I wonder if Evan Bayh is stunned at how much ill-will he has produced on the left. There’s hardly anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman who has a good thing to say about his career. But I don’t think he is alone. In fact he has a lot of good company among the other former chairmen of the Democratic Leadership Council. That group has been on quite a run.
Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri (1985 – 1986)- saw his presidential run fizzle in 2004, winning zero delegates in Iowa and then dropping out.
Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia (1986 – 1988)- after a scandal-plagued career, he became one of George W. Bush’s favorite Democrats, serving on the Iraq Intelligence Commission for which his whitewash earned him a position on Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1988 – 1990)- is mostly known for his staunch opposition to allowing gays to serve in the military, which he has since recanted. He deserves more credit among progressives for his efforts on nuclear disarmament.
Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas (1990 – 1991)- saw his wife lose her bid for the 2008 presidential nomination in large part because of progressive anger with the DLC.
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana (1991 – 1993)- teamed up with Trent Lott to form a lobbying firm.
Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma (1993 – 1995)- currently serving as president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM).
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (1995 – 2001)- reviled for his lackluster performance as Gore’s vice-presidential pick, he saw his 2004 presidential run go nowhere, was kicked out of the Democratic Party in 2006, and campaigned for Sarah Palin and John McCain in 2008.
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (2001 – 2005)- quit the Senate because he found it too partisan.
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa (2005 – 2007)- fairly popular governor, wonderful wife, currently serving as Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture.
Former Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee (2007 – present)- only viable Democratic senate candidate to lose their race in 2006. Now contemplating a run for senate in New York. A laughing stock.
It should be obvious that the DLC is not popular with Democrats and does not provide a reliable avenue to increased power and influence. Bayh’s departure is just one more step in the total rejection of the DLC experiment.
Funny how Palin’s name is first when she was second on the ticket.
Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas (1990 – 1991)- saw his wife lose her bid for the 2008 presidential nomination in large part because of progressive anger with the DLC.
While the DLC sucks, that’s not why Hillary lost. After all, Obama is pretty much DLC as well.
During the campaign, he denied it. But after he assumed office, he acted as if he were another Clinton.
To take just one issue: DADT. Clinton started it, Obama is ending it after naming and standing behind a Sec of Defense who fought for repeal.
I don’t see Obama doing anything close to “welfare reform”, or saying anything even in the same ballpark as “the era of big government is over”. Odd way to be another Clinton, doncha think?
So I’m assuming this is just supposed to be from the past few years? Since Clinton’s accomplishments aren’t listed?
well, he was elected president and reelected. But what happened to everyone else? What happened to the party under his watch?
And probably it’s not just progressives that reject Bayh. Unless your definition of a progressive is anyone who rejects DLC types like Bayh. I think guys like Bayh are simply not what any Democrat used to call a Democrat.
Put it like this. Is Howard Dean a progressive? I’m not sure, but he certainly deserves a lot of credit for the above.
As for Vilsack, at one time not long ago, he was considered a serious presidential candidate, wasn’t he? When that went nowhere, he supported Hillary. Only after Hillary withdrew did he support Obama. But I guess Obama appreciated that.
Thanks for bringing this together. I’ve thought all along that something was being accomplished since 2004; this helps to see it. Very slow process, though. Let’s not lose faith.
I rather like Vilsack personally. He’s a funny, smart guy who is pretty polite in public. But that doesn’t mean I think he should set policy. Also I don’t think Bayh is stunned, frankly I don’t think he even bothers to pay progressives any attention.
The DLC always seemed to be the Republicanization of the Democratic Party, as if being Democratic, that is, looking out for working class people who are the Democrats’ constituency, is out of style. It helped during the Clinton years to offer Americans an alternative to the corrupt Reagan/Bush years and yet was a stealth Republican Administration that pushed the corporate agenda.
Bayh has kept regurgitating the Republican worldview of Ronald Reagan which has been proved demonstrably wrong. He may have some frustration that the country and the world don’t believe it, and maybe that explains the parting shots, or maybe he planned to do more damage to the Dems on his way out for the benefit of his true masters (someone not wanting party loyalty).
The problem is that even Republicans are no longer embracing pure Reaganism. Because it has been proven wrong additional mythologies have to be offered to explain why, say, trickle-down doesn’t work. It’s not because it was a lie, a set-up to further enrich the rich at the expense of the rest of us. No, trickle-down hasn’t worked because of illegal aliens and black people and socialists. Thus, the Reagan budget didn’t produce huge deficits because of tax cuts to the wealthy, it failed because the Dems controlled Congress!
So that leaves people like Bayh as basically without a constituency. Oh, Bayh could possibly survive in a conservative state like Indiana with his family name and being the incumbent, but the political terrain is shifting underneath him. The right has become more radicalized, so conservative Dems are even less salable to them. If he doesn’t doubt Obama’s birth certificate then he has to be part of “the conspiracy” no matter what he says about illegal aliens. His personal and political income stream is corporate, so he essentially is blocked from any egalitarian or populist stances even if he had the inclination. And people who used to have manufacturing jobs vote for him for what reason?
The DLC always represented the corporatization of the Democratic Party, switching its support from Democratic voters to corporations. The Republicans managed this switch successfully in the decades after the Civil War. While there are enough Dems to make it worthwhile for corporations to invest, ultimately the Republicans are more reliable and have nowhere else to go. So even if the Dems serve useful for, say, a health care reform bill that sets up a system to ensure steady profits for their industry, can the Dems be counted on to do this in the future when there is an even greater budget crunch, for ex?
So the DLC was ultimately destined to fail. It was useful to get through big trade agreements that gutted our domestic manufacturing. In the current political climate, these blue dogs are a dying breed.
The Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987. So, those big deficit-producing budgets passed through Republican senates, and we all can see how powerful the Senate is and how even a minority can prevent things from passing.
Agreed – the process is slow but it is happening. The day-to-day battles are important, but progressives need to keep their eye on the long game too.
Add Sen. McCaskill’s name to that list she is starting to remind me of Bayh. I got an e-mail survey that had a Republican tactic toward immigration with the only option being _ Immigration Enforcement it reminded of a survey I once got from Congressman Sam Graves.
wasn’t he president of something-or-another a while back? probably not worth mentioning — dlc-ers were all such total losers!
</snark>