This group was formed to make money so they did not have to depend on the base of the party. When you ignore your base and stand for nothing, tragedies like Iraq happen.
Freed from taking positions that make it hard to win.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."
Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One.
Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party.
They have effectively controlled the party since the late 80s. When you take corporate money, you inevitably end up doing their bidding. They took the power from the traditional base, and went after the white middle class.
From 1992:
Al From, the Life of the Party "At From's instigation in 1989, after yet another debacle, Galston and Kamarck wrote a paper titled "The Politics of Evasion," drawing on census data, exit polls "and everything we could get our hands on," Galston says, to argue that the Democrats would never win a presidential election, no matter how high the turnout among blacks and other reliable supporters, unless they radically changed their message to lure back the white middle class. Aiming to attract a biracial coalition containing at least 45 percent of the white vote, the DLC and its think tank have spun out reams of policy papers on everything from defense to education to families to the economy."
Nothing wrong with that scenario...unless you take it too far. They did. They soon began scorning those they considered "on the left"...one of many terms they have for "activists", "fringe", or "elitist."
A party should be all encompassing...but that is not what they did. They all too quickly became sympathetic only to those on the far right of the party, those who had money. Again, that is the consequence of forgetting your base...if you don't need them financially...you don't need to worry about their needs.
We have Al From's own words from 1995 about Jesse Jackson.
Putting down Jesse Jackson and labor unions We were at this before Clinton, and we'll be at it after he's gone, because a long-term majority will never be created around the interests represented by Jesse and the labor unions. Most people are politically homeless now. They're our target. We'll work to get Clinton to pursue us, but we're damn sure going to make it hard for him to catch us."
The DLC in 2003 called us "fringe activists", told us to say
Good Night, Vietnam. Some aging baby boomers may continue to view every military conflict as a reprise of the big war of their youth, and some politicians may opportunistically offer them a sort of battleground reenactment of the protests they fondly remember. But for the rest of us, the Vietnam War is long over, and it's time to reassert Democratic internationalism for a new era.
As late as last October Harold Ford, the present chairman of that DLC, warned us not to "delve" into the past about Iraq.
Harold Ford: "I caution anybody who continues to talk about the past" in IraqAnswer: I wouldn't call it pro-war.
Question: It was in 2003.
Answer from Ford: Well, pro-war doesn't mean that we support the way this president has gone about fighting. We were supportive of removing Saddam Hussein, instilling stability in the country, reducing the threat that America faced from Al Qaeda and, equally important, the threat we thought was posed by Saddam Hussein. If we knew then what we know now … I was in the Congress; I would not have voted for the resolution. But at the same time, we're in a different place now. I caution anybody who continues to talk about the past on this issue.
When you don't stand up against those in power who are doing wrong, when you don't stand up for things you believe in...then the result is tragic.
Iraq is terribly tragic, and it is the inevitable result of the policies of this group that turned its back on the party's traditional interests.
