Memo to DLC-types: It's not the 90s anymore

What’s wrong with the DLC?

Here is the bare-bones of a theory that I suspect has been said before but I have not seen myself: the Democratic Leadership Conference's down-the-middle “third way” made sense in the 1990’s, at a time when there had not been a successful Democratic President since the mid-1960s – or at least one, unlike the only intervening Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who was recognized widely as having been successful. The shift to the right, with demonization of liberal policies with a variety of myths ("welfare queens," for example) had been dramatic under 12 consecutive years of conservative Republicanism, and 20 of 24 years since 1968.

Thus, Clinton, having won with less than a majority of the vote, was forced to prove the ability of the Democratic Party to govern – to prove that the “tax-and-spend” label was a ridiculous canard. Although we did get some traditional and important liberal solutions, including the marginal but meaningful restoration of more progressive income tax structure, a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage, and better enforcement of and symbolic support for the labor laws, we also had the challenge to Sister Soulja during the 1992 campaign, changing “welfare as we know it,” keeping the top marginal income tax rate under the symbolic level of 40%, NAFTA and, perhaps above all, striving to achieve a balanced budget.

But one thing we do know is that, during the 1990s, although wealth disparity may have continued to grow as investors in stocks saw their holdings explode in value, income inequality that had grown so much during the Reagan-Bush I years, started moderating and then actually reversing itself – with poverty declining dramatically and the middle class thriving as well. Unemployment dropped below 4%, despite millions more seeking (and finding) jobs. Yet, contradicting the predictions of Republican-leaning economists, inflation impossibly stayed low and, impossibly, the budget was balanced and, even more impossibly, we actually started seeing surpluses. These were outcomes both Democrats and traditional Republicans could love.

The Clinton years gave Democrats a different story to tell: a story of competence, and a story of how shoring up the safety net for all Americans actually helps the economy and all Americans. This is reinforced by the Bush II years that have demonstrated the grotesque incompetence of the Republicans and their discredited philosophies. As some have said, Bush-Cheney has proved you won’t do a good job running the government if you actually hate it.

In other words, there is no longer the same value in the namby-pamby, wishy-washy, split-the-difference philosophies that the DLC espouses for the Democratic Party. It’s a different world this time, and we know now – from the stark contrast between the Clinton years and the latest Bush years -- that progressive values, liberal values, work better for the country. That's for everybody -- yes, even the rich whose wealth grows faster when confidence in the economy is shared top-to-bottom. Now is the time to go out and show that to the American people. There is no need to split the difference between philosophies that work and those that don’t.

Of course, there is the foreign policy side, too, the part of our national life that “changed forever” after 911. It is hard to put this into a traditional liberal-conservative scheme – neither side historically favored preemptive war or nation-building -- and yet it has evolved in that direction due to Bush’s embrace of the aggressive theories of neo-conservatism. Generally speaking, now, liberals are against the Iraq War, while Republicans support it.

The DLC seems to want us to split the difference on that one, too. Yes, Bush lied us into the war, and it was a terrible thing to do that, but we cannot “cut-and-run” now. But where is there any principle in splitting the difference on this one? Without a principle for solution, what is the solution? It seems that there is no solution, and so we just muddle along doing what we are doing, even if our very presence is the problem and cannot be part of the solution. But when we hear someone like Marshall Wittman expressing the DLC position that Democrats should never say anything that might be twisted by Republicans as showing weakness on terrorism, where is the principle in that? Simply going along with exposing American soldiers to being picked off one by one, and Iraqis in scores when we respond, because we cannot be seen as weak?

There is something quite disgusting about the level of self-promoting cynicism in this kind of triangulation. Wanting to show toughness is the very opposite of actually being tough. How about instead focusing on how to demonstrate that the Republicans are the cowards – the ones too weak to acknowledge their horrendous mistake and take the political fall-out they deserve?

The idea that the Democratic “base” turning on Joe Lieberman and his DLC ilk are “leftists” is itself an absurd canard. In fact, they represent a wide range of Democrats, including ones who are quite moderate overall. What they really share is simple: it’s time to stop being so defensive. We will win, we will show strength, by not backing down from the core of what we believe.

The DLC's position that you must stay in the center is the Maginot Line that the French set up after World War I. It was designed for the last war and not the next one. It was not successful. The DLC is fighting the war that Clinton faced in the 1990s. We’re not in the 1990s anymore, Toto.