I've read the article and pondered it. And I'm going to pull something of a dirty trick here. I'm going to largely sidestep his logic, which is actually pretty good, and question the premise (which I think is largely unstated).
The premise here, as I see it, is that the Democratic party equals neo-liberalism, and will continue to. I don't really agree with that basic premise, so the rest of the article is built on a rhetorical house of cards from my perspective.
The Democratic party does not have a single cohesive philosophy at this point in time. Actually, there are a few opposing philosophies that are warring within the party. None of which have emerged completely triumphant.
Neo-liberalism, that is to say the "new-deal" liberalism that conservatives know and loathe has certainly been dominant in the party, and may well continue to be. But I don't think that philosophy has won any ultimate triumph.
I think that big-C Conservatives, that is to say folks who are attracted to FR or the opinion/journal, make a big mistake when they spend significant time trying to wrap their arms around the underlying philosophy of Democrats. There isn't one right now; you might as well try to hug a cloud.
I do think that a dominant philosophy is going to emerge, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like it. With the selection of Howard Dean to head up the DNC, you can bet that what emerges in the future will be a more populist Democratic party. I happen to like populist. Populist means you listen to what the people say and do their bidding. Populist where I live means pro-gun, and limited government.
But what I don't like is when populism gets married up with radical neo-liberalism or socialism. That might well be coming as well.
I don't think you are mistaken.
the author does seem to believe that the DNC is what it presents itself as being: a uniform bloc
it isn't.
a large part of the DNC is an ad-hoc glom of diverse special interests allied by one common mantra: "gimme entitlements". Allied, but in no way truly united or akin. Indeed, many of these special interests would be, in a state of nature, irreconcilable to each other.
the hard part, for me (and presumably for many other non-dems), is to sift out the noise of the glom and see what remains of the DNC. Who are the "real" Democrats, and for what do they stand?
The answer to this question is vital.
The glom cannot long endure. Nor should it, nor, really, should it have ever been condoned or taken politely.
What, then, does "Democrat" or "Liberal" mean, when shorn of the opportunistic parasites?
To be fair, there is some level of confusion over what "conservative" and "Republican" mean.
For me, it is relatively simple: The Constitution (as written by the Founders) is the Holy Bible of my creed; Restricted government is proper; US sovereignty over US soil is inalienable; Federal Law and the laws within any particular state should be consistent and sensible; Let the people do as they see fit, reaping what they sow; private property rights are sacrosanct, etc... The Republican Party currently best serves my creed.
To me, this is POLITICAL conservatism, though it obviously contains within it SOCIAL libertarianism and PERSONAL liberality.
Many "conservatives" agree with me to some varying degree. Many disagree to some varying degree.
I am sure there is some similar range among the Democrats.
But the question remains: What does it really mean to be a "real" Liberal/Democrat?
I have one significant problem with "populism" - the fact that The Big Lie works.
IFF the government is harshly constrained in its scope of powers, then Populism run-amok can do little harm.
OTOH, when the government has grown adept at usurpations, stealth taxation, and otherwise seeping out past its containment...