans and to their Democratic simulacrums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:03 PM

32. I like both descriptions.

All Republican policies are about exploitation.

So it stands to reason if they are adopted by the Third Way, there will be exploitation involved.

All parties of politics back stab and hold grudges.

I like Bernie for his in your face honesty, his proven integrity, and his vision for this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:13 PM

42. True-- they don't actually work to *advance* the social issues they use as

 

liberal bona fides-- they're only to be used as lines of scrimmage. Their position is always 'a little to the left of the opposition' on social issues, wherever the opposition happens to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:37 PM

48. I've lived in different states

I was born and raised in Missouri until I was 12 (most Democrats in Mo. are Third Way/Blue Dog Dems)
I then moved to Amish Country Pennsylvania (most Democrats in the area I lived in are Third Way/Blue Dog Dems)
I then moved to a very tiny pocket of blue in Norfolk, VA (before VA became a purple state). Anyway, in the small area I lived in we were all very progressive but the further you expanded by north and south, well, tons of Third Way/Blue Dog dems.
Finally, I'm in Maryland, in the DC burbs. We're a fairly blue state but I can tell you the further west and south (in the peninsula area) you go in Maryland, the more moderate Democrats become.

The point of the above list is this: If we want to win Democratic elections, then we have to be a party available (and welcoming, IMO) to all shades of Democrats. If we aren't, then we're no better than the Teapublican party that we constantly complain about on DU.

Do I wish Blue Dog/Third Way Democrats were more liberal in foreign policy? Hell yes! Do I wish they were more liberal with the economy? Hell yes! However, one thing I can generally count on with Blue Dogs/Third Way Dems is this: Socially, they are not going to vote in a theocracy. They may not be brave and stand up for things like marriage equality until the polls tell them otherwise but they also have constituents they are beholden to. It seems many are missing this viewpoint in the Democratic party these days--that our party is a melting pot and, until recently, we didn't have purity tests or have to sign pledges to be a part of the Democratic party.

From where I'm sitting, I'm pretty close to abandoning both parties and becoming an Independent. I'll always vote for the Democrat but I don't know if I want to be associated with what some want our party to become (which doesn't look a hell of a lot different to me than the Tea Party).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:06 PM

13. They had political unrest in germany that gave way to a third reich...

I did nazi that coming!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:51 PM

21. It seems there are no Third Way supporters in this discussion ... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:00 PM

22. Hillary supporters want to own her, but not admit she’s a third-way, corporatized centrist.

 

It’s like tea partiers who say, Keep your government hands off my Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:33 PM

23. Here on DU it means broadly the policies followed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama,

and are expected to be followed by Hillary Clinton.

By DU's definition, at least, I personally am most certainly "Third Way" with a couple of exceptions like opposing the death penalty and supporting single-payer health care and drug legalization and strong gun control. I am economically centrist (most here would probably call me center-right) because I think taxes are pretty much high enough, I don't see corporations as the enemy, I don't support abolishing the tax cap on Social Security, and I basically approve of Bill Clinton's welfare reforms. Also I support free trade, NAFTA, and Keystone XL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:42 PM

24. thank you nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:56 PM

26. Thank you

for your honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:14 PM

36. Whoa !!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:04 PM

56. Thick-skinned soul you are, indeed. Can I ask you a question ?

Why do you oppose abolishing the tax cap on Social Security ? Sincere question, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 09:41 PM

57. Because right now Social Security is perceived as "fair" even by very high earners.

Someone who earns $10 million per year pays the exact same Social Security taxes as someone earning $120,000 per year, but will also receive the exact same Social Security payments upon retirement. This seems "fair" and makes Social Security feel more like a retirement savings plan than a welfare scheme. If you were to abolish the cap on taxes but not the tax on benefits, then all of a sudden the guy earning $10 million is paying an additional 12.4% tax on that entire income, making Social Security feel more like a wealth redistribution or welfare scheme than a savings plan for retirement. And we all know what even Democrats tend to do to welfare schemes. Wealthy folks' lobbyists will start to exert enormous pressure to end Social Security or amend it beyond all recognition. I don't want this to happen as I like Social Security, and the best way to prevent this from happening is to keep the cap. Right now Social Security is in the sweet spot of being an important source of retirement security for the poor, and being pretty much irrelevant to the very rich (due to the cap), and I think we should keep it this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:56 PM

27. Republicans who infiltrated the Democratic party

 

for the purpose of moving them to the right in order to support policies that benefit the wealthy and corporations.

A good bet is the "Hillary can do no wrong" folks are supporters of "Third Way".

Count me out on that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:56 PM

28. You should at least check out their own website (currently featuring War on Terror!!!) and let them

 

promote themselves as best they can. You can see which elected officials are currently haunting their board and note their propensity to self praise.

http://www.thirdway.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:03 PM

31. I skimmed the website. Where do u find public officials listed there? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:10 PM

34. If you want to see some elected officials who are advised by the Third Way, check out the membership

 

list of the New Democrat Coalition. They are advised by the Third Way, and their mission statement used to say (it was changed when the primary campaigns started) that they eschewed that stupid old ideology and just wanted to work with the GOP. And, sorry, but that never ends well for actual people.

It is not enough to "get things done" - it is what things get done that even more important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:00 PM

30. Third Way Dems’ new war on Elizabeth Warren progressives:

 

Third Way Dems’ new war on Elizabeth Warren progressives: Why their centrist pitch is a political loser

By Jim Newell -TUESDAY, AUG 11, 2015 07:00 AM CDT

The New Democrats want to spread their message of fulfilling big business's wish list. That'll sell!

~Snip~

The floor’s all yours, New Democrats. What policy ideas would sharpen House Democrats’ appeal to moderate voters?

• Trade deals. “When Obama needed support from his own party to pass landmark trade legislation, he turned to the New Democrat Coalition. The group mustered just enough votes — 28 in total — to clear fast-track trade authority through Congress, despite opposition from the party’s left, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.“

• Dynamic scoring
. “Reps. John Delaney of Maryland and Scott Peters of California introduced a ‘dynamic scoring’ bill — an issue normally favored by Republicans — that would encourage budget scorekeepers to score tax cuts favorably to reevaluate how Congress spends money on infrastructure, research and education.”

• “Reforming” Dodd-Frank.
“Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes is one of the most outspoken advocates for reforming the Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill.” [Jim Himes seems like a nice fellow and has a good-by-congressmen-standards Twitter account. He is also owned by the banks.]

• Corporate tax reform. “Lawmakers in the coalition repeatedly stressed that reevaluating how the U.S. taxes corporate profits from overseas operations could be an area of compromise between the moderate Democrats and Republicans.”

OK OK, I think I see the problem here. This article and the quotes within it frame New Democrats’ proposal as geared toward appealing to voters. You know, voters! Humans who visit polling stations and cast their ballots for either Democratic or Republican candidates.

But these policy proposals are quite obviously ones that are not geared directly toward winning these voters back to the Democratic ticket. Can we be real here? ...

Full article:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/third_way_dems_new_war_on_elizabeth_warren_progressives_why_their_centrist_pitch_is_a_political_loser/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:10 PM

49. This is BS, just a cover story for their neoliberalism

People are starting to realize this so they are using the same tired old good cop bad cop cover story they used to obscure GATS blocking all future healthcare reform starting when it was signed in the 90s.

obviously its working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:27 PM

38. Third Way is a wing of the Democratic Party which opposes all of FDRs policies and programs. They

are Corporatists and support the agenda of the oligarchs. Some of their social agendas are liberal, but only after these become politically popular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:27 PM

39. New Democrats, The DLC and the Third Way


[font size ="1"]President Bill Clinton with Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, at a conference in 2000.[/font size]

New Democrats, in the politics of the United States, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with centrist social/cultural/pluralist positions and neoliberal fiscal values. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions

After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner. The DLC disbanded in 2011 during an apparent re-branding of the New Democrat movement when money ties to the Koch bros. and Koch representatives placed on the DLC's board embarrassingly became common knowledge among the Democratic left. The DLC is survived by the Third Way, The New Democrat Coalition, and Al From's Progressive Policy Institute among other corporate funded groups that continue to sell their Economic-Right/Social-Left brand of "Centrism" to America.



The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.

Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various center-right progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for neo liberalism and the New Right. In a sense, 80s Moderate Republicans are almost identical to "Third Way" Democrats.

I strongly believe it's time for a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various center-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the neoliberal corporate policies previously popularized by Reagan and Thatcher! For thirty years we have all but abandoned liberal solutions to economic problems, chasing instead the snake oil of supply side economics, austerity and neoliberal trade policy. These right wing policies have failed miserably, and rather than learn from the New Democrats failed experiments, the center-right faction of the democratic party has chosen instead to double down on failure with more free trade and austerity measures (to include cuts to Social Security).

In the face of a new gilded age of extreme wealth contrasted by an exponentially growing rate of poverty,  a rapidly shrinking middle class and the emergence of an elite class of  bankers, politicians and other predatory behemoths that are held firmly above the law and enabled to steal the remaining crumbs of wealth held by the masses without repercussion, it is not only time to return to Democratic principles of old that created the strongest most prosperous middle class in our history, it is time to reverse the damage done by the right thinking "New" Democrats and their failed policies with a new populism based on the needs of the people over the elite.

We do not need a "Fourth Way" to accomplish this, all we need is a return to the fundamentals of Keynesianism, a strong commitment to labor, increased spending on social programs (rather than cuts), progressive taxation, and an end to the cancer of privatization that would reduce the commons and the basic needs of the populace (such as health care and drinking water etc.) into the cash cows of profiteers of human suffering

Time to dump the "Third Way" for the unquestionably effective "Democratic way" made successful by the New Deal, The Great Society, and civil liberties. Our party can not serve two masters, the choice is clear, they must serve the financial elite, or the economically struggling populace

My choice has already been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:03 PM

40. Some more information from DUer Madfloridian

[font size="3"]Al From's group wanted a "bloodless revolution" in our Democratic Party.[/font]

Al From in his recent book, The New Democrats Return to Power, indicated that their group was formed to take over the party's policy.

He went further, even proclaiming they could take over the party. In many ways they did. This is sort of Part 2 of It's Al From’s Democratic Party, we just live here.

The DLC group is sometimes portrayed as a pro-Wall Street set of lobbyists. And From did recruit hedge fund legends like Michael Steinhardt to fund his movement. But to argue these people were corrupt or motivated by a pay to play form of politics is wrong. From is clearly a reformer and an ideologue, and his colleagues believed they were serving the public interest. “Make no mistake about it,” wrote From in a memo about his organization’s strategy, “what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party." It is not unlike what the conservatives accomplished in the Republican Party during the 1960s and 1970s



I disagree with Stoller on one point for sure. I do not believe From's colleagues believed or even cared if they were serving the public interest. I believe funding and profit were their main goals.

We can thank them for the trade deals that have taken many jobs overseas. Al From was really firm on Bill Clinton supporting NAFTA. Notice he wants to "beat" organized labor. What kind of Democrat does that? A New Democrat.

As From wrote in a memo to Clinton in his first term, “Of all the opportunities you have this fall, NAFTA presents the greatest. Passing NAFTA can make your presidency. NAFTA presents both an economic and political opportunity…I can’t tell you how much better it would make your life and how much it would strengthen your presidency for you to beat (David) Bonior and organized labor on NAFTA. That would reestablish presidential leadership in the Democratic Party, something that hasn’t happened since 1966.”

From had an institutionalist perspective on NAFTA. He believed in free trade, but he also believed in Presidential primacy over the legislature. '“Politically, a victory on NAFTA would assert your leadership over your own party by making it clear that you, not the Democratic leadership in Congress or the interest groups, set the Democratic Party’s agenda on matters of real national importance.” You can hear echoes of Obama, and the broad Democratic party, in its collective disdain towards Congress. That is one consequence of From’s revolution, a shift of legitimacy away from the legislature.

From worked with Bob Rubin, Bill Daley, and Rahm Emanuel to run a campaign to pass NAFTA. Since rolling labor and crushing the left was his favorite activity, From jumped into this feet first. He registered as a lobbyist, talked to members on the Hill, and traveled nationwide to do public and media events on behalf of the agreement. It worked, and in his view, set the stage for the rest of Clinton’s term



I question the wisdom of having a contest between Congress and the President on purpose.

More from Al From's piece about his book at The Atlantic last year.

Recruiting Bill Clinton

Subtitle:

How the New Democrats recruited a leader and saved the party after three devastating Republican routs

I have to disagree with Al From about the subtitle. We have had other devastating losses in the most recent years. How does he explain that? His DLC advocates are still in firm control of the party apparatus, so how do they explain these losses.

In this article Al From tells of how they got started on changing the party. Their think tank formed their own think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute. Al From named it Progressive because, in his own words, he was tired of his group being called conservative.

To bring about real change in the Democratic Party, the Democratic Leadership Conference, which we had founded in 1985 to expand the party's base and appeal to moderates and liberals—had to become a national political movement. That required two things.

First, we needed an intellectual center, because without a candidate to rally around, we needed a set of compelling ideas. Just as it was clear that we needed to paint the mural, it was also clear that we needed to beef up our capacity to paint it. We needed more substantive help. We needed a political think tank with the capacity to develop politically potent, substantive ideas that our elected officials and political supporters could embrace. In January 1989, we created the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).


Hard to argue they did succeed in setting policy for the party.

This article from last month by the Progressive Policy Institute tells how President Obama worked on getting the TPP passed.

New Democrats plan ‘assertive’ new presence in House

But a group of pro-business Democrats, who allied with President Barack Obama and Republicans to pass landmark trade legislation, are angling to cut more deals with the GOP and White House as a way to assert themselves — and force the Democratic Caucus to the center.

Led by Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, the New Democrat Coalition of some 50 members sees opportunities this fall on taxes, trade, Medicare and government spending. Those are all areas where House Republicans have struggled to fashion 218-vote majorities from within their own party, with a cadre of restive conservatives often rejecting leadership’s compromises with Senate Democrats and Obama.

“We need to reconstitute the center of American politics again, on both sides. That is a crucial role we have to play, especially when it comes to the economic message and what resonates in those competitive districts,” Kind said in a recent interview.

Moderates are tired of being overshadowed in a party where liberals have long dominated the agenda, even as Democrats slipped further into the House minority after the 2014 midterm elections. They’ve accused the White House and party leaders of focusing too much on niche economic issues like the minimum wage and pay equity — policies, moderates argue, that turn off suburban voters Democrats need if they want to take back the House. And top Democratic leaders have released them to break with the party’s liberal base, in many cases an acknowledgement that many moderates come from tightly contested districts.

Early returns have been positive.

When needed support from his own party to pass landmark trade legislation, he turned to the New Democrat Coalition. The group mustered just enough votes — 28 in total — to clear fast-track trade authority through Congress, despite opposition from the party’s left, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. It was the latest — and most controversial — instance of the group flexing its muscles.



I disagree with above statement about liberals controlling the agenda. Can't remember a time when we did that. Maybe before my time.

In his article linked above, Recruiting Bill Clinton, Al From tells why they felt they needed someone like Bill Clinton. He quotes from Clinton's words:

He was not afraid to challenge old orthodoxies. In the early 1980s, long before I knew him, he and Hillary Clinton pushed cutting-edge education reforms, like pay for performance and public-school choice, against the opposition of the powerful Arkansas Education Association. Speaking about education in his Philadelphia speech, Clinton said the Democratic Party was “good at doing more. We are not so good at doing things differently, and doing them better, particularly when we have to attack the established ideas and forces which have been good to us and close to us. We are prone, I think, to programmatic solutions as against those which change structure, reassert basic values or make individual connections with children.”


Some "established ideas" that have been under attack for a while are Social Security and public schools.

From's writing indicates the group believed they were deciding policy for the party even back in the early 90s.

Nearly a year after our Little Rock meeting, at the DLC’s Annual Conference in New Orleans on March 24, 1990, Bill Clinton became the DLC’s fourth chairman. Calling Clinton a “rising star in three decades,” Sam Nunn passed him the gavel. Nunn quipped that when the DLC was created “we were viewed as a rump group. Now we’re viewed as the brains of the party. In just five years, we’ve moved from one end of the donkey to the other.”



I noticed some interesting quotes from Amazon reviews about From's book from December 2013, The New Democrats and the Return to Power.

Al From redefined centrist politics and provided the ideas and organization to move the Democrats from opposition to government, showing progressives across the world how to be principled, modern and in power. (Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom)

I always wished I could be as smart as Al, and this book shows why. He shows what it was really like to be present at the creation of a movement that would take the Democrats from the wilderness to the White House, forever changing the course of American political history. This is a book about ideas as much as the people who forged them into a winning strategy, and it should be read, re-read and underlined by anyone who wants to know what it takes to be successful in American politics today. (Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago and former White House Chief of Staff)

Before 1992, the Democratic Party had moved too far to the left to win national elections. Too little credit is given to Al From, whose book tells the story of how he helped move his party back toward the common sense center. (Haley Barbour, former governor of Mississippi)

The American business community owes a big debt of gratitude to Al From. With vision and persistence he helped lead a major political party back to the principles of private sector growth, trade, jobs, personal responsibility, and fiscal stability. This book proves that the political center can win politically and govern effectively. Both parties -- and the American people -- would be wise to learn from Al's inspiring story. (Thomas J. Donohue, President & CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce)


I don't find those reviews reassuring considering the sources.

I think we have to look back like this to understand why we are where we are now. It's time to reverse that "intellectual leveraged buyout" of our party.

Otherwise known as a "hostile takeover."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027200959

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:08 PM

41. Strangely, the people who says there's no such thing...

 

tend to defend everything that political faction does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:28 PM

43. Around here most of the supporters are found in Camp Bansalot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:34 PM

45. The third way

 

Rose in both the UK and the US as a way to attract. Business donors. For the UK labor party and the Dems were in the wilderness due to their losses to the Tories and Republicans respectively. In the US the main promoter of this were the Clintons and their allies.

The ideology puts business before labor, as well as free trade in the form it is taking.

The philosophy also de-emphasizes the social safety net and seeks to privatize major government sectors.

These are the major points. Literally books have been written on this.

It is also known as new-liberalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #45)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:41 PM

52. Yes

Think Tony Blair & New Labour and you have the essence of the UK manifestation of the Third Way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TubbersUK (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:44 PM

53. I know that

 

But most Americans live in a bubble

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:41 PM

46. It has lost its original meaning and become an all-purpose insult at DU ...

For DUers who ever disagreed with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama and have now slid into hatred, it has become the insult of choice.

It used to mean the art of compromise. But then politics itself used to mean the art of compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:57 PM

47. It's a movement of people that believe that good policy comes from collaboration and compromise

If you, like us, are a moderate, you are not alone.

You weigh arguments from both sides. You see complexity where others find certainty. You don’t shout down discussion. You see the folly of absolutes. Compromise is a virtue. You are willing to give a little to get a little. You want government to work and believe it can, but fear it won’t. Your decision is not whether to vote, but for whom to vote. You are willing to be persuaded. You are a moderate; you occupy the center. You represent the plurality of the national electorate. You are interesting. And you are not alone.

If you, like us, are a moderate you are among diversity. Thirty-seven percent of self-identified moderates are non-white, which is more diverse than either liberals (30%) or conservatives (25%). You may be young. Millennials are the most moderate of any voting generation. You lean Democratic, though 40% of moderates call themselves Independents, and only one-third say party labels tell me what I need to know about a politician. And you believe both parties are more ideological than the parties view themselves. One-quarter of moderates describe congressional Democrats as very liberal and two-fifth say congressional Republicans are very conservative.

You don’t blur complexities, but surface them. By an overwhelming 84-14% margin, moderates support universal background checks. But by a 58-40% margin, moderates say today’s gun laws are sufficient to keep me safe. By a 53-40% margin, moderates wish government was more involved in improving the economy. Yet by a 54-43% margin, moderates believe that when government gets involved in something it usually goes wrong. And three-quarters of moderates want to see the deficit reduced and spending on infrastructure increased. These aren’t contradictions; these are complexities – because the world is complicated and so is public policy.


http://www.thirdway.org/about/the-center

In the context of this site, and sites like democrats.com, the term is used as an invective. It is considered an insult to be "Third Way", as it signifies one is not pure in their "progressiveness." The flip side would be the term (not often used here at DU) to refer to those in Occupy, Code Pink, and similar organizations as "the Professional Left" -- a term coined by Robert Gibbs when he was White House Press Secretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:31 PM

50. Well there are the many versions of it on DU and then there is the official version.

 

Basically it is a neo-liberal think tank that wants to take 3 of the 4 pillars of Reagnomics and use them to make sure their investment banker backers get the best ROI money can buy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:38 PM

51. I made my own independent decision to support Hillary. Imagine that.

 

Unfairly indicting Hillary supporters by accusing them of being robots of some organization is nothing short if slander IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:56 PM

54. So is a middle manager making good money working for GM

a corporatist? That person is part of the mythical 99%. Is he an evil corporatist feeding at the corporate teat? How much does an employee need to make to be a corporatist? The broad brush approach the Purity Party applies to any of us unBernies is baffling and usually used as a pejorative when describing a Democrat who supports Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread