Crossposted at My Left Wing
A clarification of terms is timely. According to one blogger, it is “intellectually dishonest” to equate the DLC and the NDC. That blogger could not be more wrong. For how does that blogger explain the DLC’s reference to the NDC as their “leaders” on their website? If the NDC was not the Congressional offshoot of this national, political organization, I doubt they would enjoy such prominence at the DLC.
And how does that blogger, who is so bent on being “progressive,” reconcile the similarity between the interpretation of the 2006 elections espoused by the DLC and the NDC? According to both organizations, the “vital center” with what Ellen Tauscher calls its “vital members” won the 2006 election. Centrists, in a strange use of an anatomical metaphor, are obsessed with centers and vitality, as if centrists monopolized and occupied the chambers of the heart.
So this new NDC, an offshoot of the DLC, touts its new members, and some bloggers incorrectly refer to these new members as “progressive.” Anything compared to a Republican is “progressive,” just as anything above bedrock is considered soil. But to refer to a centrist as “progressive” gives one just as much information as referring to anything above bedrock as soil: we know soil is above bedrock, but the type and composition of the soil is not explicated. In other words, one basically says nothing, and in fact, not everything above bedrock is soil. In fact, there are a lot of rocks above soil. And excavating through bedrock is just as difficult as chipping through many rocks, although those smaller rocks may break in half on occassion. They may be different in size, but they are essentially the same, even if they may yield under pressure. Rocks are not soil, just as centrists are not progressives, although they may lodge themselves amongst the archaeological strata of their ranks.
So who are these pieces of DLC bedrock who insert themselves as so many NDC rocks in the Democratic caucus? Who are these people who are trying to hijack the word progressive for their debased, centrist and antiprogressive aims? It should be no surprise that everyone on this list is in one place or another affiliated with the DLC. Let us review.
Ellen Tauscher (CA), Chair
Ron Kind (WI), Co-Chair
Artur Davis (AL), Co-Chair
Adam Smith (WA), PAC Chair
Joseph Crowley (NY), WhipBrian Baird (WA)
John Barrow (GA)
Melissa Bean (IL)
Shelley Berkeley (NV)
Lois Capps (CA)
Russ Carnahan (MO)
Ed Case (HI)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Jim Davis (FL)
Susan Davis (CA)
Rahm Emanuel (IL)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Harold Ford (TN)
Charles Gonzalez (TX)
Jane Harman (CA)
Stephanie Herseth (SD)
Brian Higgins (NY)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Darlene Hooley (OR)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Rick Larsen (WA)
John Larson (CT)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Kendrick Meek (FL)
Gregory Meeks (NY)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
David Price (NC)
Loretta Sanchez (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Allyson Schwartz (PA)
David Scott (GA)
Vic Snyder (AR)
Tom Udall (NM)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
David Wu (OR)
And here are their new members, ushered into the caucus during the 2006 elections, a victorious moment the DLC and the NDC want to claim for the “vital center”:
- Gabby Giffords (AZ-8)
- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
- Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
- Joe Courtney (CT-02)
- Ron Klein (FL-22)
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
- Joe Sestak (PA-07)
- Heath Shuler (NC-11)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Chris Carney (PA-10)
- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
- Jason Altmire (PA-04)
- Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)
- Baron Hill (IN-09)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)
- Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
A member of an organization that is an offshoot of the DLC, anyone listed above is not progressive; they are antiprogressive, centrist, advocates, according to the shifting headline of the NDC’s website, for “corporate citizenship.” Now let us use appellations probably now that the facts have been presented.
Let us put an end to power, lies and deception.
“”Founded in 1997, The New Democrat Coalition (NDC) provides moderate, pro-growth Members of Congress with the opportunity to advance a common sense policy agenda to move our country in the right direction. New Democrats have built a reputation as the “go-to” group in Congress on the critical issues of economic growth, national security, personal responsibility, and technology development.
Hailing from every region of the country, New Democrats are intent on modernizing both the Democratic Party and the country. New Democrats support policies to expand economic growth and ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to benefit from that growth; a fiscally responsible and efficient government; a secure homefront; and a robust foreign policy that includes trade, constructive U.S. leadership throughout the world, and a modern and strong military.”
if the homophobic, anti-labor misogynists in the DLC/NDN are “centrists”, then I guess we can call southerners who insisted that racism and slavery were protected by states rights were “centrists” too. After all, defining African Americans as three-fifths of a human being so that their owners could pack Congress was a “compromise” at the center of the white landowning society of their time, right?
Centrists seem to have become nearly apoplectic after the Democrats took over control of Congress at the thought that people might take the election results were a victory for progressives. They immediately took to the talking point, which was apparently also in sync with one of the the Republicans’ key talking points, that the election results were a victory for moderates.
The fact is, there have always been moderate to conservative Democrats in the Congress. During the next session of Congress, however, there will be fewer than at any time when Democrats controlled Congress previously. In addition, the progressives in the Congress, including those who openly identify themselves with the Progressive Caucus, has never been larger.
Are a majority of the Democratic members of either the House or Senate progressives? No. An there never has been a majority of Senate or House members of either party that could be called progressive.
Howeveer, the argument could easily be made that there are more progressives, or at least as many, as a percentage of the majority than ever before, with more influence than ever before in the history of the Congress.
I agree, but members of the NDC, an offshoot of the DLC, are not progressive. And I resent those who refer to them as such.
First of all, you need to define what you mean by progressive. Do you mean Progressive in the Theodore Roosevelt sense? The Woodrow Wilson sense? The rise of the new left in the late 60’s sense?
What do you mean by it? It is populism on economic policy or internationalism on foreign policy, is it prohibition on alcohol or pursuing female suffrage and rights? Is it ending Jim Crow or is it a robust environmentalism, or both?
The DLC is basically an anti-economic populist organization. They are for free trade agreements, for a robust forward-leaning (imperialist) foreign policy, not so much anti-labor as anti-depending on labor, mushy on social issues, etc.
At the same time, they are quite progressive on a host of issues.
Where the rubber meets the road, the Dems now have a split personality. How do we judge a party that has Barney Frank and Max Baucus in charge of Finance?
Taking just one new member of the New Democrats, Patrick Murphy (PA-08), I was a witness to his campaign from its infancy and I never got a hint that he would join the New Dems. I’m surprised. But I also know what his agenda, what he campaigned on, and what is important to him. And I see him as a pretty solidly progressive guy. Casting labels around without knowing the people behind those labels is a bit of a disservice to our discourse.
Progressive politics are in my opinion rooted in the various upheavals of the 1960s. Women’s rights, the sexual revolution, the Civil Rights movement, an environmentalist movement, an emergence of a global Left concerned with the logic of late capital and the expansion of a society of spectacle and a vigorous student revolt against the commodification and the regimentation of knowledge production all erupted and enacted profound changes in government and in social norms. The last two decades have been marked by attempts to liquidate this tradition, which is why centrism and any affiliation with those who advocate for “corporate citizenship” and bankrupt notions of “personal responsibility” in a world wholly shaped by corporate imperatives is not progressive. For progressive politics endeavors to address and dismantle systemic forms of economic, social and psychological oppression. And this is done not in the interest of corporations but in the interest in every human being’s subjectivity.
Anyone who has read press releases from the DLC or the NDC will see a general disregard for these various movements. The article I cite on Karen Carter is just one example. And it is not a transgression of the norms of political discourse to note the misuse of progressive by those who do not hold a progressive politics as it is understood by those who lived through the 1960s and hope its promises will be attained. I sincerely believe it is a concern to be addressed by those of us who desire social change and some form of autonomy from corporate imperatives and a militaristic and sexually repressive social field. In fact, it is a timely clarification of terms, and it is a debate the party must have. For progressive politics will otherwise be rendered into a stagnant object with no promise and no viability if it is shifted to the right. No, I do not believe progressive is a synonym for Democratic, and it is certainly not a synonym for centrist. And if we think more globally, we will see how progressive parties have had to separate themselves from parties who failed to take their ideals seriously. The NDP is one example in Canada.
Why is claiming centrism is not progressive so controversial? Why is a clarification of terms considered a debasement of an increasingly vacuous political discourse? Why is everyone frightened of this debate? Why are we unwilling to refer to politicians and organizations as centrist, and why do we refuse to reserve the appellation progressive to those who might actually uphold at least some of the tenets of progressive politics? I welcome the debate, and I do believe it is somewhat disingenuous to refer to someone who desires a clarification of terms as a gadfly. These struggles are real, and they are felt by many of us. To have some centrist hijack a term that gives me the promise of life is something I cannot tolerate. It is my struggle, and it is the struggle of many others who simply need and desire a promise, not more of the same.
I believe I addressed your many questions.
I think it’s lame that you can’t even bother to call me out by name. ‘That blogger’ reeks of the kind of journalism AdNags does for the Times.
You can see a fuller response to this diary over at MLW. I’m not going to dignify it with any more thought.
The link already identified you. And because your comment was false and shared by many others, I thought it would not be fair to refer to you by name. I prefer you address the substance of the diary and not a rhetorical strategy that has no bearing on its larger signficance. If you want the debate, then please wage it. But to make a baseless comparison in order to invalidate a perspective you may not find very palatable is not a very mature manner in which to engage in debate.
I also address you comment at My Left Wing. I am sorry if you are personally offended, and I am sorry if politicians with whom you have a personal relationship now have questionable ties. But I want a debate about progressive politics, its goals, its legacy and its aspirations. And I want it to apply to those who have that legacy in mind when they cast votes and shape policy. As I said, I and others have shed tears and blood for this movement, and I am not ready to have a centrist hijack it as a new cachet that will help them gain votes and donations. This is real life; this is not the latest commodity. Now let us have the debate, or we can personally attack one another. I want the former, and I hope you do too. After all, this is the intellectually honest manner of proceeding, and I hope you can join me. I honestly do.
If you paint everyone with a broad stroke with ‘questionable ties’, you can just about turn any association into the bad thing. The Democratic Party used to be most associated with segregation. The Democratic Party helped Bush go into Iraq.
By painting every single person in the NDC or DLC with such a broad brush, it glosses over the individual qualities that need to be accounted. I already spoke about Patrick Murphy. I’m not a big fan of Tom Vilsack, who heads the DLC, but he did excellent work in ensuring that we got secretary of states elected in California, and more importantly, Ohio. Generalizations are never a good thing, and simply calling a certain group of people ‘antiprogressive’ because they are tied to groups that are not as liberal as you’d like is not the correct way to evaluate someone. Judge them based on their individual merits.
As I said in a previous comment, I am sure many people in the NDC and DLC are lovely people. In fact, I am sure I would enjoy conversing with them on a wide variety of topics. But I do wonder why one would choose to be a member of an organization that treats the 1960s, its legacy and a wide range of concerns held by the Left with so much levity and disdain. And why are we trying to apply the term progressive to an entire cohort of politicians when we know many of them may not have such committments? I also believe we have a right to express a bit of concern and outrage about politicans who want to lend credibility to an organization whose centrist goals are demonstrably anathema to a progressive politics as it is understood by members of certain social movements and members of the progressive caucus. This, as I have said, is a clarification of terms, and it is one I believe we both need and deserve.
I volunteered for a candidate with the goal of electing a Democrat in 2000. I did it out of necessity. And although I respect this candidate, I do not believe he is progressive. He is a centrist, and he is certainly a better representative than the Republican who would probably hold this seat. And personally, he is a very elegant man. But he is not a progressive. This is not a fault; it is just reality. No, he is not a member of the DLC or NDC, but many of his positions are centrist. If one were to refer to him as centrist, I would not object, for he is certainly that. Again, I respect him as an individual, but I sometimes find his politics and his membership of the Blue Dog Coalition somewhat offensive.
I also volunteered this cycle for a progressive who lost. I respect her too, and I hope she runs again with more money, more time and more organization. I could never compare her to the candidate I worked for in 2000, for her positions are so different from his. But I respect both of these politicians. And yet, I believe the appellation progressive can only apply to her, not him. Thankfully, he does not refer to himself as progressive. I guess he is honest, which is another reason I respect him.
I even agree with most of them. I am confused though why so much venom towards another lefty blogger. I haven’t agreed with everything that Psifighter has written either. I respect his work though and he has done a lot of really good work.
He attacked my article, and he then dismissed it entirely. I am trying to explain to him, although he refuses to listen, the difference between progressive and centrist.
I volunteered for a centrist in 2000. His name is Mike Ross, and I canvassed a few southern Arkansas counties for him. He is a wonderful man, and I would volunteer for him again. He is a centrist, however, and he admits it. I have no delusions about him, and I would never claim he is a progressive. Yes, I worked for him, and yes, I am proud of everyone who volunteers, but I do not understand the unwillingness to admit that not all Democrats are progressive. Why the resistance? And why the vituperations?
I write in such an impassioned manner as I care about the issue at hand. That I am even willing to respond to the blogger in question reveals I at least respect him enough to have a discussion. He, on the other hand, already seems to think he is right. Such rigidity is anything but progressive.
I have a different interpretation of what ‘progressive’ means. To you, it seems to imply a liberal stance on positions. To me, it is not a word that, in this day and age, has the same ideological connotation.
And for you call me a coward…I’m not going to engage in a spitting contest with someone who has demonstrated no interest in seeing my side of the argument. Furthermore, you come out of nowhere at here and MLW (your first diary is dated October 29) and decide to earn your stripes by attacking me, someone who has been in the blogosphere for more than 2 years, and, from what I can tell, is generally well-liked by most people.
I don’t respect people who do that.
You did not address the problem, and stating that a word’s signification has changed is not an argument. I am concerned with why that signification has changed. Perhaps a discussion on this topic is timely.
Your seniority is of no concern to me. One could have been the first person to start a blog; that does not make them right. And popularity does not make one right either.
Write back when you are ready to engage in a debate.
And this is not about you; this is about progressive politics and the direction those of us who are concerned with progress want and need it to move. Barack Obama, Karen Carter and others want to abandon Civil Rights as so much critical toxic waste. As someone who was born much later than the 1960s but still has a real claim in those upheavals, I am concerned about the attempt of antiprogressive centrists and antiprogressive Republicans to liquidate that tradition in the name of an unexplained and vague notion they refer to as the “current” or the “contemporary.” I would accept this if the project of progressive politics was realized, but they obviously have not been. So the debates and the upheavals of the 1960s still have relevance to the struggles of oppressed and disenfranchised people today. This may also explain why a large number of African-Americans in Congress who are committed to the legacy of Civil Rights are members of the progressive caucus. And I think they may know more about progressive politics than those of us who just emerged into the political field. This may explain why Ted Kennedy is considered the dean of progressive politics. For he emerged in the 1960s, and he has relentlessly pursued the project of progressive politics since that era. The attempt at invalidation and liquidiation, or what some may call resignification, is what is at stake, and I want to have the debate. You may say I refuse to consider your position. I have, but it is difficult to assess it when you merely assert it as a fact. Perhaps you should try to define and defend it.
what a conservative Republican was and then, well, um stuff happened.
I suspect a lot of the friction comes from the way many self-described “progressives” define the term, which itself is such a fuzzy term that it can be coopted by all manner of unsavory groups (e.g., those who take on a neoliberal agenda as their basic starting point). In other words we have a term that Cindy Sheehan, Bill/Hillary Clinton, Kos, et alia could each lay claim to (and I’ll simply say right now that I very much prefer how you or Sheehan would define progressivism than I would the others).
Dignify it eh. Whatever. Grow up. Just because some may have issues with something YOU said doesn’t make it a silly or insulting topic. How very progressive of you.
And we don’t “call people out” here, a link is enough to identify someone is it not?
Personally, I’m quite glad louisianagirl wrote this to set the record straight about the supposed progressives the “netroots” have been all gaga over.
To borrow a line from Vine Deloria, the netroots is “circling around the same old rock, calling it different names.”
and just because YOU have issues about something someone says makes flaming them needed and desirable, how progressive of you.
Tracy, for everyone’s sake here, so we can avoid a repeat of your past performance, please refrain from ever speaking to me again.
I’ve had enough of your lies and venom to last a lifetime.
… you could correct the misspelling in the first sentence of this diary? (Also duplicated in the MLW incarnation.) The word is “clarification” and it’s one of those words that contradicts itself when it is not spelled correctly. IMHO!
I will try, although it is a parapraxis, as “clair” means “bright and light” in French, which is a language I have spoken most of my life. But yes, I will. Regarding the diary, do you have anything to contribute to its actual substance?
I understand your confusion as a scholar of French. However, please do not denigrate my comment as insubstantial since I took the trouble to try to assist you in this way.
Psifighter37 and this diary?
No one is engaging in a flame war. He was the latest writer to misuse the adjective, and I decided I wanted a debate. He can engage in debate, or he can cower in the corner and pretend he was unfaily attacked. I want a debate, but he only wants to insult me and my diary. Perhaps you should ask him why he tried to change this diary into a flame war.
What in the world is up with the flaming of Psifighter37 and this diary?
What are you talking about? Psi made an asshole of himself and the diary is relevant and asks questions a great many of us would appreciate seeing answered thoughtfully and honestly. Are you complaining that the topic of the diary (which was not the Trials and Travails of Psi, a subject almost none of us are interested in) is suspect?