Denver blogger blames union problems on the party moving so far to the right...

[madfloridian]

under Bill Clinton, the New Democrats, and the Blue dogs.

Denver Post Blog: Rebel Insider

This divide between the Democratic party and the unions shows just how far to the right Bill Clinton, the New Democrats, and the Blue Dogs have taken the party. Historically, and particularly in the immediate postwar period until the late 1970’s, unions were a strong and powerful lobby within the Democratic party. Reagan Republicanism smashed what little power unions had and the Democrats moved to the right to finish the job.

Howard Dean, John Hickenlooper, and Bill Ritter have a delicate negotiating job ahead of them. And the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Powerful statement and very true.

Remember the words of one of the founders of the DLC and New Democrats. Remember when they pleaded their case that business contributions would make them less reliant on labor.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

The party deliberately separated themselves from unions, and that makes the present party chairman's job very difficult.

Governor Dean strongly believes that unions were responsible for the strong middle class we had in this country before Bush. He is determined to work with them.

A little more from the Denver Post Blog.

As reported in the Denver Post (see Chuck Plunkett’s article here), Hoffa recently confronted Governor Ritter in Washington at a party, saying that the issue could “blow up” in the summer of 2008, with protests and picket lines at the Democratic National Convention, unless Colorado and Denver became more union friendly. John Sweeney has also weighed in, supporting Hoffa’s criticisms, saying last month that he would ask the Democratic party to move the Convention to another city unless they resolve the issues that divide them. The two men seem to be on the same page.

This tough talk may just be the standard sort of foreplay that trash-talking boxers indulge in before a match to hype up the audience and psychologically dominate their foes. A bargaining chip to force the other side’s hand while behind the scenes it is all about civility, coalition building, and compromise. In the end, this is labor’s chance in Colorado, a state with a poor record of supporting union rights (remember Ludlow?), to push through more pro-union legislation. And it is doubtful that organized labor is just going to just lie down and take it.

And from the Photo Blog at the link.

Governor Dean on stage.

Photo Blog

And from the rally, just a quick statement that was said with a grin.

“We believe that the road to the White House leads through the West. And the road to the White House will include Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. And we’re not above doing all kinds of things to pick up some ground in Utah and Wyoming. (big grin and applause)

[Cha]

1. Mind boggling the work Dean has

cut out for him and his allies. Dean does it with humor and grace and that's saying something in the cutthroat world of politics especially today's.

[madfloridian]

6. Humor and grace and persistence.

Exactly. I wish I had more of those qualities. Sometimes I do.

[Cha]

9. Yes! Perseverence, Dean has..one

of the reasons we love him. :loveya:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. This is the perfect time for Dean and all of us. SEIU has a strong presence in CO.

:loveya: MKJ

[madfloridian]

3. I heard that about SEIU being strong there.

:hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Shades of William Jennings Bryant.

:hi: MKJ

[madfloridian]

5. I think the link I had was faulty....question.

Was Bryan nominated in 1896 and also in 1908? Was there one other time.

Ok, I found a better link: He was a 3 time nominee.

Background
William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic nominee for President (1896, 1900, 1908) and one of America’s greatest leaders/orators as the nation came of age at the turn of the 20th century, left an enormous legacy of achievement and public service which has been largely unheralded or forgotten.

http://www.agribusinesscouncil.org/bryan.htm

The Cross of Gold speech was 1896.

This was a powerful part:

"Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and grass will grow in the streets of every city in this country... Having behind us the producing masses of this country and of the world supported by the commercial interest and the other toilers everywhere...we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them 'you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.'"

(Cross of Gold Speech, William Jennings Bryan, July 9, 1896, Democratic National Convention, Chicago, Illinois)

[IChing]

7. I talked to workers tonight that might strike at Albertsons

as I was checking out for a few groceries
I asked about the issues and how they felt.
the place was very slow.

Before long I had 7 workers listen and I wasn't talking loud.
I told they they are being played against people that get more hours
than 32. The victors are the ones that make the millions upstairs..

A Very Important point.
Dean and I have this big tent we live in and some of it I don't like.
As Johnson said: better they are in the tent pissing on a wall
vs. pissing out side on the whole structure.


I don't know.
Corporations? The workers should be in a cooperative ownership partnership with the CEOs
that way, No more $$$$$$$$ bonuses for laying off workers.

the pissing has been going outside the tent
and inside the tent for so long, the corporate urinator
is getting old.


We have serious problems that corporate society are not solving
on a global or a personal scale, with the known resources, technologies and information
that are available now. We know that are better solutions that have addressed
the growing crisis which has been just giving us a 32.5 hours wal-mart solution
for the workforce, the planet and enviroment with more profits for the rich.

Capital vs. Labor.-----they, capital, brought the fight on once again.

[madfloridian]

8. When the Democrats began to shun labor and minorities....

they had nowhere else to turn. Late eighties, early 90s. That is why these paragraphs from the OP are vital....the Democrats deliberately turned their backs on whole groups of our party. Workers lost their rights because there was no party fighting for them.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[madfloridian]

10. They just made stuff up as they shut out the middle class from the party.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/4/1/185920/4542#2

These two paragraphs show how their use of words had the effect of ignoring reality, presenting a false view.

While acknowledging the importance of the old Democratic Party base, after the election Al From blasted Gore for alienating upscale "wired workers" in the new economy, the swing voters in comfortable suburbs who, he says, were turned off by Gore's populist message. In a special issue of Blueprint entitled "Why Gore Lost," From issued a scathing broadside against his former New Democratic ally. "By emphasizing class warfare," wrote From, "he seemed to be talking to Industrial Age America, not Information Age America."

Key to the DLC's political strategy is its belief that American workers are no longer attracted by the Democrats' support for the New Deal and the Great Society because they are entering the upper-middle class in droves. "You can't have class warfare without classes," says Peter Ross Range, the editor of Blueprint. "All these guys have boats in their backyards."

Words have meaning and should be reality based.

[loyalsister]

11. The elitism here

is the belief that everyone lives and works in the information age.

There are still people trying to keep up in industrial America.
There are still people trying to keep up in agricultural America. To ignore these as facts. To pretend people don't exist, goes beyond class warfare.

It is treating people like ants. And these ants are pretending they exist.
What a humiliating bubble to burst.
The politician that keeps it inflated is the one they like. The one who bursts is the one they hate.

[madfloridian]

12. I was just listening to Kristofferson's song..Jesus Was a Capricorn..

I was just reading your post about the elite. In my mind that is the part of the party that considers themselves our elites....we are the someones they look down on. The collective "we" is just ordinary people who see the corporate spin we have been fed.

"Jesus was a capricorn
He ate organic food
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes

Long hair, beard and sandles
And a funky bunch of friends
Reckon wed just nail him up
If he came down again

Chorus:
cause everybodys gotta have somebody to look down on
Who they can feel better than at any time they please
Someone doin somethin dirty decent folks can frown on
If you cant find nobody else, then help yourself to me"

[loyalsister]

14. Actually my comment was about tone

and I was then being tangental and philosophical. I'm not convinced that song fits this particular scenario.

[madfloridian]

15. I knew what you meant.

I just happened to read your post at that time that I was listening to the album, and the thought entered my head.

Actually the words of the song are pretty apt for our time.

In fact I see your statement:

"The politician that keeps it inflated is the one they like."

being played out many times.

[Alexander]

61. "All [American workers] have boats in their backyards." - DLC

Speaks volumes about them, doesn't it?

I'll give them credit - the DLC is really good at two things. Denying reality, and losing elections.

[paulk]

13. for a blogger who is supposedly writing from Colorado

this guy doesn't get it.

Colorado has always been "anti-union". It has nothing to do with Bill Clinton, New Democrats, or Blue Dogs. Republicans controlled the State Legislature for over 30 years prior to the 2004 elections. Most of the gains Democrats have made in the last few years are because of new Dems and bluedogs. Those are the candidates the people in CO have elected to replace the right wing fundy whackos who made up the majority before.

I'll take a dlcer or a blue dog over a Republican any day of the week.

[madfloridian]

16. You are wrong, the move away from Labor was done deliberately

As I quoted in the OP....one of the "stated" goals of the group was to distance themselves from the party interests that could not fund their needs....you know, like minorities and labor.

The blogger is very perceptive.

[paulk]

24. this blogger doesn't know what he is talking about

and neither do you.

You're trying to conflate two things that have nothing to do with each other.

The Colorado situation vis a vis unions and the DLC's position on unions.

You can tell me I'm wrong when you come live in CO and understand the political and labor history here. Until then, you are arguing from ignorance.

[madfloridian]

27. The DLC arm of the party did the labor movement in. It started in the 80s.

It was deliberate.

[paulk]

30. not in Colorado they didn't.

I keep hoping that once - just one single time - on this board - you might actually listen to someone.

[TnDem]

38. Nope...

What did the labor unions in was the one-two punch of Raygun firing the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 and then NAFTA/GATT later on. It is hard for a $21 an hour employee in Milwaukee to compete against a $3 a day Indian or Salvadoran.

The companies are only partly to blame. They do what companies ALWAYS do...Look for the cheapest way out. Companies only want to boost the bottom line and not save the world. Kinda like the old fable about the scorpion crossing the river on the back of the frog. He promised not to sting the frog, but then did anyway. When the frog asked him why the scorpion did it, he answered, "It's my nature".

When the entire world was placed on a so-called "level playing field" with NAFTA, et al, that's when the number crunching started en masse....and the American Unions lost.

[madfloridian]

39. The rise of business friendly Democrats was on the backs of labor.

The philosophy of the DLC enabled the election of business friendly Democrats, and they simply continued Reagan's policies.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[TnDem]

40. I agree but.....

I don't particularly believe that the DLC, (and I am certainly no fan), was the deciding factor for the demise of the US Union.

As stated, when NAFTA, GATT and others were passsed, companies realized that they could not compete with pittance waged foreign workers from across the globe. They did what all companies do....They moved overseas.

At that point, the union fate was sealed for manufacturing employees. Service employees barely hang onto theirs.

The DLC may have advocated a reluctance to adhere to support from the unions on a long term basis, but that was due mainly to "the handriting on the wall" concerning cheap foreign labor.

[madfloridian]

41. But think who passed NAFTA, GATT, etc.

That's what I'm saying.

[paulk]

46. Bush the first passed NAFTA and GATT started in 1947

what are you saying?

[madfloridian]

48. Article

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v45/ai_14667450

[NormanYorkstein]

69. Not that simple, Bush I and Clinton/Gore both pushed for it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA#History_of_the_implementation

The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed on 17 December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor).<3> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<4> Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification on November 1993.

[paulk]

90. the point is that all too often, especially among the anti - Clinton

faction here at DU, NAFTA is laid completely at Bill Clinton's feet, and, as your reference points out, that just isn't the case.

The treaty had already been signed under Bush 43. Clinton attached side agreements to it that attempted to fix the problems - though not very successfully. I would also add that it was a Republican controlled Congress and Bush 45 that are largely responsible for the failure of those side agreements, IMHO.

[NormanYorkstein]

47. NAFTA and GATT were pushed by the DLC

Without the DLC, NAFTA and GATT would never have passed. You can thank Al Gore, founder of the DLC.

[paulk]

91. another thing that did unions in has been the increasing

use of mechanization in the work place. Companies didn't need as many warm bodies when the work could be could be done by machines. This resulted in reduced union membership - also reduced dues and a lack of money for the unions to use politically.

I belonged to a union from 1979-99 - during that period of time my immediate roster went from over 100 to less than 15. Some of it was due to the open season on unions that Reagan declared - but a lot of it was just that the company didn't need as many people to do the same job as it had before.

[wyldwolf]

17. yes. Too often the left writes without a historical perspective...

...and then denies history, as madfloridian did in her reply to you.

[madfloridian]

20. Labor has always had to struggle. But this group put them aside on purpose.

Being in denial over their own words is just sad.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

The more you insult me, the more your lack of understanding of what many people are about is obvious.

Insults don't bother me anymore, not where that group is concerned. The day I read at the blog in 2003 that I was being called "fringe"....was the day I stopped caring about being insulted.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

[wyldwolf]

21. No, this group put them aside as a litmus test for who candidates should be

Thank God we don't have to get the approval of every special interest before we field a candidate anymore. It worked so well for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.

[madfloridian]

23. The DLC decided labor and minority interests were not important.

Therefore they could kowtow to big business and ordinary people be screwed.

This year, retired on fixed income...we have seen the very wealthy have their taxes cut.

Now we find not only our property tax, insurance...etc. have quadrupled...BUT..guess this....

Retired, fixed income....our income taxes have gone up 5 times over a few years ago. They are more than quadrupled.

But the rich are getting richer and average folks are screwed because a group of Democrats sold us out.

[wyldwolf]

25. they decided they didn't need to have a consensus reached by those groups on acceptable candidates

[madfloridian]

26. They took corporate money and did corporate bidding.

.

[wyldwolf]

42. Who doesn't?

[Alexander]

58. Paul Wellstone, that's who.

The person who coined the phrase "Democratic wing of the Democratic party".

I guess people from the Republican wing don't appreciate that fact.

[wyldwolf]

70. Yes he did

Northwest Airlines
Anheuser-Busch
Clear Channel Communications
AT&T

More?

[madfloridian]

36. You are saying they get to pick our candidates for us....no consensus needed.

Just like Carville's smoke-filled rooms.

[wyldwolf]

43. yes, I am.

[Alexander]

59. Yes, let's have the DLC make our decisions for us.

Especially when their chairman advocates privatized Medicare and Social Security.

Obviously making the Democrats more like the Republicans is the answer. Should I bow before your infinite wisdom? :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

62. no, I said the special interests, staring in '72, chose the candidates

[Alexander]

63. "Special interests" - like the Democratic base?

Funny, I seem to remember the primary rules changed drastically starting in 1972, where the machines and interest groups lost a considerable amount of power and the strength in the primaries went to the voters themselves.

I guess those voters are "special interests" and should not have been allowed to pick the candidates? :eyes:

McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis didn't lose because they were too liberal, they lost because they were lousy campaigners. And the DLC has had more than its fair share of election losers - look no farther than Harold Ford or the 2002 election results for evidence.

Personally I'd rather have many different and diverse "special interests" choosing a candidate than one single organization representing one single interest. But then I believe in democracy and all that liberal stuff.

[wyldwolf]

64. Again, you're mistaken what the Democratic base is

Yeah, the primary rules did change starting in '72 and mandated quotas for proportional black, women, and youth delegate representation. This gave rise to organizations that represented such, which expanded to other special interests. Eventually, Democrat felt they had to appease every one of these groups.

McGovern lost because he was percieved as weak on national defense. Mondale and Dukakis lost because they pandered to so many of these special interests they were percieved as not caring about the common American interest.

[Alexander]

67. Again you demonstrate your ignorance of history...

McGovern changed his mind on many key issues, not the least of which was his running mate, and as such was portrayed as indecisive on nearly everything, sort of the prototype to the "flip-flopper" attacks on Kerry. This was helped by Nixon's "ratfucking" campaign which helped torpedo Muskie, Humphrey and other more formidable primary contenders, and Wallace's assassination attempt.

Mondale and Dukakis had so little charisma and were such poor speakers that just about anyone would've defeated them. Mondale in particular made some awful blunders, like picking Ferraro and promising to raise taxes. Dukakis had the Willie Horton problem, his tank photo-op and his weak response to Bernard Shaw's debate question about his wife.

These candidates made far too many personal blunders to attribute their losses to any "special interests" or blame any groups for their loss. To do so reveals your stunning lack of knowledge regarding electoral history and contempt for working people.

If the DLC was so great, they'd have more to boast about than Bill Clinton's presidential victory, which was more because of Clinton's personal charisma anyway. We should all be thankful the DLC wasn't in the driver's seat last year, or we'd be saying "Speaker Boehner" right about now.

Can you address Harold Ford's recent quotes where he advocates privatization of Medicare and Social Security? Can you please explain to me why this is a good idea?

[wyldwolf]

72. ignorance of history is yours .. and you can't rewrite it.

[Alexander]

78. You can't refute my posts, apart from snarky one-liners.

Typical strategy - if you can't attack the facts, attack the people presenting the facts.

For some reason the Republicans and the DLC both use this strategy. I wonder why?

[wyldwolf]

84. you've not refuted mine - other than trying to spin history.

What facts are you referring to? History says Mondale and Dukakis went to every interest group to pander for their support. YOU say they were just lousy campaignera.

Typical lefty - you attack someone. That someone attacks you back. The you complain about being attacked, all the while revising history.


For some reason the Republicans and the far left both use this strategy. I wonder why?

[NormanYorkstein]

71. "special interests" - i.e., not corporations, but people

Americans who work for a living are "special interests" but for some reason corporate lobbyists are the "general interest". This is Orwell level.

[wyldwolf]

73. organizations of people that respresent just THEIR interests

...

[NormanYorkstein]

75. all organizations represent just THEIR interests

I'm supposed to believe a New Democrat think thank is the "general interests" and they represent "all of us"? Baloney. That's Orwell level doublespeak.

[wyldwolf]

76. Your grasp of the obvious is outstanding

Democratic candidates, however, should not have to pander to each of those organizations.

[Alexander]

79. They should instead pander to CEOs, right?

You know, like the CEOs that will run those new companies that will be created if Harold Ford gets his way and Medicare and Social Security are privatized.

[wyldwolf]

82. who said that?

[The Magistrate]

81. Nonetheless, Mr. Wolf, It Is An Odd Semantic Shift

Certainly up until the period of the Great Society programs, anyone using the term 'special interests' was understood to be refering to various business cliques, banking, oil, mining, and the like, who were rightly perceived to be engaged in seeking to receive various extra assistances towards their profits from government, whether this was beneficial to the people or no, which in fact it generally was not. The re-tooling of the term to indicate, instead of plutocrats, identifiable groups of citizens numbering tens of millions, has been a master-work of propaganda on the right, that took at least two decades to contrive and at least one more to solidify. Clearly, we on the left need to restore the term to its original usage: union labor, various ethnic and regional and 'life-style' blocs of citizens, are very different 'interests' than banks or agri-business combines....

"The laboring people are necessarily the most numerous portion of society, and it is nonesense to maintain that what benefits the greatest part can be injurious to the whole."

[wyldwolf]

85. ..but essentially means the same thing in terms of electoral politics

Our candidates are expected to serve masters other than the electorate as a whole.

I’d like to draw your attention to an article by Michael Tomasky from last year in which the author contends that Democrats should make “the common good” the prevailing theme of progressive politics and reign in the interest-group and group “rights” orientation that have held back our party for four decades. In regards to the Democrat’s historic opportunity to regain control of one of both house of Congress, Tomasky wrote:

To seize this moment, the Democrats need to think differently — to stop focusing on their grab bag of small-bore proposals that so often seek not to offend and that accept conservative terms of debate. And to do that, they need to begin by looking to their history, for in that history there is an idea about liberal governance that amounts to more than the million-little-pieces, interest-group approach to politics that has recently come under deserved scrutiny and that can clearly offer the most compelling progressive response to the radical individualism of the Bush era.

For many years — during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society — the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea — the philosophical principle — that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.

This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance — not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. Any rank-and-file liberal is a liberal because she or he somehow or another, through reading or experience or both, came to believe in this principle. And every leading Democrat became a Democrat because on some level, she or he believes this, too.

Ed Kilgore of the DLC has his own personal experience to share on the matter:

It’s important to remember how central the interest group/group rights framework was to the Left until just this juncture of history. Back in 1988, one of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s best known prerorations invoked his grandmother’s beautiful quilts as a metaphor for the Democratic Party, and then proceeded through a litany of “the groups” (everyone from small business people and farmers to gays and lesbians), addressing each with the warning: “Your patch is too small.” I can remember listening to this powerful litany on the floor of the 1988 Convention in Atlanta and thinking: “Is that who we are? Just a bunch of groups linking arms to protect their stuff?”

On DU, DUer WC Green caused a bit of controversy himself by echoing all of the above:

After the 1994 election, I went to a progressive convention in Detroit to find out how we could re-energize the Democratic Party. It was good idea, I thought, cathartic even. But after the initial bitch and moan session, they decided to break off into small working groups. The folks on stage, and this was a huge hall, about 1,500 people, started to count off the various caucuses and where they would meet. Gays over here, Lesbians over there, Pro-choice down in front, Hispanics over by the podium, you get the drift…. And they went on for a while and I it dawned on me right then and there why we had lost. I remember raising my hand, an out of place white guy in a suit, and the “facilitator” called on me and I said, in a half hearted attempt to bring a little humor to this wake, “Excuse me, where do the slightly pissed off white guys go?”

The three days were spent in workshops that were right out of a Newt Gingrich attack ad. A lot of feeling was discussed with little to no agenda developed.

It was then that I knew the Democratic Party was going to be in the wilderness for some time.

The people who were the backbone of the party were nudged out, the workers, the Catholics, the middle class were literally jettisoned in favor of lifestyle politics that was as foreign to them as America was to their immigrant ancestors.

Don’t get me wrong. I am strongly pro-choice and for the rights of gay couples to join in any union they wish. No one should be denied rights in the country, period.

But if we continue to be held captive by special interests groups that demand absolute fealty to their cause, we are doomed as a majority political party. And just where does that get our agenda?

People who claim, on this board, that Harold Ford or Bob Casey are the second coming of Hitler because they are Christian or Pro-Life or are against Gay Marriage had better wake up and smell the coffee.

Ask yourself this, would you rather remain forever in the minority, fighting the windmills in your mind, or would you rather have a seat at the table. Your choice.”

[The Magistrate]

96. Not Really, Sir, As The Things Are Different In Kind

Where groups of millions of citizens are viewed as 'special interests', it becomes impossible to speak of "the electorate as a whole" in any meaningful sense. What you are really speaking of is not the "whole electorate", but groups within it which may be larger than some other groups, or which may look with disfavor on some other groups for various reasons. Nor are you speaking of a situation where 'favoring' the 'special interest' comprising millions of citizens does any concrete harm to the people as a whole, in the same way that, say, allowing power plants to pollute because it is more profitable to their owners does concrete harm to the people as a whole, in terms of illness and associated expenses people incur as a result. To take one current 'hot button' topic, no one, anywhere, suffers any concrete harm if the laws allow homosexuals to marry their life-partners: people may experience pangs of disapproval, but that is not concrete harm, it is not a money cost, or a physical injury. The people as a whole are hardly injured if working people have an easy time forming and maintaining Unions, and secure better pay and safer working conditions: an owner may face a lessened profit, but he is not the people as a whole, and the increased economic activity spurred by more spending money will act to the benefit of the entire economy.

You can express your position more meaningfully by stating that some groups are small, and unpopular with larger groups, and so as a cold calculation it might be better to woo the larger group than the smaller. There is certainly some sense to that view, but it is a more complicated matter than it appears on the surface. Many people belong potentially to several groups, and how is it be determined which line will be best to court them? There is no group within the electorate that is so large it can command a majority on its own, and it is quite possible for many smaller groups to bulk larger in total than the largest group, though it may be more dificult to wield these fractions into a whole. Viewed more deeply, simply courting the largest group flies in the face of the inspirational words you cite in your first quotation: it quite exempts the larger group from any need to "balance self-interest against the common interest", though it requires it of the rest, and requires them, as well, to take the self interest of the larger group as the common interest. Where the self-interest of the larger group is emotional, rather than concrete, but may well if indulged inflict real harm, through discrimination and second-class citizenship in various forms, on smaller groups, there is a real problem, that cannot be squared with commitment to the betterment of all people in their various conditions.

[Greyhound]

18. As a fifth generation Coloradoan I call bullshit.

Do you remember Ludlow? Have you ever heard of the Gates Tire & Rubber Company (they kept unions out by taking better care of their employees than the union could). It wasn't until the 80's and the invasion from Texas that Colorado became anti-union, per se.

We do, and have, a long tradition of conservatism, but it is a conservatism of the west, mind your own business and I'll mind mine, good fences make good neighbors, etc. Not the authoritarian travesty that masquerades as conservatism today.

[paulk]

28. I guess I just flat out missed the DLC 's anti union

policies having something to do with the 1914 Ludlow massacre....


I would think that the examples you cite - Gates and Ludlow, make my point. Colorado has always been anti-union, it's not something that the DLC brought to the state, as MF is saying.

[madfloridian]

29. The DLC hurt unions and labor and minorities nationwide.

Before we even knew it was happening.

[paulk]

32. did you change your name or something?

my post wasn't directed to you.

Do you think you could resist the urge to post the same thing over and over

no matter how little it has to do with anything I posted

and maybe let the person I responded to

respond to me?

[madfloridian]

33. Write down all your rules for me.

I forgot I am not supposed to respond out of turn. Do you want me to raise my hand?

[paulk]

34. you used to be a schooteacher?

I would think it's common courtesy to not respond out of turn.

[madfloridian]

35. You guys have so much fun with your digs....that it almost seems silly.

Hard to take them seriously anymore.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

51. If my posts are not to be taken seriously, then why do you do it?

Just don't pay any attention to me.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

54. That makes no sense at all. I gave two examples, one where there

was no union and the deadly result which brought a union, and the other which showed an innovative, partnering or win-win, solution to everyone's problem, and you choose to view it as anti-union.

Making the statement that "Colorado has always been anti-union" is simply false.

[Cameron27]

56. I don't understand what you're saying.

The miners in Ludlow were in a union that was on strike. The Colorado Nat'l Guard murdered them on behalf of Rockefeller for the very fact that they were striking against him. It didn't bring a union, it was already there.

[Greyhound]

87. You are right, I was in a hurry when I typed the reply. What was in my brain, that didn't

come out through my fingers, was that the union got stronger with the backlash from Ludlow. As for the Gates Co. they (the Gates family and the workers) realized that no union is better for everyone and unnecessary if the workers are well treated, an example of the old Colorado thinking.

[gulfcoastliberal]

19. Hey madfloridian - DLC fired a warning shot re: SS, Medicare

Harold Ford recently said in a DLC speech that congressional dems are going to have to make "uncomfortable" choices regarding Medicare and social security:

After an administration that has larded the tax system with special breaks for those who need them least, we must take the lead in passing tax reform that rewards work just as much, if not more so, than wealth. We must take the lead in ensuring that a progressive tax code is restored once again. And even though the deep fiscal hole this administration has dug will make it harder to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long term, we owe it to ourselves to be honest about this debate. We owe it to our children to be candid and frank about the real choices before us, even if it means making some in our own party uncomfortable as we talk about it, we owe it to children and to everything we stand for as a party to talk about this honestly and forthrightly.*

Does the DLC mean Bush-style SS privatization? Ending Medicare? Who can say - they certainly do not.

I notice the DLC likes to throw bones at traditional democratic ideas, like universal healthcare. But never specifics. And never really lobbying for policies benefiting the middle class. Only to cut social safety nets, since those are "loser" ideas.

We need a national strategy not only to compete but to win in this global economy. To start, we need to provide universal health care and universal college and lifelong education. The current president has ignored both needs, but the next president can make both happen. We can cut the costs of health care by modernizing our system, reforming it to reward results instead of procedures, and holding down chronic costs and curing chronic disease. With the money we save, we can achieve universal health care built on universal responsibility. Government should be responsible for making sure everyone can afford health care; people should be responsible for making sure their families are covered; and the health care system responsible for delivering affordable and reliable results.*

Ok, so what is the role of insurance companies to cover all citizens? Whoops! "Rewarding results, not procedures..." Ok, the DLC must think we're REALLY stupid not to remember how well that worked when it was tried with the HMO model of insurance. Of course, now they're wrapping this rotting fish in the wrapper of "consumer driven" (ie, "results, not procedures") - enormous deductible, huge out of pocket expense plans that continues to erode the last vestiges of corporate citizenship in the form employer sponsored health insurance. See: Whole Foods, Inc employee "health insurance" that places pretty much all costs squarely on the employees:

New Way to Curb Medical Costs: Make Employees Feel the Sting
Whole Foods Plan Tries to Give Workers a Reason to Save

By RON LIEBER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 23, 2004; Page A1

When Patrick Bradley visited a podiatrist last year, the vice president at Whole Foods Market Inc. was asked to walk up and down the hallway so the specialist could check his gait. The itemized price for his stroll: $50.

Most people with medical insurance simply would have swallowed hard and forwarded the claim to their insurer. Mr. Bradley, who is 44 years old and was suffering from an inflamed nerve in his toe, complained. The doctor ended up waiving the charge. "He actually said that no one had ever questioned it before," Mr. Bradley says.

Whole Foods is on the forefront of a campaign to change that. The 159-store grocery chain last year adopted a health plan that encourages its 30,000 or so workers to feel a bit of the pain every time a doctor sends out a bill. The new "consumer driven" medical coverage gives employees more of a financial stake in what they pay for medical care in hopes of slowing the growth in medical costs.

snip

The plans have one big drawback: People with chronic conditions can take a big hit, since they have little choice about how often they go to the doctor. Some critics fear that the plans will discourage people from getting the care they need.

http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2004/06/post.html



*Ford speech source:
http://www.ideasprimary.com/Ford_speech.htm

[madfloridian]

22. They want to let private companies handle those programs.

They have often referred to it as "partial privatization" on the road to total "privatization". I have the reference in my journal somewhere in a post about Bob Rubin and the Hamilton Project.

They just pretend they are not saying it. But that is what they are planning to do...in increments.

What no one is saying is that this will devastate those already on Social Security. I mean, where will the funding come from if some are allowed to not donate to the system instead do it privately?

There is going to be a battle, and ordinary people will be the losers.

Senior citizens are screwed by both parties now.

[madfloridian]

31. Why must I be required to provide facts and data...while others don't?

Why don't the DLC supporters have to provide sources and documentation and not just put downs?

[Alexander]

37. Because they're DLC kids. They are just better than us.

And therefore entitled to make the decisions as to what the Democratic party does with itself. Progressives and liberals need not apply.

Didn't you get the memo?

[wyldwolf]

44. because your "facts" and "data" comes from a blog with no facts and data.

Anytime we provide sources and documentation, you call them "word games."

[madfloridian]

45. How about their own words?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1265

[wyldwolf]

53. that's your journal.

[madfloridian]

55. It's their own words in my journal.

I quote their own words.

[wyldwolf]

60. but no one is disputing their words except you

So where are the facts and data that dispute their words?

[madfloridian]

66. I believe their words....I use their own words to prove my points.

You don't seem to have a clue what I am talking about.

[wyldwolf]

74. but you've used no facts and data - just your spin.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

80. Well said.

It seems many DLCers forget what the purpose of this site really is, and try to use it for their own propaganda.

[wyldwolf]

83. Haven't tried. Her premise is flawed to begin with, and she uses a lefty blog as a reference

Kind of like saying the Big Mac is the best burger and using quotes from McDonald's as proof.

And I could give a littany of lefties who were banned or left DU in a huff. Would you like to trade names?

[madfloridian]

88. "lefty blog"

I think your use of the word "lefty" says a lot.

[wyldwolf]

89. it's very descriptive

[Forkboy]

92. So are terms like warmonger,corporate whore,etc.

They are very descriptive too.

[wyldwolf]

93. yes they are. So?

[Forkboy]

94. So desriptive words are not always accurate,and can be used in many ways...

....depending on the user's bias.

[wyldwolf]

95. that's true, but in this case, the OP DID use a lefty blog.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

86. I see...from reading many of these posts...

...that many Democrats are still in denial about the DLC. It's the same kind of denial the GOP experienced as the Neocons took over and ruined their party and America. It's the same kind of denial that pushes DLC/Hillary for high ofice.

We've seen this same denial since the 80s...when the Neocons and 'Neodems' were planning on taking over America and the Democratic party. Their targets were indeed the 'new deal'...social programs, social security and medicare, etc...privatize or destroy what had been built for the 'commoners'. The DLC purposely set out to take away the power of the rank and file...replacing it with corporations and corporate media that financed their 'new democrat', anti-worker voice.

Many of us 'older' Democrats are thinking about leaving the party. We've seen the party that once fought for the people become a second republican party to the middle and lower classes. We've been warning other Democrats for years about the DLC. Some listen...most don't. One can only hope something happens to take away the power of the DLC and their corporate whores that have usurped power.