Long Live the Fighters!
One of my colleagues at work forwarded me this article from The Nation about the Democratic Leadership Council and its changing position within the Democratic Party. It's an excellent piece, and gets at some things that have been much on my mind lately--most notably, that the political state of play right now has rendered ideology subservient to intestinal fortitude:

Conservative Democrats also subsist on "warmed-up leftovers from the Clinton brain trust," as The Washington Monthly wrote recently, or what DLC fellow (and former Christian Coalition staffer) Marshall Whitman boasts of as the "tried and tested formula for the Democratic Party's resurgence." But today, emerging wisdom holds that Clintonism without Clinton is not a winning strategy. When Clinton entered office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Democrats now have their smallest minority presence in decades. All eight candidates for whom Clinton campaigned in 2004 lost. Nevertheless, the DLC has adopted Clinton's triangulation tactics on national security, economic policies and family values for the "Heartland Strategy" it's developing to help Democrats win in the red states. What Daily Show comedian Lewis Black said recently of Democrats in general is true in spades for the DLC: "Sometimes the devil you know is better than winning."

The "Third Way" of Clinton has now largely given way to opposing George W. Bush. Upon entering the new Congress in January, the House Democratic leadership berated lawmakers for voting with the GOP and warned Democrats that loyalty would become a prerequisite for assuming a committee chair. Senate minority leader Harry Reid has virtually united Democrats against Social Security privatization, opened a "war room" to counteract the Republican message and promised future fights against conservative judges. Such attitudes illustrate how times appear to be changing in one-party Washington, especially for New Democrats. "The New and Old labels aren't relevant at this point," says former Congressman Joe Hoeffel, past chairman of Pennsylvania's state DLC chapter. "Now that we're in the minority, we need unity to win elections." In the race for DNC chair, the only candidate to embrace a New Democratic platform actively, former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer, ran far behind, mainly because of his antichoice record. Simon Rosenberg downplayed his past ties to the DLC, emphasizing his work modernizing the NDN. Dean rode to victory on an anti-establishment, reform message. DNC members this year responded favorably to the "outsider" candidate. Now the DLC's archnemesis is in charge of rebuilding the Democratic Party.

Dean won't be alone. The progressive infrastructure that helped keep Kerry alive and began crafting a sharper Democratic message--America Votes, Progressive Majority, Camp Wellstone, Democracy for America, Center for American Progress, Air America Radio, Media Matters, the blogosphere--now exerts a greater degree of influence, bankrolled by new, wealthy outsiders and small donors who share similar goals. George Soros and Peter Lewis have pledged $100 million over the next fifteen years to support a permanent idea factory rivaling right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the mushy centrism of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute.

Correcting for the implicit editorializing ("mushy centrism"), this basically has it right. The more vitriolic part of the argument, expressed in Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" and elsewhere, is that the DLC and "New Democrats" have removed the differences between the parties on economic issues in order to compete for high-dollar donations from the corporate lobby; whether this move was based in opportunism or conviction is pretty much beside the point. But considering that the Republicans, for both practical (they control the government) and ideological (they'll always outdo the Dems on corporate giveaways) reasons, will command the bulk of campaign giving from that corner for a long time to come, and that the most important long-term effect of the 2004 cycle was that Democrats are now largely funded by grass-roots, small-dollar donors, the DLC has lost this as a raison d'etre.

So much for triangulation. I'd agree with the article's finding that "Clintonism without Clinton" doesn't tend to work; the most important thing now is just for Democrats to fight, because the other side sees compromise only as weakness. Half the DLC seems to get this; Al From, on the other hand, clearly doesn't. He'll happily fight with Democrats while rushing to meet Republicans, making him little more than a "useful idiot."

The DLC's value, as the New Donkey blog shows with regularity, is that they're closer to the mainstream of public opinion on a lot of issues--security and religion, for two--than the net-roots crowd. To the extent that we all can realize the worth there--and that they show a willingness to fight against right-wing nutballery--the group remains an asset and should be given respect, rather than the knee-jerk condemnation many offer from the left.

And on that note, I'm out of here. Travels to Maryland (work) and Florida (play/ball) should keep me safely removed from blogland for about a week's time.