The Politics of Capitulation

By Brad Parker

The DLC and Democratic Party "Hackocracy" incessantly chortle, "Winning at the polls is the only thing that counts in electoral politics!" By their very own yardstick they are utter failures and need to be dismissed.

by Brad Parker

Even a casual perusal of the new magnum dictum of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council aka The Third Way) reveals the tenuous ties to reality embodied in its extensive pages of charts, statistics, quotes and downright hokum. William A. Galston & Elaine C. Kamarck's latest bromide to the so-called "New Democrats" or moderates, "The Politics of Polarization", is a thinly veiled attempt to salvage any remnant of authenticity that their original broadside, "The Politics of Evasion" claimed to represent and has since lost. If it was only a corporate hack job to keep the nose of the crony capitalist machine poked squarely into the business of DNC deliberations it could be excused with a "politics as usual" sigh of exasperation. However, it is only the latest attempt to disguise the old biases and intolerance in the new clothes of clever strategy and the "win at any cost to our core principles" tactics so thoroughly discredited by the spectacular electoral loss of every branch of the federal government beginning in 1994 to the Republicans. The DLC and Democratic Party "Hackocracy" incessantly chortle, "Winning at the polls is the only thing that counts in electoral politics!" By their very own yardstick they are utter failures and need to be dismissed.

I highly recommend that every Liberal and Progressive Democrat read both of Kamarck and Galston's papers. There is no better way to educate yourself as to whom we are actively opposed by in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party at every level. Let me state for the record what my overall opinion of the DLC, The Third Way, the New Democrats and Kamarck & Galston et al is; they have reduced themselves to being shills for the National Corporate Party that is attempting to control every aspect of American life and they don't even know it. They blithely espouse the latest model of intolerance based on ethnicity, income, gender, age and sexual orientation. "Business is the Business of America", they grimly observe. "Morality is more important than Freedom", they parrot from their perch on the shoulders of the Republican grifters mining the fears of the middle class. If we assume that they are all good people with the best of intentions for the broad working class, and I do, then we must marvel at how far they have drifted from where they started and the alarming negative effect they have had on our party and the nation. I believe their over-arching self-interests got the best of them along the way and they left the mortals behind as they ascended into the oxygen deprived atmosphere of the gods in Washington D.C. With Dick Morris as a pioneer of their movement this comes as no surprise. Now it's time to come back down to earth, back to main street and reaffirm the core values of social justice, equality, opportunity, civil rights, prosperity for all, security through global cooperation, entrepreneurial innovation, environmental enhancement and inclusion that are the hallmarks of Democratic Party's achievements in the Twentieth Century.

Here are a few pertinent excerpts from "The Politics of Polarization". My comments follow each section.

Page 26

"Four New Myths That Cloud The Mind And Thwart Change

In "The Politics of Evasion," we wrote of a "systematic denial of reality" that was contributing to the defeat of Democratic candidates for national office. Underpinning this denial were three pervasive "myths" that conveniently excused party leaders, elected incumbents, and activists from critical thinking. "The first [myth] is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors -- we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote -- we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion." Despite the differences between 1989 and 2005, it is our contention that the Democratic Party is in much the same position as it was in the wake of Michael Dukakis' defeat. As in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the party today is challenged to modernize its stance on key issues facing the nation and to revise its political strategy and tactics. And as was the case fifteen years ago, there are pervasive myths about the party's condition that stand in the way. Each contains a kernel of truth. But all have the effect of denying the need, and weakening the impetus, for fundamental change".

Myth is the operative word here. Any clouding of the mind has occurred in the author's reasoning and conjecture. The thwarting of change is spearheaded by the DLC. There is no Liberal Fundamentalism only the Liberal Ideal, which retains all of its original value and more. Mobilization is working; we, Liberals and Progressive Democrats, changed the conversation and now the reality of what to do about the War in Iraq. The Party has modernized out here in the real world far from academia and K Street (don't they have the Internet in DC yet?). Micro has overrun Macro in the fast changing world of media and political organizing.

Page 29

"The Myth of Demography

This thesis claims that long-term, ongoing changes in the U.S. population will secure a Democratic majority for decades to come. Among the major components of this shift are: a growing class of post-industrial professionals; women (especially those who are single or highly educated) affected by the feminist revolution; and Hispanics and Asian immigrants, who have come to the United States in record numbers during the past generation. There is something to this thesis as well: Democrats are doing increasingly well among upscale professionals, and women as a whole remain more supportive of Democrats than Republicans, as do Hispanics. But there are some important trends that counterbalance these developments. As we show in an upcoming section of this paper on values, married women concerned about moral issues and security against terrorism have been moving away from national Democratic candidates, reducing John Kerry's margin among women to a scant 3 percentage points, compared to Bush's 11 point edge among men".

Moral values and security issues are the fog the "Republican Anarchy Collective" spewed out across the political landscape to hide the planned evisceration of the New Deal. The fact that the DLC not only fell for it but also then trumpeted it does not make it any more truthful. It' insidious to pronounce that security for women in America depends on the annihilation of Islamist Radicalism abroad while stripping them of their civil rights, under the banner of "morality", at home. It only proves that you can fool citizens drowning in fear and prejudice. Recent events however show Lincoln to have been prescient on how many times, whom and for how long the citizens can be misdirected.

Page 43

"Having logged many presidential campaigns between us, the authors can attest to the fact that Democrats are likely to spend days on health care plans and minutes on character issues. (Republican campaigns do not often make such mistakes.) The delay in responding to the attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans will go down as one of the great strategic blunders of modern presidential politics. But the interplay between morality and personal characteristics raises a larger issue: in the public mind morality has as much to do with the personal integrity of the presidential candidates as it does with their stance on hot-button social issues. This presents Democratic candidates with an enormous strategic challenge. On the one hand, the public will notice--and mistrust -- candidates who are perceived as changing their positions on issues that should be matters of firm conviction. On the other hand, the public will not accept candidates who forthrightly espouse moral views far outside the mainstream".

Morality as narrowly defined by duplicitous hucksters, outrageously removed from the religious traditions of tolerance, charity, inclusion, understanding, humility, forgiveness and peace is hollow and no more than the junk food of spiritual thought and belief (Pill-popping Rush Limbaugh, compulsive gambling Bill Bennett and wife-exchanging Newt Gingrich as the moral lions of the right beg incredulity). Gay marriage, women's reproductive rights and flag defamation are inflammatory themes designed to turn back the progress of the last 50 years made during the struggles for the right of privacy and personal freedom. Their sole aim is to deny citizens their civil-rights based on superstition, fear and hate. DLC regurgitation of these Lee Atwater poisons doesn't make them suddenly true. They remain the tools of the black arts of propaganda aimed at over-stimulated, insecure and paralyzed voters. Freedom still begins in the sanctity of your home and person.

Page 45

"A recently completed series of focus groups among non-college rural and red state voters underscores the growing salience of morally laden cultural themes. Participants reported broad dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration on three issues--the lack of progress in Iraq, economic stagnation and job insecurity, and soaring health care costs--and indicated support for some progressive initiatives in these areas, which they believed Democrats would be more likely to offer. But as the summary of these focus groups goes on to note, "the introduction of cultural themes --specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit, and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders [these progressive issues] almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level." While participants see the Republican Party as offering a clear and consistent traditionalist stance on moral issues, they view Democrats as dangerously inconsistent on-- or worse, as hostile to -- traditional values: "Most referred to Democrats as `liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them `immoral,' `morally bankrupt,' or even `anti-religious'." They regard Democrats as too politically correct, as caring about the rights of the few rather than of the many. While this resistance might well have focused on racially tinged issues two decades ago, today it centers on religion and its role in public life. Issues such as removing the Ten Commandments from public building and outlawing public manger displays at Christmastime symbolize what these voters see as Democrats' support for an elitist "subversive minority" that is out to "erode the moral foundations of our country."

You would have to say that the greatest success of the Republican Anarchy Collective was the complete capitulation of the Democratic Leadership Council to their bogus assumptions. Placing religious icons in public buildings cannot compare with the importance of a healthcare system that works for all citizens at a reasonable cost. Making it more important is the ultimate dog and pony show of modern policy manipulation. It's only surpassed by Wal-Mart being embraced by the consumers whose lives it is systematically destroying. Rather than standing up for the separation of church and state as the finest legal principle ever enacted to preserve religious freedom for all faiths, the DLC capitulated and shrank from the critical thinking necessary to provide a cogent policy argument to counter the RAC snake oil. Theocracy doesn't work. Ask the Iranians.

Page 49

"At the same time, partisanship has become more intense, especially toward the ends of the ideological spectrum. More than three-quarters of liberals are critical of the Democratic leadership as failing to stand up for the party's traditional positions on key issues. At the same time, many religiously observant Americans, who tend to be conservative and Republican, have become less willing to search for common ground on key social issues. When asked whether "Even elected officials who are deeply religious sometimes have to make compromises and set their convictions aside to get results," only 63 percent of respondents who attend worship services at least once a week agreed, down from 82 percent in 2000. Evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics both expressed an increased unwillingness to accept compromise, especially on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The correlation between religious observance and political ideology is consistent and powerful: the more observant, the more conservative. For example, more than half of those who attend church once a week regard themselves as conservative, four times the percentage who are self-declared liberals".

Liberals and Progressives are leading voices in the new conversation that proclaims with constitutional provenance that, "the government is prohibited from interfering in matters of religious belief and religious institutions are prohibited from denying citizens any of their civil rights". We fought a revolution in 1776 to throw off the tyranny of the King and the "Church". A woman's right to choose when to reproduce is a "civil right". Every citizen's prerogative to wed whom they choose in a civil ceremony with all of the attendant rights granted therein and without the interference of any religious entity is a "civil right". Obviously the battle for "rights reserved to the people" is not over. Prejudice is not a platform to build a national party upon, unless you're a Republican. Let matters of faith be the domain of communities of faith and of families. Let matters of public policy be the domain of the constituted government without any restriction by religious dogma or intolerance. Discuss so-called "intelligent design" in the philosophy, theology or comparative religion classes if at all. Teach science in the science classes.

Page 53

"The lesson is clear. As the Great Sorting-Out intensifies, it will increase pressure on Democrats to appeal successfully to the center of the American electorate. By 2004, John Kerry was receiving so few conservative votes that he needed to get 60 percent of the moderate vote in order to win. To the extent that this polarization of American politics remains a stable feature of presidential elections, it means that Democrats will not win unless they are able to garner a substantial portion of the moderate vote -- a direct challenge to the myth of mobilization that plays to "base" politics".

The "Myth of the Middle" has consumed the DLC for two decades. Now they are sidelined by their own success and its subsequent dead end. Leadership must necessarily offer an alternative to capitulation in order to empower voters to walk away from their fears and prejudices and develop a common sense of shared sacrifice. Even the rich will do the right thing when we show them how the right thing will boost their bottom line; enlightened self-interest at work. A Progressive, Liberal future will be the product of offering Americans the choice of hard work leading to shared community reward and responsibility rather than easy emotional answers leading to division and decline. I'll take Roosevelt over Reagan any time.

Page 59

"Along a number of dimensions, Liberals differ not only from other Democrats, but also from the country as a whole. Not only are they younger, better educated, and more prosperous; they are less likely ever to have been married or to have children in their home. They are more likely to be secular in their orientation, only half as likely as other Americans to attend religious services weekly, and only one third as likely to participate in Bible study or prayer groups. 61 percent of Liberals oppose displaying the Ten Commandments, versus only 22 percent of all Americans. A remarkable 80 percent of Liberals favor gay marriage; less than one third of their fellow Americans agree. In the area of defense and foreign policy, 67 percent of Liberals believe that the preemptive use of military force is rarely if ever justified, versus only 35 percent of all Americans. 65 percent favor cutting the defense budget to reduce the deficit; again, only 35 percent of the electorate would go along with them. Liberals are only half as likely to be military veterans as are Americans as a whole. Only two-fifths report that they regularly display the U.S. flag, versus two-thirds of their fellow citizens. While social issues and defense dominate today's political terrain, it is in these areas that Liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that Liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill. Whatever their personal views, these candidates will be vulnerable to the kinds of negative campaigns that Republicans have proved adept at running since 1988. In current circumstances, it is hard to see how Democrats can overcome this disadvantage -- unless candidates are willing and able to carry out their own suitably updated version of the strategy Bill Clinton so successfully employed in his 1992 primary and general election campaigns. Times change, of course. It is not hard to imagine two sets of circumstances that would reduce the salience of Democrats' difficulties on defense and social issues. In the first place, the Republicans could over-interpret the significance of their 2004 election victories and overreach in their use of the unchecked power they now enjoy. If they go too far -- as they already have on a range of issues -- they could end up abandoning the political center, offering new opportunities to their opposition. Second, as Americans continue to worry about their future in an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing global marketplace, the arena of political combat could shift back toward large economic issues. If so, the advantage shifts toward the Democrats, who are both more united on these issues than are Republicans and also more closely aligned with the electorate as a whole. But as Bill Clinton recognized, even in a year in which the economy is the dominant concern, candidates must pass the threshold of credibility on non-economic issues. This cannot happen unless they understand the problem they face and act boldly to address it".

The era of Bill Clinton has passed. It is up to history to judge its ultimate success or failure. Liberals and Progressives don't take a back seat to any political party or faction on any issue including, war, peace, economics, faith, governance or morality. We are prepared to refocus the political debate of the Twenty First Century. We are prepared to offer America and the world the blueprint for the prosperous, inclusive, tolerant future humanity is struggling towards. Modernity demands one of two outcomes. One is the way of totalitarianism the other is the path of democracy, political and economic. Standing for nothing and falling for everything with the DLC will only enhance the possibility of the former and add nothing to the latter.

Page 58

"C. The Rise and Fall of The New Democrats

For most of the 1980s and 1990s, New Democrats struggled with traditional New Deal and post-1960s liberals to define the direction of their party. One of the key consequences of this struggle, coupled with the political strategy the Bush Administration chose to pursue, has been to blur many of the bright lines that once divided these factions. On the one hand, many liberals have accepted the logic of signature New Democratic themes such as fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, a generous immigration policy, and a more open world economy. On the other hand, the radical, unyielding conservatism of the Bush era has forced Democrats to subordinate their differences to the imperatives of mounting an effective opposition. In the 1990s, a majority of New Democrats would have supported the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and some would have stepped forward with their own Social Security reform plans. In 2005, by contrast, New Democrats in the House have opposed CAFTA almost unanimously, and New Democratic senators who were expected to break ranks on Social Security have refused to do so. The evidence supporting a new political alignment is more than anecdotal. Over the past two decades, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has mapped the terrain of American politics, using sophisticated statistical methods to discover the typology of the electorate--that is, the basic groups into which they are divided. This technique makes it possible to examine the composition of party coalitions and to identify the characteristics of less partisan voters. During the 1990s, New Democrats emerged as a distinct ideological grouping. By 2005, they had all but disappeared as a separate group, while Liberals had grown to form the single largest group (19 percent of registered voters) within the core Democratic coalition. The authors of the Pew study suggest, "Some of the growth among Liberals comes from former New Democrats, whose views on national security and government regulation have become more polarized after more than four years of GOP control."

The outstanding problem of polls, statistics, focus groups and think tanks rooted in the stiff medium of academia, left or right, is that they aren't on the street, in the field and searching for the flexible solutions to the problems of governance. Like a mystic oracle they will tell you whatever you want to hear and prove it with unending reams of research, for the right price. Pundits ensconced in the halls of power are driving the car of state by looking into the rear-view mirror instead of looking out of the windshield (thanks to Marshall McLuhan for that metaphor). Research it all you want to but the speed of change is ramping up in an almost geometrical fashion. The DLC is not looking over the horizon. The DLC refuses to accept the end of the vertical era of leadership in favor of the new horizontal paradigm (thanks to Thomas Friedman for the flat world). Any policy that gives into superstition, fear, intolerance or blind greed is doomed, unless you want a world dominated by the Republican Anarchy Collective of debauched corporate pirates, delusional religious fanatics and sociopathic fringe dwellers. Liberals and Progressives are on the verge of transforming the Democratic Party from bottom to top. The era of the DLC is passed. Maybe the reason these former New Democrats are once again Liberal and Progressive Democrats is simply that they woke up and realized that capitulation to bad policy for electoral expediency is never smart politics; it's ultimately self-defeating. If this is the case then welcome back to your principles. To all the rest of the DLC, especially Ms. Kamarck and Mr. Galston, you've been triangulated. You are in fact Democrats with a conscience and the only place you fit with your principles intact is the Democratic Party with its Liberal Ideal, unless of course, you have crossed over and want to throw in with the Republican Anarchy Collective. I don't believe that you do.

I look forward to debating these ideas with any DLC, New Democrat, Third Way or Moderate Democrat. You have nothing to lose but your illusions. And you have everything to gain, like the support of Liberal and Progressive Democrats, for coming to your senses and joining us as we move America further, towards the realization of the original motto of the nation + E Pluribus Unum.