So has the Democratic Party moved to the left?

Or, more likely, the GOPers have moved the "center" so fucking far to the right that it just appears the Dems have moved left.

I think it also speaks volumes about where they hope to raise their cash this go-round. Other than that, smart analysis, Kevin.

ckelly: Yep, that too.

Considering that Kos himself is about political wins first, and actual stances on many issues second, this is indeed more about "optics" than anything else.

Who could resist the Joe Lieberman keynote address at the DLC convention?

I think Democrats show too MUCH backbone. Being assertive is contrary to good governance an' worldliness an' non-partisan gettin' things done.

-- Washington Media

Seems like a smart move. The candidates can appeal now to the nut roots who vote in primaries. The nominee will likely be known by February. S/he will have plenty of time to move back toward the center before the general election.

Have the Dems moved left? I think Dems and Reps in Congress are more polarized because gerrymandering has removed most competitive seats. I agree with Kevin that all three leading Presidential candidates are farther left than Bill Clinton. That will be a problem for the Dems, but one they can likely overcome.

But, but, but, Kos is just like the Nazis, or the KKK. Don't you people listen to O'Reilly? Obama is just like David Duke. Really.

The candidates can appeal now to the nut roots who vote in primaries.
No, dumbass. We're talking about the Democratic candidates.

Kevin, I'm surprised you've overlooked economic policy where I think the Kos folk are well to the left or, better, more deeply populist than elected party officeholders. This manifests itself in opposition to the so-called bankruptcy reform, in favor of labor unions, and on other such issues that I think you, Kevin, strongly identify with. That's not big headlines, but it's very important.

I also think you slight areas such as modern civil rights: opposition to torture, to uncontrolled eavesdropping, and to indefinite detention without judicial review. These issues are separate from the war in Iraq. Oddly, I think Democratic office-holders may be closer to the members of the Kos community on these issues than on bread-and-butter topics.

We've moved so far to the right, that the center now looks like the far left. Fortunately, I'm moving to Europe in a few days...

Kevin,

Isn't just possible that the Democratic candidates have looked at all that the DLC has done for the party and its candidates (i.e., 12 years of legislative exile, loss of the White House not once but twice, continued advice to candidates that the only way to beat Republicans is to be Republicans, etc.) and decided that the DLC is actually harmful to both the candidates and the country?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD "OPTICS" KTHNX

"But it's not because the average Kossack is to the left of the average DLCer."

Just to be clear about my comment above. I disagree with the above sentence for the reasons I stated. I agree with the rest of what Kevin says generally. The Kos community will go for the good rather than holding out for the perfect, but bitch and moan the entire way. Which is good. (And don't expect Democratic candidates to get a warm reception if they serve warmed-up DLC sludge in their speeches. Hillary esp. take note.)

Various extremist comments by Kos and his minions:
"the Pope is a Primate"
"Tony Snow... sadly the world may be better off without him, just as it would without a great many people like him."
"Don't Iraqis have the right to resist an unwanted military occupation?"
How can you justify going to a convention with people expousing such extremist rhetoric?

OMG!!!!! AL THINKS THE POPE IS AN ALIEN!!!!!!!!!

The great weakness of the Democrats is the "perception" that the candidates are to the left of the Party and the Party is to the left of the country.

The right-wing corporate Media has the script and is running with it. The plutocracy wants Hillary, because she's conservative and it will be easy to trash her Administration and frustrate health care and everything else.

The median Democrat looking for a payout from a defense contractor or financial instituiton is going to end up right of a median Democrat trying to create policy to benefit a majority of Americans. Or at least one would hope so. But the Kossacks support Democrats whose hands are outstreched to the defense contractors and financial institutions, so one wonders what all of that hope is based upon.

I used to read Dan, but too many complete misunderstandings of what I thought was clear has led me to suspect that the stuff he is supposed to be expert is equally understood by him

The DLC was a movement by AIPAC to take control of the Dems.

Right on the money, Kevin. The ruling party, guided by delusional ideas on everything from national security to health care to basic constitutional principles, has driven the country off a cliff. The mass of the electorate has figured that out and is clearly willing to give the Dems a chance at the helm. So the Dems no longer see a need to tout their centrist credentials and feel safer courting their progressives. Poor Dan needs to get out more.

Considering that Bill Clinton (Rethug rhetoric notwithstanding) pretty much governed to the right of Richard Nixon, moving to his left (even if accurate) ain't exactly a very long trip.

In substantive terms, after all, the three main Democratic candidates this year are only slightly to the left of DLC big dog Bill Clinton himself.

While I tend to believe that internally HRC is to the left of WJC, is practice she is a bit more conservative than he is.

Furthermore, I'd argue that Obama and Edwards are more than "slightly to the left" of WJC.

Have the Dems moved to the Left?
Has the country moved to the Left?
(presume you mean; rhetorical "left" not political "left")

Consider this:
Dennis Kucinich, American Senator, and Presidential Candidate, was detained by security personnel while trying to simple enter the debate hall in 2003.

In 2007, he was up on the stage answering questions with the rest of them.

(and while I like his policy positions, generally, I think Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, all, kicked his ass, and they should be thankful that they had the chance to debate him in an open forum like that, and convince me that they were better candidates).

I don't know if there was leftward movement - but there has been a serious, serious, significant change in this country over the past 4 years.

It has been a very, very good change.

And I blame Bush. :)

How droll. "ex-liberal" is still pretending people think he comments in good faith.

Unfortunately, "ex-liberal," while the lunacy of the Republican candidiates and their fealty to the neocon agenda of warmongering and torture no doubt gives you a stiffy, the fact that the GOP and the neocons -- and you, of course, my reprehensible friend -- represent the slavering lunatic fringe of American politics mean nothing but good things for a center-right party like the Democrats.

Kevin,

Obviously. The interesting question is why drezner et al consistently misinterpret this phenomenon, despite the wealth of obvious fact and opinion to the contrary.

Why have Democrats abandoned the DLC?

It's not really about the opposition of DailyKos to the DLC. It's about the utter dearth of a real constituency anywhere in the Democratic Party that finds the DLC congenial.

The DLC was always an inside the Beltway contrivance. Perhaps there was a day when one could find an actual voter or two who mostly agreed with their policies. But who in real America these days sees their views on, say, foreign policy to represent anything remotely like their point of view, or think that the DLC has led the Democratic Party in the right direction through the years of the Bush WH?

In the end, the DLC failed on its own merits. It attracts no interest because it pushed for policies and approaches that everyone except them now rejects.

I'm surprised that you don't consider John Edwards' plan to be as comprehensive as the old Clinton plan. It has a universal mandate and generous subsidies for people who can't afford insurance under the current system.

But, Neil, the Clinton plan was a Rube Goldberg device of the highest order. It was apparently designed to keep anyone from feeling that it was their ox being gored, when a few oxen profoundly needed to be put down.

A comprehensive program can be simple. Social security is not very complex. Medicare funding is a bit simpler. A new universal health program could be even simpler than Medicare.

So, does Drezner think that the majority of the Republican candidates that spoke at CPAC this year are moving to the radical right?

I think ckelly has it right in the first comment, but I also think it boils down to the simple question of who's been right on the issues, and who's been wrong. For years now, the DLC has been guilty of half stepping & the worst kind of compromise. The diarists & commenters at Kos & other dirty-fucking-hippie sites have been right about the important stuff far more often than anyone at the DLC. Why should we be paying attention to the kind of timidity & stagnant thinking that got us the war resolution & bankruptcy bill?

mandated coverage+subsidies=
CORPORATE WELFARE FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES
- and -
A license to raise prices in a completely capricious and unrestricted fashion.

Unless the plan also comes along with sharp controls on how the insurance company does business, whether it can reject claims, cherry-pick customers, deny (or delay, or obfuscate) coverage, and make profit beyond a certain, defined percentage.

Such a plan would be acceptable, I think - because those are the main problems that most Americans want solved.

But the devil's in the details - and we're talking politicians and lobbyists here.

Michael Moore (and other National Healthcare advocates) have made the point - that no plan is workable unless you remove the private insurance companies from the mix. Otherwise, we could very well end up with a big huge giveaway to the insurance industry that makes the situation far worse.

Neither Edwards, Obama, nor Clinton's plans do this. Clinton's least of all.

Unfortunately, this "never back down" attitude is often carried to ridiculous extremes.

One example I keep harping on: Steve Gilliard once posted "sambo" faux blackface caricatures of an African American Republican. My candidate for Governor at the time, Tim Kaine, pulled his ads from Gilliards' site. This was a wise decision: the fight at the time between Kaine and his opponent derived a lot of power from the Republican's over-the-top ads linking Kaine to Holocaust as well as demonizing immigrants (this was Jerry Kilgore, the an who claimed that Al Qaeda was organizing amongst day laborers). Handing the Republicans a "look, he supports over the top offensive stuff too" would have been extremely dumb and off message. And you know what? It wasn't just a political calculation either. Lots of people, including African American staffers on Kaine's campaign found it offensive, and that wasn't the sort of stuff we wanted to endorse or be associated with.

But that is exactly the sort of bold stupidity that kos et al often endorse in their endless "look tough always" second guessing of campaign decisions: just weeks from the election they raked Kaine over the coals for not endorsing... blackface and calling someone a sambo. Nice guys. Any loyalty or possible friendship I might have felt towards kos and his folk went to nil pretty fast.

Derelict has it right. What has the DLC done for democratic candidates since 1992?

Kossacks raise tons of money, volunteer time for and even run campaigns for dems at all levels of government. And they win elections.

Why shouldn't the democratic party leaders show up at yearlyKos? As Howard Dean says, "You have the power!"

Just to follow up on my post, one way of thinking about the point I was making is that it's not as though candidates have shifted from favoring the DLC to favoring DailyKos. Rather, candidates have simply recognized that the DLC has no constituency in today's Democratic Party, and that DailyKos does have such a constituency.

This doesn't imply that candidates perceive themselves to have great loyalty to DailyKos, but rather that they regard DailyKos as a constituency among others that they should court.

It's the electorate that's moved left.

It's the electorate that's moved left.

O.T. Vocabulary Comment,

Is anyone else disturbed by Kevin's use of the word "optics" when he really means "appearances?" I haven't encountered this usage anywhere else. Did Kevin coin it, and if so, will he please retract it?

"...mainly they just want their candidates to show some backbone."

And, even more importantly, they want their candidates to win. You have to wonder if the DLC has been making that a priority of late.

As for "optics", maybe we'll soon move on to "retinal".

DLC vs. Kos ?

Hilarious. I have always felt that the KOS community is essentially DLC version 2.0 (or DLC 20-25 years younger).
What the DLC was in the mid/late 1980's is where the KOS community is in the late 00's.

Both are to the right of "progressive" and both are primarily concerned with electability ... to the detriment of priciples.

"I agree with Kevin that all three leading Presidential candidates are farther left than Bill Clinton. That will be a problem for the Dems, but one they can likely overcome."

ROFL... Considering that a sizable majority of voters hold the positions advocated by the top Democratic candidates, I don't think there is a problem at all. Got anything to offer other than mindless partisan drivel, faux?

What has the DLC done for democratic candidates since 1992?

Really; what did the DLC do in 1992?

Ross Perot and Bush's (41) own incompetence (Iran-Contra, not taking out Saddam, recession) gave them that election.

"Dennis Kucinich, American Senator, and Presidential Candidate, was detained by security personnel while trying to simple enter the debate hall in 2003.

In 2007, he was up on the stage answering questions with the rest of them.

(and while I like his policy positions, generally, I think Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, all, kicked his ass, and they should be thankful that they had the chance to debate him in an open forum like that, and convince me that they were better candidates)."

And, let's not forget, it also gives a chance for us to see Kucinich's wife, who is teh hot, on TeeVee.

BTW - Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are all members of the Senate New Dem caucus, the centrist group in the Senate.

"What the DLC was in the mid/late 1980's is where the KOS community is in the late 00's."

Not really. There are two substantial differences:

1. The DLC was all about accommodation and triangulation in order to woo those mythical "centrist" voters. They advocated moving right; the Kos crew advocate standing firm and moving the rest of the country to them.

2. The Kos crew aren't really "to the right of 'progressives'" for the simple reason that there is no single set of positions that define all who participate in DailyKos and YearlyKos. There just aren't that many issues where there is near unanimity. The DLC has a specific set of principles and issues that define them; that just isn't true of Kos.

The Republican candidates visit Regent College and Pat Robertson.

Republican candidates woo Dobson and the Religious Right.

Lieberman plays grabass with a lunatic like John Hagee.

Cheney grants interviews only to Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

The Bush Administration supports and commits torture, illegal surveillance, illegal wars...

But the Dems have moved left.

DailyKos is the number one site on the web. How many people call the DLC? Politicians are drawn to where they have the greatest visibility. They do themselves the most good by going to YearlyKos. Next time the DLC needs to find a time when their meetiing isn't overshawdowed by something much more important.

Both [DLC and Kos] are to the right of "progressive" and both are primarily concerned with electability ... to the detriment of priciples.

rich nails it.

Those who think that Kos is progressive are being suckered by a slick lawyer.

I'll be leaving on Thursday for the Yearly Kos convention and - sorry, Al - am looking forward to it. Just like last year, I expect to meet bright, engaged people who are looking to make a change in this world. Those who take their instructions from Bill O'Reilly would find their blood pressure go up if they attended - but not in the way he imagines.

By the way, Noam Scheiber wrote a good analysis of the DLC. I actually joined the DLC in the 1990's for a year or so - it made sense back then, even though they acted as if it were the 1970's - but they never changed to meet the Bush challenge. That's why they should - in Scheiber's words - take a bow, declare victory and go home.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/opinion/28scheiber.html

Yes, I'm certainly annoyed by everyone using "optics" for "appearances." How do we interpret, "he bought the fancy telescope for its optics?" Conversely, are laser labs going to start hiring beauticians?

after all, the three main Democratic candidates this year are only slightly to the left of DLC big dog Bill Clinton himself

About the kindest thing you can say about Bill Clinton is that he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

And now his wife wants to be a Republican president. She'll never be elected, but if she is, she's far more likely to emulate Nixon. She seems more than a little paranoid to me.

Please, can we have a Democratic president not named Clinton?

Please, please, please let's not bring this down to a numbing "top 3 guys" when Richardson is making progress in both Iowa and New Hampshire into that region.

And speaking of Richardson, "none of them are willing to commit to a complete withdrawal in any case." which isn't the case with Richardson. He's said a complete and total withdrawal of troops within 6 months. No residuals, nothing. You want out of Iraq? Richardson is your candidate.

But, Neil, the Clinton plan was a Rube Goldberg device of the highest order. It was apparently designed to keep anyone from feeling that it was their ox being gored

In other words, it was designed with "bipartisanship" and "centrism" in mind, which is why the Washington pundit corps fetishized it so.

Oh, wait...

This all raises an interesting question: Are the Kossacks (did they used to be "Greenies") any more relevant to the political system than the Republicun Base? Can we count on you guys actually showing up and voting Democratic even if it's someone you're not jumping up and down about, like Hillary? Are you interested in winning, or just being right?

"rich nails it."

That analysis is incomplete, I think.

"Those who think that Kos is progressive are being suckered by a slick lawyer."

I think this is both right and wrong. The DLC, for example, encouraged Democrats to run to the mythical "center" which, in practice, meant pro-business and pro-"muscular" foreign policy and less about the issues that progressives really care about. Again, it was all about triangulation and compromise, to the detriment of the liberal/progressive message and, ultimately, to the detriment of the Democratic Party.

Both Kos and the regulars on his site first and foremost want Democrats to run as Democrats -- to move the voters to them (or, as in recent months, to follow where the voters have already gone) rather than to compromise and triangulate.

Kos is also a pragmatist, though, which means that he's okay with a Democrat from a "red" state not hewing the party line on all issues. It's still a Democratic gain and when it comes to control of Congress, those seats absolutely matter. He does not have similar charity toward Democrats from blue states and he has actively campaigned for primary challengers to those who have displayed such behavior.

In any case, I still think there's a fundamental flaw in assigning specific views to DailyKos or to the participants of YearlyKos. They will agree a lot more than they disagree but as a perusal of the site's diaries and comments will show, there's a hell of a lot of disagreement among them. The one thing they have in common is that they'd much rather have Democrats in power than Republicans.

Put me down in the 'Stop employing the word 'optics' in a use for which it was not meant' column.

Really. It's like nails on a goddamn blackboard, and Santa help us, it seems to be catching on.

"Isn't just possible that the Democratic candidates have looked at all that the DLC has done for the party and its candidate... and decided that the DLC is actually harmful to both the candidates and the country?"

No. Hillary Clinton currently sits on the DLC's governing board. So, at least as far as she is concerned, no, the above is not possible.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

In substantive terms, after all, the three main Democratic candidates this year are only slightly to the left of DLC big dog Bill Clinton himself.

The DLC has kept moving right since Clinton. The Democratic base and the country have, overall, moved to the left.

The two of the top three that aren't the frontrunner have every reason to distance themselves from the DLC, and the one that is the frontrunner has every reason to deny them the ability to differentiate themselves from the frontrunner. So the DLC gets no love, even from one of its leading members.

"Is the Democratic Party moving left?"

Gawd, I certainly hope so. The "Republican Lite" stance of the DLC has been sickening.

But, Neil, the Clinton plan was a Rube Goldberg device of the highest order. It was apparently designed to keep anyone from feeling that it was their ox being gored

In other words, it was designed with "bipartisanship" and "centrism" in mind, which is why the Washington pundit corps fetishized it so.

As the basis for a bipartisan, centrist movement towards universal health care, the Clinton plan could have been useful. IIRC, the Republican leadership at the time planned on cooperating to some extent, but Newt Gingrich decided to run a smear campaign against the Clinton plan as part of a general overthrow of traditional Republicans in favor of his band of right-wing thugs.

A decade and more later, we have an inferior health care system that is slowly devouring the rest of the economy, the national Republican party is a crime syndicate, our foreign policy is a train wreck, the Federal government is staggering under the weight of corruption and partisan sabotoge by an army of political hacks, we are trillions of dollars in debt to foreign banks and brother Newt is planning to run for president.

Crazy world, ain't it?

Good posts tonight, Mr. Drum.
I must retire for sleep's sake but I admire your essays and sensibilities

Trade remains a worry: let's face it, many Democrats have a knee-jerk Blame The Furriners response to the decline of the US dollar, the stresses of info-industrialization, and the loss of olde tyme industrial-type jobs.

(Just for the record, Seeking Alpha, a pretty well-informed tip sheet, reports that industrial employment has now peaked out **in China**! From here on out Chinese GDP growth depends on the development of the internal and service-related economy, not on metal-bashing for export.)

One of the things that made Bill Clinton a great President was the fact that he stood up for trade expansion in the teeth of sentimental Democratic positions based in the past.

Since it looks pretty likely that we're going to win in 2008, I think it's important for all Democrats to realize that logical -- read that as "Bring Back Bob Rubin Again!" -- policy and administration are essential to good government.


.

Number of Presidential candidates who went to DLC conference in 1999: 0

Number of Presidential candidates who went to DLC conference in 2003: 0

Number of Presidential candidates who went to DLC conference in 2007: 0

So has the Democratic Party moved to the left?

The Kossacks/DLC difference isn't about policies, but about methods. The DLC was all about insiders and top-down management, about carefully controlling everything and trying to be as inoffensive as possible. Kos, however, is a firm believer in Netroots, in the messy and chaotic power of the community.

That is why both sides also view each other with disdain: the Kossacks view the DLC as calcified, more interested in getting consulting fees than in helping get Democrats elected, and the DLC views Kossacks as an unruly genie that is too volatile and would only wreak havok when released.

There is a widespread, and often disingenuous, failure to distinguish ideology and assertiveness.

Ideology is about political philosophy and the issue positions that follow from it.

Assertiveness is a completely separate dimension from ideology and has to do with how politically aggressive one is in either defending oneself against political attacks or in supporting one's issue positions, wherever they might fall on the ideological scale.

Republicans and DLC-type Democrats love to purposely conflate these so that they can portray those who are merely forthright as being ideological radicals -- libruls, if you will, or even communists. Thus, a moderate like Howard Dean is attacked as some kind of wild-eyed New Leftist.

What Kevin fails to note is that YearlyKos is about empowering PEOPLE to affect politics, not an elite insider group dictating to the rest of the party. That's what makes it substantively more powerful--it's trying (and sometimes failing) to rebuild the engine of democracy.