Errors in the New York Times
In his recent hit piece on the DLC in The New York Times, Noam Scheiber relies on factual errors and innuendo to bolster his argument. He says the DLC believes that the teachers union endangers the republic, and he falsely accused the DLC of supporting the bankruptcy bill in 2005 and of blindly supporting the President’s position on Iraq because a number of DLC leaders supported Senator Joe Lieberman’s campaign against Ned Lamont.
He’s wrong on all counts. Here are the facts:
First, among the most persistent proponents of education reform in the Democratic Party, the DLC has on many occasions taken positions different than those of the teachers unions. But we maintain regular dialogue — and the National Education Association was a principal sponsor of the National Conversation in Nashville last weekend. A number of NEA officials from Washington and Tennessee participated in the conversation.
Second, the DLC did not support the bankruptcy bill in 2005. In fact, it never uttered a word on the subject. The last time the DLC commented on the bankruptcy issue was during the Clinton presidency in 1998. The implication that the DLC is responsible because a number of centrist Democrats in the House supported the bill is just plain wrong. We didn’t control their votes on bankruptcy any more than we did on the Central American Free Trade Agreement which we supported and most of those same members opposed.
Third, as to the Lieberman campaign, many, though not all DLC leaders, proudly supported Senator Lieberman. I personally supported my friend Joe Lieberman. Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, the DLC chair at the time, supported the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont. But the important point is that throughout that campaign the DLC took a different position than Senator Lieberman’s on the war.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“Second, the DLC did not support the bankruptcy bill in 2005. In fact, it never uttered a word on the subject. The last time the DLC commented on the bankruptcy issue was during the Clinton presidency in 1998.” Well, Mr. From, that statement certainly makes the DLC a really committed political organization. Mentioning bankruptcy only once every nine years is certainly the key for a successful policy leadership council.
On a more serious note, I agree that is patently misleading to claim that the DLC is responsible for a bankruptcy bill that it gave neither support or opposition for. However, the fact that you remained silent on the bill doesn’t make the DLC look any better.
CAFTA is another matter. If you remember, that bill passed by only a few votes, and one could argue that it was the DLC’s statement of support that pushed it over the top, with Democratic centrists like Melissa Bean voting in favor.
Just want to share my opinion. I feel that the DLC has been unfairly demonized by those on the left, and that the organization plays a role in formulating policy and ideas for the Democratic Party, but that it moves too slow on some issues (such as Iraq) and remains silent on others (bankruptcy), and that it deserves some minor criticism. But centrism is a dominant vein in contemporary American politics–it’s not going away anytime soon–and I feel that the DLC deserves a lot of credit for rescuing the Democrats from the valley of the shadow of death and making our party have the best chance to regain the White House in thirty years.