Hillary Clinton's Ghosts: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the
Right
Wednesday, 02 December 2015 00:00 By Michael Corcoran, Truthout | News
Analysis
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (Photo: stocklight /
Shutterstock.com)
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their
relationship with the financial institutions that fund their campaigns was
unthinkable in past presidential debates. Such a discussion falls way
outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the Democratic debate
in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was
forced to defend her financial relationship with Wall Street numerous times
on network television.
WITHIN THE DLC, POPULISM WAS NOT MERELY OUT OF FAVOR; IT WAS MILITANTLY
OPPOSED.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has
largely been to adopt similar language and policy positions as her primary
opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is trying to minimize the
differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The
differences among us," she said of her opponents at the Iowa debate, "pale
in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
Clinton, currently the front-runner, is now making "debt-free" college
tuition, minimum wage hikes (to $12 per hour) and measures to bring
"accountability to Wall Street" major talking points in her campaign. The
language of populism - at least for now - is seen as a viable electoral
strategy.
But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to
steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting
back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for
contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper,
"Ready for the New Economy," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing
on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way
trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe
for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's Ruth
Marcus describes it, is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way,
there was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill
Daley, there was Hillary Clinton - a key member of the DLC's leadership team
during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential
movement to, as The American Prospect describes it, "reinvent the
[Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an
important part of Clinton's record, and she owes it to primary voters to
answer for it.
The Reign of the DLC
A lot has happened since the last time the Democrats had a contested
primary. The 2008 economic crisis, the growth of the Occupy movement, the
emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the consequent increase in
public attention to the ongoing killings of Black people by police, and the
Bernie Sanders campaign have all played major roles in shaping the political
consensus of primary voters. None of these existed when Barack Obama won the
nomination over Clinton in June 2008.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely
guided by the ideas of the Democratic Leadership Council. Founded by
Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by
pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big
business.
CLINTON ADOPTED THE DLC STRATEGY IN THE WAY SHE GOVERNED.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward
minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and
gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote
Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect. "The DLC
thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base -
unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly
opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was
funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss
reported, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and
included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes
scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit
from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on
labor unions and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The
New York Times reported that during that era "the Democratic Leadership
Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence continued into the
post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick
Gephardt and countless others all lent their names in support of the
organization. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute
(PPI), were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers, op-eds and declarations in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said
Mark Schmitt, a staffer for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think
tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before there were a lot of
organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved
and to be in the same room with important people."
The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it
claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating
his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the
first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his
speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives
had the DLC's footprint all over them.
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in
England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the
DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to
the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way, he said
in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old
Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to
remain committed to these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has
urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to the political centre ground,
warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state' despite
the global financial crisis," according to the Financial Times, which noted
that the left-wing base of his party has rejected his centrist leanings.
"His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a hate figure among the
most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate.
She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member
of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on
multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and
2008 elections.
She was even promoted as the DLC's "New Dem of the Week" on its website. (It
would be remiss not to note that Martin O'Malley also served as a "New Dem
of the Week," and even co-wrote an op-ed on behalf of the DLC with its
then-chair, Harold Ford Jr.)
NEW DEMOCRATS WERE NEVER REALLY ABOUT POPULAR SUPPORT; THEY WERE ABOUT
BRINGING TOGETHER BIG BUSINESS AND THE DEMOCRATS.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005.
She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly
in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall,
one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the
United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign,
citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two
years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's
antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The
Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually waned. A formal affiliation with the
organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters.
When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation
with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New
Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also
publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely
candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine.
"That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among
progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed
turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the
Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors.
When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation,
which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To
this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's
founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to
promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder
of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the
populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising
progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the
"battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam
Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told
the Guardian.
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama
consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the
progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are
more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico.
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing
Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their
predecessor did.
NEW DEMOCRATS' GUNS ARE AIMED FIRMLY AT SANDERS, AND THEY ARE QUICK TO
DEFEND CLINTON.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New
Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing
together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is
almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath
of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed
interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today,"
Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't
stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House.
The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of
trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of
staff. And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the
Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in
trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way
published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do
just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and
inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these
trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of
today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and
implementing a single-payer health-care system directly, making faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the
"singular focus on income inequality" because its "actual impact on the
middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political
moment," said Richard Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in
a rebuttal to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one
day Americans can stop paying the price for their ill-conceived,
corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore
these efforts at their own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas,
Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue attention in the mainstream
media. For instance, The Washington Post devoted 913 words to Third Way's
new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in the Democratic
Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan
Cowan to attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not
socialists," he said. This tone is the status quo for New Democrats in the
media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend
Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives,
The Wall Street Journal quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her.
"The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody who ever worked in the
financial sector is ridiculous," he said.
When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third
Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media, Third Way staffers are
routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley.
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise
anyone. She has been an ally for years. And while they have expressed
concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident, as the Post reported,
that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance, her
recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be, but given the
necessities of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she
needed to go there initially," New Democratic Coalition chairman Rep. Ron
Kind (D-Wisconsin) told the Guardian (emphasis added).
POLITICS ISN'T A SPORTING EVENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE CRITICAL, EVEN OF
CANDIDATES FOR WHOM YOU WILL LIKELY VOTE.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere,
progressives probably should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al
From told the Guardian: "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that
she can't get herself back on course in the general [election] and when she
is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend
political capital on the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back
on them," said the New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to
work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told
Truthout that his group's emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate
responsive to the issues important to what he calls the "Warren wing" of the
party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign
Committee hasn't endorsed a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the
candidates address the issues we care about," Green said, citing debt-free
education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting Black Lives
Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of
Clinton: They fully expect that soon she will be the only thing standing
between them and some candidate from the "Republican clown car," as Green
described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or
apologizing for Clinton's very recent and troubling record is another. Too
many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful partisan amnesia and are
accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and
presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated,
but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his
campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his
opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a
large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in
support of his candidacy. For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during
the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for
running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party,
"defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group
liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so
intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil
war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same
group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the
party's left-leaning base.
ONCE THE PRIMARY IS OVER, THE CHANCE TO FORCE CLINTON TO RESPOND TO LEFT
CRITIQUES WILL LIKELY NOT COME AGAIN SOON.
Yet Moulitsas recently endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas
was one of the key bloggers who supported Dean in 2004 and helped create the
Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was "crashing the gate" of
the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton, the
quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of his own blog into
evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical of Clinton. Now, he is helping her do to Sanders what the DLC did
to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after
years of battling with her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?"
Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean, it may well be because he was
never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story asking
Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a
pro-business, Rockefeller Republican," said Garrison Nelson, a political
science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment is shared by
many Vermonters, on both the left and right.
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the
establishment candidate, such as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler:
partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of Clinton winning the
nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes
columns for an establishment DC paper and is a major fundraiser for
Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes
her. Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological
baggage" and is "aiming for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a
true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to decide if they find his
argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook
Clinton's record is simply fear. They are afraid of a Republican president,
and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President Trump - or Carson or
Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely
understandable. But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the
general election, should she win the nomination, that does not mean her
record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist
critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014
Harper's piece "Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as
a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and
career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations,"
Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in
anything but the most general, flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about,
including her long career as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent
memory, however, progressives actually have some leverage to make her answer
for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her
record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and
her vote for war in Iraq. She should also be challenged vigorously on her
role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these
tough questions. But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over,
the chance to force Clinton - or any major establishment politician - to
respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
MICHAEL CORCORAN
Michael Corcoran is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for the
Boston Globe, the Nation, the Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, Nacla
Report on the Americas, and other publications.
RELATED STORIES
Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Address
By Michael Winship, Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company | News Analysis
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Take Center Stage at First Democratic
Debate of 2016 Race
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Report
Hillary Clinton's Mixed Record on Wall Street Belies Her Tough "Cut It Out"
Talk
By Jeff Gerth, ProPublica | Report
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton's Ghosts: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the
Right
Wednesday, 02 December 2015 00:00 By Michael Corcoran, Truthout | News
Analysis
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (Photo:
stocklight / Shutterstock.com)
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their
relationship with the financial institutions that fund their campaigns was
unthinkable in past presidential debates. Such a discussion falls way
outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the Democratic debate
in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was
forced to defend her financial relationship with Wall Street numerous times
on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly
opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has
largely been to adopt similar language and policy positions as her primary
opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is trying to minimize the
differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The
differences among us," she said of her opponents at the Iowa debate, "pale
in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
Clinton, currently the front-runner, is now making "debt-free" college
tuition, minimum wage hikes (to $12 per hour) and measures to bring
"accountability to Wall Street" major talking points in her campaign. The
language of populism - at least for now - is seen as a viable electoral
strategy.
But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to
steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting
back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for
contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper,
"Ready for the New Economy," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing
on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way
trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe
for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's Ruth
Marcus describes it, is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way,
there was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill
Daley, there was Hillary Clinton - a key member of the DLC's leadership team
during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential
movement to, as The American Prospect describes it, "reinvent the
[Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an
important part of Clinton's record, and she owes it to primary voters to
answer for it.
The Reign of the DLC
A lot has happened since the last time the Democrats had a contested
primary. The 2008 economic crisis, the growth of the Occupy movement, the
emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the consequent increase in
public attention to the ongoing killings of Black people by police, and the
Bernie Sanders campaign have all played major roles in shaping the political
consensus of primary voters. None of these existed when Barack Obama won the
nomination over Clinton in June 2008.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely
guided by the ideas of the Democratic Leadership Council. Founded by
Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by
pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big
business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward
minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and
gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote
Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect. "The DLC
thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base -
unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly
opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was
funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss
reported, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and
included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes
scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit
from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on
labor unions and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The
New York Times reported that during that era "the Democratic Leadership
Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence continued into the
post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick
Gephardt and countless others all lent their names in support of the
organization. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute
(PPI), were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers, op-eds and declarations in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said
Mark Schmitt, a staffer for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think
tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before there were a lot of
organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved
and to be in the same room with important people."
The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it
claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating
his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the
first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his
speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives
had the DLC's footprint all over them.
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in
England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the
DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to
the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way, he said
in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old
Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to
remain committed to these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has
urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to the political centre ground,
warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state' despite
the global financial crisis," according to the Financial Times, which noted
that the left-wing base of his party has rejected his centrist leanings.
"His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a hate figure among the
most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate.
She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member
of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on
multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and
2008 elections.
She was even promoted as the DLC's "New Dem of the Week" on its website. (It
would be remiss not to note that Martin O'Malley also served as a "New Dem
of the Week," and even co-wrote an op-ed on behalf of the DLC with its
then-chair, Harold Ford Jr.)
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about
bringing together big business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005.
She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly
in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall,
one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the
United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign,
citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two
years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's
antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The
Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually waned. A formal affiliation with the
organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters.
When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation
with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New
Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also
publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely
candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine.
"That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among
progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed
turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the
Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors.
When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation,
which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To
this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's
founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to
promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder
of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the
populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising
progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the
"battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam
Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told
the Guardian.
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama
consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the
progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are
more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico.
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing
Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their
predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to
defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New
Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing
together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is
almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath
of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed
interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today,"
Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't
stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House.
The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of
trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of
staff. And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the
Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in
trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way
published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do
just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and
inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these
trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of
today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and
implementing a single-payer health-care system directly, making faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the
"singular focus on income inequality" because its "actual impact on the
middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political
moment," said Richard Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in
a rebuttal to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one
day Americans can stop paying the price for their ill-conceived,
corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore
these efforts at their own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas,
Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue attention in the mainstream
media. For instance, The Washington Post devoted 913 words to Third Way's
new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in the Democratic
Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan
Cowan to attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not
socialists," he said. This tone is the status quo for New Democrats in the
media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend
Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives,
The Wall Street Journal quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her.
"The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody who ever worked in the
financial sector is ridiculous," he said.
When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third
Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media, Third Way staffers are
routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley.
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise
anyone. She has been an ally for years. And while they have expressed
concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident, as the Post reported,
that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance, her
recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be, but given the
necessities of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she
needed to go there initially," New Democratic Coalition chairman Rep. Ron
Kind (D-Wisconsin) told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of
candidates for whom you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere,
progressives probably should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al
From told the Guardian: "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that
she can't get herself back on course in the general [election] and when she
is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend
political capital on the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back
on them," said the New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to
work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told
Truthout that his group's emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate
responsive to the issues important to what he calls the "Warren wing" of the
party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign
Committee hasn't endorsed a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the
candidates address the issues we care about," Green said, citing debt-free
education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting Black Lives
Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of
Clinton: They fully expect that soon she will be the only thing standing
between them and some candidate from the "Republican clown car," as Green
described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or
apologizing for Clinton's very recent and troubling record is another. Too
many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful partisan amnesia and are
accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and
presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated,
but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his
campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his
opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a
large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in
support of his candidacy. For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during
the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for
running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party,
"defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group
liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so
intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil
war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same
group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the
party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left
critiques will likely not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas
was one of the key bloggers who supported Dean in 2004 and helped create the
Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was "crashing the gate" of
the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton, the
quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of his own blog into
evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical of Clinton. Now, he is helping her do to Sanders what the DLC did
to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after
years of battling with her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?"
Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean, it may well be because he was
never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story asking
Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a
pro-business, Rockefeller Republican," said Garrison Nelson, a political
science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment is shared by
many Vermonters, on both the left and right.
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the
establishment candidate, such as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler:
partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of Clinton winning the
nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes
columns for an establishment DC paper and is a major fundraiser for
Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes
her. Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological
baggage" and is "aiming for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a
true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to decide if they find his
argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook
Clinton's record is simply fear. They are afraid of a Republican president,
and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President Trump - or Carson or
Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely
understandable. But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the
general election, should she win the nomination, that does not mean her
record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist
critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014
Harper's piece "Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as
a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and
career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations,"
Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in
anything but the most general, flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about,
including her long career as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent
memory, however, progressives actually have some leverage to make her answer
for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her
record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and
her vote for war in Iraq. She should also be challenged vigorously on her
role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these
tough questions. But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over,
the chance to force Clinton - or any major establishment politician - to
respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Michael Corcoran
Michael Corcoran is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for the
Boston Globe, the Nation, the Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, Nacla
Report on the Americas, and other publications.
Related Stories
Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Address
By Michael Winship, Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company | News AnalysisHillary
Clinton and Bernie Sanders Take Center Stage at First Democratic Debate of
2016 Race
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video ReportHillary
Clinton's Mixed Record on Wall Street Belies Her Tough "Cut It Out" Talk
By Jeff Gerth, ProPublica | Report
Show Comments