August/September 2003

The Progressive Story of America
Bill Moyers

Democratic Leadership Council Sows Division
Robert Borosage

21st Century Communication Plus Whole-Hearted Support Can Help Create A Strong Candidate
Jean Shinoda Bolen, MD

Dennis Kucininch's Grassroots Presidential Campaign Builds Momentum

The Politics of Heroin
Derrick Jensen

Deflation and the "D" Word
Doug Dowd

Radical Healing Through the Conscious Practice of Ayurveda
Myrica Morningstar

Interview With Ram Dass
John Darling

An Evolutionary Agenda for the Third Millennium
Alan Sasha Lithman

On Thawing and the Energy Cycle
Peter Moore, MFCC, CGP

New Warriors
John Darling

Cosmic Calendar
Salina Rain

BACK TO TOP

Democratic Leadership Council Sows Division

By Robert Borosage

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has made its way by sowing division in the Democratic party. So it comes as no surprise that on July 2, its founder Al From and new president Bruce Reed ventured yet again into the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal to warn its readers of the perils of a liberal Democratic presidential nominee. Given its location and its platitudes, the article should be viewed more as a fundraising pitch to the DLC’s corporate sponsors than a serious political analysis.

From and Reed argue that Democrats can win only if they “seize the vital center, not veer left.” By definition, a winner of an election has forged a coalition that represents the center, if that is defined as the group with the most votes. The question, of course, is what is the content of that “center”—that is the contested terrain.

From and Reed then set up their proverbial straw men. They contrast a candidate that lives up to the best Democratic traditions: “Jackson’s belief in equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none; Roosevelt’s passion for reform; Truman’s tough-minded internationalism; Kennedy’s civic obligation; Mr. Clinton’s insistence that opportunity and responsibility go hand in hand. A Democrat in that tradition who is not afraid to use U.S. power in dangerous times; who wants to reform government, not just expand it; and who offers a plan to grow the economy and increase middle-class incomes, not the middle-class tax burden can beat Mr. Bush.” They then presume that a liberal Democrat would fail to meet these standards—that he or she would, for instance, fail to overcome doubts about security and would want to “expand government, not reform it.”

What candidate wouldn’t sign up for the first option? Certainly every Democratic candidate in the race—from Joe Lieberman to Al Sharpton—would. Equal opportunity, reform, tough minded internationalism, civic obligation, opportunity and responsibility— all Democratic politicians pay tribute to those values. So what’s the point?

What From and Reed are doing is assuring corporate sponsors that they will continue the good fight against advocates of expansive government, fair trade, social liberalism and, shudder, anti-war sentiments inside the Democratic Party. It is a sign of their muddle that they seek to send that signal in an article emptied of content.

To make their case, they distort recent history beyond all recognition. No liberal can win the presidency, they argue. Clinton won only because he “inspired Democrats, but also went after the independents and moderate Republicans he needed to win.” In fact, Clinton won virtually the same percentage of votes—and for the most part literally the same voters—as Mike Dukakis. He was elected because people wanted to fire George Bush I and Ross Perot provided an outlet for the voters who couldn’t get over to Mr. Clinton. Presented to Americans by a poisonous attack media as someone who avoided the draft and cheated on his wife, he was a far remove from the Sam Nunn candidate of Mr. From’s dreams.

To beat George Bush, a Democrat must lay out a cogent strategy to get this economy going.

This coming election will be framed around two overriding national questions and one universal personal challenge. To beat George Bush, a Democrat must lay out not simply the horrors of the Bush economic record—people already know it stinks—but a cogent strategy to get this economy going. And he or she must offer not simply a critique of pre-emptive unilateralism now going dangerously wrong in Iraq, but a more compelling strategy for making Americans safer. And finally, any candidate must show Americans that he or she is “presidential,” a plausible president. For all of his many well-advertised sins, Mr. Clinton passed that hurdle in 1992, in part by his indomitable grit in the face of adversity.

From and Reed want a different test, an ideological litmus test. If you opposed the Iraqi war, as Graham, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun did, you are by their definition Unelectable. If you support a big health care plan, as Gephardt does, you are Unelectable. Too liberal on affirmative action or the death penalty, Unelectable. Rather than allow the party’s voters to choose their standard bearer, From and Reed want to mark some with a scarlet “U” going into the primaries.

This is simply silly. What Democrats need is a leader who isn’t afraid to take on Bush and present a clear alternative to Americans. That candidate isn’t likely to come from the DLC. From and Reed love to trash the “McGovern-Mondale” wing of the Democratic Party. But their favored candidate for the president—Joe Lieberman—combines social liberalism with moral righteousness with a pledge to raise your taxes to balance the budget. The last candidate to run on that torrid combination was none other than Mr. Mondale himself.

Reed and From get one thing right. The extremely dangerous policies of the Bush administration will unify and mobilize the Democratic base. Now those stalwarts need to find someone to lead the charge. For that, they need common sense, not the self-interested palaver of the DLC.

Robert Borosage is Co-Director of the Campaign For America’s Future (www.ourfuture.org), and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.