Good points, bad points
In a remarkable turn of events, Kos has managed to tick me off and please me at the same time. First, he bashes the Democratic Leadership Council (to my chagrin) and then he rips NARAL. I like the DLC, so his criticism irritated me, but I tire easily with NARAL, so his criticism was appreciated.
I'll do my darnedest to make this brief, but on the DLC ... it's primarily two things in my book - Kos apparently has thin skin on this issue and is craving ideological purity. The DLC, founded in the 1980s by moderate Democrats as a rebuttal to the leftward lurch of the party in the late 1960s, has drawn plenty of criticism of the Howard Dean wing of the party. The organization strives to pursue more centrist policies, but does stick to traditional Democratic principles.
Probably much of the criticism stems from some DLC criticism against individuals like Dean and other more liberal members of the party. But this is foolish criticism in my book because I think such criticism is good. The fact that Kos is offering his own criticism of the DLC is good, despite my disagreements with him. I think these kind of debates show that the party isn't one monolithic, similar-thinking bloc. Principles are one thing - and I, for one, think that the DLC has more in common with the more liberal wing of the party than differences - but the disagreements stem over hurt feelings (Daily Kos was overflowing with all of these 'attacks' on Dean's record by the DLC during the primary ... thought that was part of a campaign, but no matter) and competing approaches to enact said principles.
On NARAL, Kos bashes the pro-choice group for forcing a pro-life Democrat out of Congressional race in Rhode Island, instead endorsing a Republican who, quite frankly, hasn't done much to support abortion rights in his time in Congress. NARAL also has waged war on Bob Casey, a promising pro-life Democrat in Pennslyvania who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Rick Santorum. NARAL had the audacity to say that there was no difference in Casey and Santorum with regard to women's rights.
NARAL always has bugged me by their single-minded and short-sighted stands which often sacrafice the greater good in the name of 'making a point.' Good to see Kos rag on them a bit.
I'll do my darnedest to make this brief, but on the DLC ... it's primarily two things in my book - Kos apparently has thin skin on this issue and is craving ideological purity. The DLC, founded in the 1980s by moderate Democrats as a rebuttal to the leftward lurch of the party in the late 1960s, has drawn plenty of criticism of the Howard Dean wing of the party. The organization strives to pursue more centrist policies, but does stick to traditional Democratic principles.
Probably much of the criticism stems from some DLC criticism against individuals like Dean and other more liberal members of the party. But this is foolish criticism in my book because I think such criticism is good. The fact that Kos is offering his own criticism of the DLC is good, despite my disagreements with him. I think these kind of debates show that the party isn't one monolithic, similar-thinking bloc. Principles are one thing - and I, for one, think that the DLC has more in common with the more liberal wing of the party than differences - but the disagreements stem over hurt feelings (Daily Kos was overflowing with all of these 'attacks' on Dean's record by the DLC during the primary ... thought that was part of a campaign, but no matter) and competing approaches to enact said principles.
On NARAL, Kos bashes the pro-choice group for forcing a pro-life Democrat out of Congressional race in Rhode Island, instead endorsing a Republican who, quite frankly, hasn't done much to support abortion rights in his time in Congress. NARAL also has waged war on Bob Casey, a promising pro-life Democrat in Pennslyvania who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Rick Santorum. NARAL had the audacity to say that there was no difference in Casey and Santorum with regard to women's rights.
NARAL always has bugged me by their single-minded and short-sighted stands which often sacrafice the greater good in the name of 'making a point.' Good to see Kos rag on them a bit.
posted by Jmac at 4:10 PM
17 Comments:
In that post you link to Kos says NOW equates Santorum and the other dude. Not NARAL. But I don't really care all that much since I find all NARAL idiotic most of the time.
Whoops! Thanks for the clarification Russ.
No area between total ideological purity and not wanting the party to be actively conservative, JMac?
Come again Hillary?
I'm not following.
If you mean do I want the party to take a lurch toward the right, then no. Hard to believe, but I don't even want the party to adopt a pro-life platform ... just increased tolerance of pro-lifers would be good (and, again, to Dean's credit he's done wonders in this category).
But I'm not sure that's what you asked.
I'm saying: is it possible not to be a fan of the DLC and also not necessarily be in favor of total ideological purity?
I'm probably not the best person to be speaking on this, being obvs way left, but my dislike of that group stems at least partially from thuggish tactics. If anyone wants to close down the debate, sometimes it seems as though they're the ones who do.
OK, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
To answer your primary question, yes it is possible for someone not to be a DLC fan and also say that ideological purity is bad. I didn't mean to imply that in my original posting.
Much of my criticism was directed toward those Kossacks who do sharply criticize the DLC and preach ideological purity (Kos himself doesn't necessarily do this, but many in the community do). And I also didn't intend to say that criticism of the DLC was a bad thing, but that also doesn't mean I have to agree with said criticism. My comments were directed toward what I feel is unfair criticism of the DLC, and I attempted to point out some general thoughts of why I felt that way.
As far as DLC being 'thuggish' ... I just don't agree with that assessment. Not that I'm card-carrying member of the DLC - I am more left on some issues than they are - but I think much of the ill will stems from the rough primary race between more DLC-friendly candidates (Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry) and Dean (to be fair ... Dean was the one who really kicked off the whole bad blood thing between the party factions).
What has always struck me as funny as that Democrats love GOP mavericks, like McCain, who criticize their own party and speak their mind. They just hate it when some Democrat comes along and does the same thing (see Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman). Granted I don't always agree with those folks, particularly Lieberman, but I've got no problem with them saying what they want.
In my opinion, the DLC vigorously stakes out its positions on some issues, which happen to be more centrist or conservative than others in the party, and criticizes or challenges those who disagree with them ... and rather than have the opposition return with their own criticisms and challenges, they cry 'how unfair of the DLC! I hate those guys!'
What has always struck me as funny as that Democrats love GOP mavericks, like McCain, who criticize their own party and speak their mind. They just hate it when some Democrat comes along and does the same thing (see Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman). Granted I don't always agree with those folks, particularly Lieberman, but I've got no problem with them saying what they want.
But here is the thing. You are seeing the DLC people as the mavericks. And I am seeing them as rather the opposite of this. A large, well-funded organization can't really be a maverick, can it? Esp when it's spouting a lot of "our way or the highway" rhetoric.
Fair enough ... but then again, are you suggesting that McCain isn't well-organized and well-funded? I would think the latter. Plus I didn't necessarily mean to imply that the DLC was a society of mavericks, but rather it was a general comment about party factions. Typically the 'mavericks' in the Democratic Party tend to be more moderate and carry a DLC membership card.
Typically the 'mavericks' in the Democratic Party tend to be more moderate and carry a DLC membership card.
Except for the ones like Cynthia McKinney. I just have a hard time seeing any group that's trying to drag the discussion a bit more to the right as being revolutionary, considering it's the right that's in power.
Well, I don't know if we have to consider mavericks as revolutionaries. Mavericks, I would think, buck the trend of the group they're in ... which is why someone like McKinney could be a maverick, but so could some folks from the DLC.
That's true, but mavericks at least have implied cool, which is what these fellas (and ladies) are lacking. Not that cool is requisite for party politics, but it's more of a concern than a lot of people might think.
Much of the criticism arises from the DLC's position on those to the left of it; purge them. Couple that with their failure to win one state-wide or national race since 1992, their habit of using Republican talking points, and their primarily corporate funding, and I don't see much that's all that great about them either.
mattH
Actually MattH, the DLC has won several elections since 1992 (Clinton in 1996 is a big one you overlooked), but also Gov. Mark Warner in Virginia, Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond in Georgia, Gov. Tom Vilsak in Iowa and Gov. Michael Easley in North Carolina are just a few of the many.
Still seems to me that the more left aspects of the party are no better than the DLC. There's a claim of the DLC wanting to purge the party's ranks, but Dean implied the same thing throughout his primary run.
Well, I'm certainly willing to conceed that they've won a number of races. My fault for not doing more research. But I am a bit confused about the Howard Dean statement.
Dean, the moderate governor who balanced the budget of a state that has no constitutional mandate for one, the candidate who argued for finding ways to include the Confederate (Battle) Flag-bearing men of the south, implied in his campaign that other, less-liberal democrats should be purged? From what I remember, Dean was arguing, during a campaign, that Democrats as a whole shouls not be supporting Bush policies that damage the middle and lower classes. I think it's interesting that you see this kind of statement not as a well-reasoned and fair critique of other democrats, but members of the DLC can claim that "You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd", or can argue that even some "progressives" are unpatriotic in their heartheld beliefs and it is a harmless, even welcomed, critique.
-mattH
Dean was a most puzzling figure in the 2004 primaries. Because, as you noted, he did have plenty of times where he reached out (sincerely, I believe) to more moderate Democrats. But it seemed that for every statement that was 'positive' there was another one which was 'negative' ... the main one we can all recall is the 'I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' which was a not-so-subtle dig at the DLC.
Plus Dean, in the early days of the primary (prior to becoming the temporary frontrunner), was very critical of the DLC and the more conservative and moderate elements of the party ... striking a more conciliatory tone once he emerged as the frontrunner (as most frontrunners do).
So it was hard to put a finger on him. He had a moderate fiscal record as governor - some Democrats even criticized him for backing parts of the Contract with America - but, perhaps like Al Gore, did have a strong ideological streak that was more left than moderate.
Now as for the DLC's criticism of the "Michael Moores" of the Democratic Party, I'll concede that is a call to expel some members. But it seemed, to me at least, to be a very specific call directed toward very specific individuals and very specific ideologies. Perhaps it wasn't the most appropriate thing for the DLC to do, but again ... all of this infighting came during a primary season where fellow Democrats are fighting amongst each other.
Aren't these things supposed to be a bit messy? Isn't that what makes this party more appealing? That, unlike a uniform body like the Republicans where there's the impression that any dissent is squashed, the Democratic Party is a big tent party which encourages these types of discussions and debates?
And if the DLC says the "Michael Moores of the party aren't what we need, what we need is more of us" than what's so horrible? Seems to me, the opposition could very easily counter that ... and then the voters decide.
I think the thing with Dean is that he wanted the Democratic Party to expand economically. They're supposed to represent the little guy, you know? Regardless of whether that guy might indeed have a Confederate flag sticker on his truck. And the DLC tends to come across as being aggressively middle-class (and a bit cozy with big donors). So "left," as usual, depends on what factors you're using in the definition.
First, the quote that I linked, "You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd", occured in March of 2005, almost a full year after the de facto end of democratic primaries of 2004. it was made in the context of how the Democratic party should do to restructure itself.
Second, this was not just an argument to purge Michael Moore, but also MoveOn, an organization dependent on individuals, more than 3 million of them, in essence advocating the purge of the individuals themselves. This is more than a select few in my opinion.
I also think it's important to note that numerous Republican websites and organizations have used the same quote I referenced to attack both Michael Moore and MoveOn, including freerepublic, gopsenators and conservativeunderground.
Now, I have been trying to avoid falling into a comparison of the two sides stands, primarily because that's not what the DLC does, instead it makes these stupid attacks on members of it's own party, but I do think it's interesting that you accuse Kos (and perhaps by extension Sirota) of arguing against the DLC based on a position of ideological purity, yet then point out that he's dismissing a similar argument from NARAL. I think this points to a deeper conflict than the one you've been presenting, one based on a sense of their organization's place in the overall scheme of things and how thier relationship to, or position in, that scheme has changed. In the DLC's case, they see the surge in online fundraising as an attack on thier former function as a kingmaker, which itself was based on thier ability to fund a chosen candidate, and have begun attacking those who are taking it away. But hey, that's just me.
-mattH
Post a Comment
<< Home