Why America Needs the DLC
The DLC’s 11th annual National Conversation in Nashville was the largest and most successful ever. It was attended by roughly 350 state and local elected officials from 45 states — the men and women who actually govern in our party’s name.
The highlights of the Conversation were President Clinton’s concluding address and presentations by four governors — Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, and Martin O’Malley of Maryland.
Those four governors have one thing in common. They all replaced Republicans in their statehouses.
As David Paul Kuhn wrote in The Politico, “The Nashville conclave highlighted how many of the party’s most impressive gains in recent elections — including winning numerous governorships in states that typically vote Republican in presidential contests — have come from politicians in the classic DLC mold.”
That reality was not lost on the officials in Nashville — or on President Clinton, who said DLC ideas and the work he did as DLC chairman contributed mightily to his success as a candidate and the success of his administration.
The DLC state and local network — elected officials who govern with New Democrat values and ideas — was on display in Nashville, and that’s the part of the DLC that critics and the political elites in Washington and New York seldom see.
So, perhaps it’s understandable that DLC critics used the backdrop of the National Conversation to launch a new round of attacks.
The precipitating factor was that the Democratic presidential candidates chose not to come to Nashville — and that most are going to Yearly Kos, the confab of lefty bloggers that will be held in Chicago this weekend.
That led the critics to assert — as articulated by Noam Scheiber in an Op-Ed in Saturday’s New York Times — that the DLC has outlived its usefulness and should fold its tent.
Those criticisms come with the territory — and the arguments are as old as the DLC. The DLC was formed in 1985 — in the aftermath of a 49 state loss the year before — to challenge the Democratic Party to change.
At first, Party Chairman Paul Kirk tried to stop the DLC from forming. Three times in the DLC’s first 18 months, the liberal columnist Jack Germond predicted the DLC would not last for six months. There were demonstrations by the Reverend Jesse Jackson and other party activists at the DLC’s 1991 Cleveland Conference, where Bill Clinton laid out the platform on which he won the presidency. Even after three national tickets in a row composed of DLCers, Howard Dean called the DLC “Republican lite” and called the Clinton years “damage control.”
Criticisms of the DLC have come in various forms throughout the past 22 years, but the fundamental charge against us has always been the same — that we’re not “real Democrats.” That’s nonsense, of course. Our ideas challenge out-of-date orthodoxies, but they are grounded in the first principles of the Democratic Party: Andrew Jackson’s credo of opportunity for all, special privileges for none; Franklin Roosevelt’s thirst for innovation; Harry Truman’s tough-minded internationalism; John Kennedy’s summons to civic duty; and Lyndon Johnson’s quest for social justice.
Our formula has always been the same: to tackle the challenges of today and tomorrow with new and innovative ideas that further those principles. Our mantra has been problem solving, not polarization. That’s the essence of Clintonism: always searching for new ways to further progressive ideals and, most importantly, getting good things done for the American people. The result when it was put into action was a decade of peace and prosperity.
I understand why the candidates believe they can avoid unnecessary grief from bloggers and other DLC critics, by skipping high profile DLC events in the heat of the primary season. They don’t have to come to DLC events to use DLC ideas.
The candidates know that the primaries are played almost exclusively on one end of playing field — the end near our own goal line where the most partisan activists, including those most vocal in their opposition to the DLC, make the most noise. But they also know that presidential elections are played on both ends of the field — and we’re not likely to cross the opponent’s goal line if we stay in our end. And they are well aware that the only Democrat elected and re-elected to the White House since Franklin Roosevelt ran on and governed successfully by the DLC formula.
That probably explains why candidates did not come to the National Conversation this year. No presidential candidate came during the primary season in either 1999 or 2003, but our nominee keynoted the 2000 and 2004 meetings as the general election got underway. Only time will tell, of course, but I suspect that next year — when the premium will be on winning a general election — our nominee will once again be back at the DLC. As Dan Balz wrote on The Washington Post website: “Now is the time when candidates pay maximum attention to their party’s base — whether Iowa caucusgoers or liberal bloggers. By next summer, their priorities and their horizons will be broader.”
After seven years of Bush administration failures, America needs solutions to a new set of challenges — a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; a global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet. If Democrats offer solutions that work, we’ll not only win back the presidency and expand our majorities in Congress, but we’ll take advantage of an historic opportunity to build an enduring, sustainable political and governing majority in the progressive center of the political spectrum.
The DLC is about solutions — about problem solving, not polarization. For two days in Nashville we talked about practical ideas for solving problems — ideas that have worked at the state and local level and could help us meet our national challenges. In 2008, Bush’s failures have given us what Bruce Reed calls a “Hoover moment.” To take advantage of it we need the DLC formula more than ever.
As President Clinton said at the National Conversation, America needs solutions and as long as it does, there will be a need for the DLC.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Oh how right you are Al. The DLC, New Labour in the UK these are the pathways to prosperity. I dread that the democrats will overstate the power of the netroots and cave to far out lefty policy’s and rhetoric. Centre left works, poth policically (getting elected) and policywise (getting good things done that help ordinairy people) Extreme leftyism works in neither area. Keep up the good work Al. The DLC is why I am supporting either Hillary or Bill Richardson
August 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
These attract my thoughts, these DLC points of interest: “a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; a global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet.”
Only the phrasing of the last appeals to me. A whole lot of the DLC’s thinking does not appeal to me. I am reading Three Cups of Tea, that conveys an intelligent way to approach Muslim cultures, rather than an aggressive and violent way. I agree with Dennis Kucinich that the international trade agreements should be cancelled. They were made with only economic gain in mind, gain for a few. They make me think of harvesting all from a sick cow before she last rolls her eyes in death. We need a caring and environmentally sound trade approach, not one that encourages rape of the planet and demeaning treatment of most people as if they are slaves.