“New Democrat” is synonymous with “neo-liberal” and DLC politicians. Anyone confused as to how they differ in public policy orientation only has to look at current events in New York. It’s the neo-liberal New York State Governor vs. the Democratic Mayor of NYC.
The NYTimes article, Cuomo Burnishes His Political Brand, Using de Blasio as His Foil is good on the facts and disputes between the two and for once, not as obviously biased in favor of the neo-liberal position.
The issues:
Tax increase on the wealthy: de Blasio endorses; Cuomo rejects.
Minimum wage increase: de Blasio for it; Cuomo against it.
Charter schools: de Blasio: enough already; Cuomo: need more (translation, Wall St for outsourcing public ed).
Universal pre-K ed: de Blasio for it; Cuomo sort of for it.
Mr. Cuomo, according to people close to him, has urged the mayor to agree to a compromise, by dropping his demand for a tax increase and accepting the governor’s offer of state funds to pay for prekindergarten.
de Blasio not taking the bait:
Mr. de Blasio has rejected the idea that Mr. Cuomo’s offer is sufficient, arguing that raising taxes on city residents who earn more than $500,000 would provide a dependable source of money to expand prekindergarten, and would insulate the city from the vagaries of the annual state budget process. The mayor’s office says that despite the governor’s offer of a blank check for prekindergarten, his budget proposal does not contain nearly enough money for the city’s needs.
Interesting that Cuomo has been sticking some knives in de Blaisio while maintaining silence over the GW Bridge scandal. Not taking any well-deserved potshots at the embattled Gov. Christie or any of the NJ appointees to the Port Authority of NY and NJ.
De Blasio has been acting like a gentleman over these disputes. Confident instead of an insecure bully-boy.
And the mayor, his advisers say, is comfortably withstanding the second-guessing of his approach to Albany, noting that he was dismissed as all but dead in the mayoral race up until the final weeks before the Democratic primary.
And went on to a landslide (73.3% to 24.3%) general election win.
Why is Cuomo trying to elect Republicans?
Link
A number of people who have spoken to Mr. Cuomo say he also has expressed his desire to ensure that his eventual opponent is not far to the right on social issues. This, he has argued, could alienate moderate Republicans and other voters so much that Republican candidates for the State Senate could suffer too, potentially costing Republicans control of the chamber.
Saw that but failed to consider it as a feature of “New Democrats.” They are invested in being perceived as “bipartisan” (pragmatic, ever ready to compromise on any issue with those to their political right). However, that seemed not to include electoral politics. Possibly because rank and file Democrats assumed that DEM politicians preferred that DEM candidates win. Yet somewhere along the way, the DEM Party began getting really crappy at winning elections. To the point that by 2002 it was obvious that they either didn’t care to win or were inept.
While Howard Dean was a bit of fresh air for ordinary liberals, the Party honchos didn’t like him one bit. Didn’t like his fifty state strategy — concede not even the most hopeless races. Didn’t matter that the four year strategy (2005-2008) resulted in taking back the WH, House, and Senate (with 60 DEM seats). One of Obama’s first moves was to sideline (exile) Howard Dean.
Is Cuomo backing of Republicans in NY all that much different from Priorities USA Action-Hillary PAC will NOT support DEMs in 2014?
Was Chris Christie borrowing the DEM politicians strategy?
Obama and now Hillary studiously avoided getting Democratic coat-tails. What looked like an oversight is beginning to look like a Congressional strategy to avoid strongly Democratic progressive legislation. Creating deliberate weakness to ensure sufficient big money campaign funding, keeping Congress in deadlock for another full decade.
Not sure “avoided” is the right word. Their egos would have loved landslide wins. It’s just that the Clintons and Obama promote public policies that don’t resonate with 60% of the population. (In two runs, Clinton couldn’t even get 50%.)* After the 1994 mid-terms team Clinton discovered that getting more of those policies through Congress was easier with fewer traditional Democrats. The remaining Democrats could be pushed around by a DEM POTUS as he worked with old Republicans to continue the gutting of New Deal legislation. The 2008 DEM control of Congress wasn’t in the game plan — but squandering that advantage probably was. The dilemma now is how to get DINO or RINO replacements for Democrats or New Republicans without the DEM base seeing through the game well enough to bolt.
*Contrary to what Democratic Party loyalists believe, the personal charisma of the Clintons and Obama is merely average for politicians. That’s likely a minor factor in landslide wins. Except to the extent that the charisma communicates integrity which adds power to the message as being real and not a gimmick.