The DLC’s vague advice to Dems

August 7, 2007

There’s been plenty of discussion of late about the Democratic presidential candidates steering clear of the DLC’s annual convention this year. I won’t rehash the debate, but I think it’s interesting that the DLC seems to be making a concerted effort to reassert its relevance in Democratic politics.

Today, for example, DLC Chairman Harold Ford Jr. and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have an op-ed in the WaPo about — you guessed it — the need for Democrats to focus on centrism.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don’t exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party’s leading centrist voice, aren’t needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven’t voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

What’s not to like? It sounds to me like a worthwhile, achievable goal. So, what do Ford and O’Malley have in mind? What do they want Democrats to do in order to capture the center? What do they see as the flaws in the Democratic status quo?

Unfortunately, the op-ed is a little thin in this area.

According to the Ford/O’Malley piece, Dems should:

* build a lasting majority “with ideas that demonstrate to the American people that if they entrust us with national leadership, we can deal effectively with the challenges our country faces and the challenges they face in their everyday lives.”

* focus on counter-terrorism, global economic competition, and energy independence.

* deliver “practical answers to the problems they face every day.”

I realize it’s tough to present a comprehensive vision in a 741-word op-ed, but Ford and O’Malley wrote an entire piece urging the Dems to take their advice — without offering any specific advice. Generalities are fine, on occasion, but these DLC leaders want presidential candidates to focus on “practical answers” to the problems Americans “face every day”? I might agree with if I knew what kind of answers would be addressing what kind of problems.

Indeed, Ford and O’Malley actually praise the candidates that don’t want to talk to the DLC.

So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That’s why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.

So, Democratic presidential candidates are already doing a good job focusing on issues important to the DLC — without having to consult or visit with the DLC at all. Candidates are pursuing a progressive agenda and hanging out with bloggers, and the DLC is impressed with what it sees.

Given this, I have no idea what Ford and O’Malley hope to accomplish with this op-ed. It’s vague and filled with generalities, and it urges Dem candidates to keep doing what they’re doing.

If there’s a point to their piece, it’s hiding well.

The only thing Fancy Ford forgot was bending over and spreading for every Republican he ever met.

  • The DLC is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as well as increasingly perceived as being part of the ‘Establishment.’ It is not surprising that they resort to appeals of ‘center’ and ‘balance;’ the same M.O. as everybody’s favorite turncoat hypocrite, Joe Lieberman. The DLC’s minions try to infest the frontrunners in the Democratic party with talk of ‘center,’ but we’re onto their game–essentially peddling views and insight that mirrors the best (worst) of the Republicans. Wolves in sheeps’ clothing and all that.

  • Here’s my advice to the DLC, if Billary gets nominated, I’m not going to bother voting.

  • CB says: If there’s a point to their piece, it’s hiding well.

    I see their point as being to try and jump on the bandwagon in order to preserve any semblance of relevance.

    I don’t see any problem with any Dem candidates “inviting” them on board (recognizing them) while being as non-specific as they are in addressing their vague concerns. Centrism almost invites mealy-mouthedism, eh?

    This sort of reminds me of how, on the other side, the Christian Coalition has become a mere shadow of its former self, yet Repugnicant candidates still nod in their direction in order to glean whatever votes and influence (if any) they may yet deliver.

  • “Here’s my advice to the DLC, if Billary gets nominated, I’m not going to bother voting.”

    i’m tired of hearing this. even though i don’t like hillary, if she is the nominee i will vote for her. i’m not going to let a republican get elected by not voting. i’m sorry, flame me if you want, but that’s just plain dumb.

  • Oh, brother…O’Malley is my governor, and while I was sure happy to see him whup Bobby Ehrlich’s GOP butt, the DLC stuff pains me. It does explain his being Hillary Clinton’s MD campaign chair, though. What O’Malley is facing in MD is growing Republican numbers in the state, and I suspect he is playing to that element.

    I tend to think that neither Ford nor O’Malley can really define what the “centrist” label really means, and that’s why they can’t give much in the way of advice about how to move there. If “centrist” could mean that one is always open to consideration of all points of view, that one stands in the center because that’s where you can see everything most clearly, then we should all strive to be that kind of centrist. If it means always playing to the option that affords one the best shot at “winning” something or other, then, no – I don’t want to be that kind of centrist – to me, that’s just “opportunist” spelled with fewer letters.

    My advice?

    Hear what people are saying. Ask questions until the other person says you understand what they are saying. Consider that our answer is not always right for all the people all the time. Strive to leave ego out of the equation. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before you shoot off your mouth. Do not always assume you know more than everyone else in the room. Educate, don’t condescend. Understand that what works in New York doesn’t work in Des Moines and what works in Idaho is dead-on-arrival in-Connecticut. Remember that the importance of the issue is not proportional to the amount of cash someone is willing to pay you to listen to them.

    It would be a start.

  • What we need is a “Constitution party”, not the now-derivative parties that exist, to whom Constitutional principles and protections mean absolutely nothing. Never mind that America’s Constitution is what made her great in years past. Not once in that piece is a return to Constitutional guarantees.

    The Democratic party may disintegrate before the Republican party does, simply because the Republican agenda for many years has been to annihilate the Democrats and now the Democrats are cooperating in that agenda even though they comprise the legislative majority.

    The ineffectual DLC is just an indication of this disintegration, with no strong party program, no guiding principles. So they run to catch up on “issues” without recognizing that the unitary executive powers Bush has suddenly foisted on America and had approved by the Democrats effectively have made “progressive issues” moot.

  • I have no idea what Ford and O’Malley hope to accomplish with this op-ed.

    Create the impression that the DLC is still relevant?

  • So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    What? The phrase is “the proof is in the pudding.” If you waste words by embellishing a simple phrase like that, you’re obviously bullshitting.

  • Effective “centrism” is less about what you do then how you say what you’re doing. Adopt non-scary, reassuring, familiar language so you don’t appear like some sort of radical freak (which is how Democrats once came across to “middle of the road” voters, and still do at times and in some circles) and then do the right thing. Had the DLC realized that then perhaps today they’d still be relevant. But the reality is the DLC already changed the language of the Democratic party and the party as a whole is not as kooky as it once was – which is largely why the DLC sounds so irrelevant today.

  • The point, carpet, is not the content of the oped.

    The point is the existence of the oped. It fairly whimpers “We are still relevant!”

  • Haik, your comment made me go look this up – thought you might be interested:

    http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm

    The principal trouble with the proof is in the pudding is that it makes no sense. What has happened is that writers half-remember the proverb as the proof of the pudding, which is also unintelligible unless you know the full form from which the tag was taken, and have modified it in various ways in unsuccessful attempts to turn it into something sensible.

    They wouldn’t make this mistake if they knew two important facts. The full proverb is indeed the proof of the pudding is in the eating and proof has the sense of “test” (as it also has, or used to have, in phrases such as proving-ground and printer’s proof). The proverb literally says that you won’t know whether food has been cooked properly until you try it. Or, putting it figuratively, don’t assume that something is in order or believe what you are told, but judge the matter by testing it; it’s much the same philosophy as in seeing is believing and actions speak louder than words.

    The proverb is ancient — it has been traced back to 1300 and was popularised by Cervantes in his Don Quixote of 1605. It’s sad that it has lasted so long, only to be corrupted in modern times.

  • Re: anney @ #7

    Agreed. All the talk is much about the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Too few from the Corporate Military Industrial Media-blessed political monopoly seem interested in wresting its helm away from a group of anational, amoral, imperialists (or even mentioning the iceberg in its path).

    But hey, like the blind, Right Wing Authoritarian “patriots” believe, she’s an “unsinkable” ship. No need to worry about the lack of life-boats.

    Full steam ahead!

  • No, no, don’t take the “center” for granted, says the DLC. Take the progressives for granted! Where else are they going to go? Distort the facts to make it look so very difficult for Democrats to get elected that all of those progressive ambitions will have to take a back seat to “practical answers” that capitulate to corporate profits at the expense of the public good.

    Sure, DLC: attack and demoralize your party’s own base. That will be really attractive to undecided voters.

  • tko said: “if Billary gets nominated, I’m not going to bother voting.”

    Right on. It will be time to concentrate on getting a filibuster-proof Senate and a veto-proof House, to take the war to whatever Republican it is that beats her. How it is that the candidate the majority of the country – and the majority of the party! – doesn’t want is the “front runner” is proof of what is wrong with the Democrats.

    Can’t the Clintons just go the fuck away and shut the fuck up????

  • Just bill @ 5, I have no reason to flame you. It’s just a difference of opinion. I believe that if Hillary gets nominated, it will be “business as usual” in Washington. I’ll vote for Obama or Edwards, but not Billary. Bill Clinton took hundreds of millions from Social Security to “balance the budget” and allowed or expedited the exportation of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American manufacturing jobs (including 2 jobs I had). Under Hillary, I’m sure that will continue as well as having a president that sees nothing wrong with lobbyists exerting influence over politicians. It’s time for something other than business as usual and if the Dems can’t nominate someone better, I don’t see any point in voting. Does anyone believe that the current crop of Dems elected in ’06 will have any protests over $hrub starting a new war in Iran or staging a fake Iranian attack on US forces. Look at the disappointment Webb was in voting for undermining FISA. More likely that they will stand there in a puddle of their own piss for fear of being labeled weak on terrorists or unpatriotic and let America continue on its path of self-destruction. Pelosi took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I consider that oath non-negotiable but yet “impeachment is off the table”. She just wanted control of the piggy-bank for earmarks so they can go home and say what they have done for their constituents. I state again, it’s time for a change from business as usual. I had hoped that Russ Feingold would have run, but since he didn’t, I will vote for Obama or Edwards (who I referred to as the chicken fire lawyer) but not Hillary, who never took a stand on anything until the public opinion polls came back.

  • Adding to Anne @ 6.

    I’m a Marylander too.
    O Malley was the slightly less pro-business Democrat to win the nomination.
    He’s favoring a 5 billion dollar road specifically designed to enrich real estate developers even though Maryland lacks 1.2 billion in next year’s budget. The answer is obvious, but Governor O Malley is acting as though there’s a possible justification to support that 18 mile road in the tradition of the “Bridge to Nowhere”.

    He doesn’t even mention it’s a toll road. $7 round trip for 18 miles.
    No doubt meant for all the Hilary boosters he’ll be truckin’ in. DLC types don’t blink at paying 7 bucks a day commuting costs to avoid all us little people on the free roads.

    O Malley won because he was less bad than his opponent who was even a STRONGER advocate for this road that Republican Governor Ehrlich shoved through the EPA with the help of George Bush after being rejected 6 times before.

  • Haik @ 9
    “The proof is in the pudding” is an abbreviated version of O’Malley’s correct phrase.
    That said, you were right, it just meaningless bull.

  • John Edwards is miles ahead of these blowhard has-beens from the “NAFTA and DADT” DLC, both in specifics and in traditional progressive philosophy. Obama comes a close second. No one else comes even remotely close, and (it probably should be said), national pre-primary polls don’t mean jack shit.

  • these DLC leaders want presidential candidates to focus on “practical answers” to the problems Americans “face every day”?

    Maybe they’re embracing Michael Moore’s idea that the government should do our laundry.

  • It’s really outrageous that the same people who couldn’t smash Lieberman in the mouth enough when he refused to accept the will of the Democrats in choosing their party nominee, now say they wouldn’t support an impeccably-credentialed, lifelong Democrat (although they would vote for THEIR preferred Democrat, warts and all).

    What an elitist, self-defeating load of crap!

    Don’t let the door hit you in your elephant on your way out. I wish I had said the same thing to the Green Party purer-than-thous in 2000, because that’s how I felt then, and that’s how (at least 54% of Democrats – Hillary supporters) feel now.

    I’m actually voting not-Hillary in the primary because she’s not my first choice, but I won’t have any problem voting for her if she wins the nomination because most people in my party support her. Like everyone else, I have my reservations about anyone who worked for or gets big chunks of change from a companies with offshore, tax-sheltered hedge funds – oh, wait, that’s Edwards and Obama.

    The bottom line is I would vote for any of these great Democratic candidates if they win the nomination – although none of them are my first choice.

  • “Ashes to Ashes/And Dust to Dust/The Proof of the Pudding/Lies UNDER THE CRUST.”

    The proof of the pudding is the substantiation that what you say it is is what it is. Look under the surface (‘crust”).

    Economists call it “revealed preferences.”

    Just like the DLC prefers to have its Hoover Moment: following the policies of Ford and O’Malley will make the part as relevant as Herbert Hoover.

    Or maybe they mean J. Edgar, and plan to go around in dresses. pretending to be what they are not. Ma nishta…

  • colonpowwow, what “impeccably-credentialed, lifelong Democrat” are you talking about? Not the former self-described “Goldwater Girl”, surely?

  • Yes, Avedon, the self-described “Goldwater girl” is indeed the “impeccably-credentialed, lifelong Democrat” under discussion.

    And stop calling me Shirley.

    • Comments are closed.