Centrists Losing Ground in Democratic Tug of War

the los angeles times ^ | june 21, 2003 | Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer

[liberalnot]

WASHINGTON ? After soaring in prestige under former President Clinton, the centrist "New Democrat" movement is struggling to maintain its influence in the party as the 2004 presidential race accelerates.

In recent months, New Democrat leaders have engaged in escalating confrontations with more liberal party elements ? battles that could help determine whether Democrats largely follow Clinton's centrist course or tilt to the left in their challenge to President Bush next year.

[liberalnot]

dontcha think the clintons are loving every minute of it?

hillary's not the world's most humble woman. nor bill.

[ntnychik]

Bring it on. McGovern, redux.

[liberalnot]

yep.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats problem is they need to appeal to moderate voters to win a general election but they need to also cater to the liberals who dominate the party's primaries. What wins liberals' hearts stinks with the general public. Its trying to square the circle. If Democrats appeal only to their base, which is around 20% of the electorate, they will never win a general election. In other words, if the Democrats insist upon being ivory pure, they'll be a powerless minority. That's what the debate in the party is all about: to reconcile dogma with the fact there aren't and will never be, enough liberals to get a Democrat elected in this country outside of California and Hawaii to public office.

[DPB101]

Wasn't aware Gephardt and the DLC were on the outs. My take is the DLC type Democrats were kicked out of the party in 1972 and 1974. What we have now is a pretense of sanity. But I guess the fanatics see differences among themselves I don't.

[liberalnot]

the way things are going, dubya might take california in 2004.

[liberalnot]

the dlc is the moderates.

gephardt and dean are on the left, pitted against the dlc.

[Stultis]

Many of the centrist Dems left the party and joined the Pubbies back in the 70's and 80's. It was possibly the greatest single transfer of political talent in modern American history. Reagan himself was a former Dem, and although he made the move earlier than most it was for the same reason, the hard left having moved into the 'Rat party on the left coast earlier than in the east. Other political or policy geniuses we acquired include Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrahms and Jeane Kirkpatrick, and we also got editors and political commentators like Norm Podhoretz and Charles Krauthammer. Many of these figures were part of the Council for a Democratic Majority (CDM) which was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) of the seventies. Some of them remained in the Democrat party, including respectable figures like Les Aspen and Ben Wattenburg, but for most Jimmuh Cahtah was about the last straw.

[liberalnot]

that's right, and many people on this forum were once dems.

i was until the late 1970s.

the issue for me was the take over of our universities by the sickies.

[DPB101]

Gephardt was OK on Iraq so I assumed he was with the DLC.

www.blackcommentator.com is a good source for viewing the ethnic conflicts in the Democrat party. Fast loading and right to the point.

[liberalnot]

i think the difference is domestic vs. international.

according to this article, gephardt and dean are to the left of the dlc. most of the article focused on dean.

the important thing is there is a lot of internal strife in the democrat party right now. and, of course, this makes the clintons happy.

[HamiltonJay]

The further left the democrats move, the more irrellevant they will become... by surrendering the middle ground, they are guaranteeing themselves a place in perpetual obstruction party.... and the more obstructionist they become, to pander more and more to their core, the more and more of the everyday non politicos they will lose....

Dems are in a self defeating spiral, the party is on its way to join the whigs if it does not recognize that the leftist agenda is DOA.

[liberalnot]

yeah, that's what this article indicated. if they wanna move back to the left, then they'll pay the price of being the minority party for a long time.

i think it was sean hannity, or someone that i was listening to the other day, that made the point that the republicans are here to stay for awhile.

[DPB101]

It was damn close. GOP took Congress in '46 and '52. Beaten back both times. After the Rats gains in '96 and '98, it appeared we were not going to have the generational change in direction we thought. Now it appears certain we will. There is no Rat second team coming up. The union base is being eroded as Bush privatizes their jobs and enforces Beck. And with national security an issue, only those who hate America will vote to put a Rat in charge of the military. Happy Days are here again...