JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 7, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This would have been shocking ten years ago:
The Democratic Leadership Council, the iconic centrist organization of the Clinton years, is out of money and could close its doors as soon as next week, a person familiar with the plans said Monday.
The DLC, a network of Democratic elected officials and policy intellectuals,tried -- but has failed -- to remake itself in the summer of 2009, when its founder, Al From, stepped down as president. Its new leader, former Clinton aide Bruce Reed, sought to remake the group as a think tank, and the DLC split from its associated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.
It's hard to remember, but the whole rise of the progressive netroots was organized around opposition to the DLC, which liberals saw as Satan incarnate. Bill Clinton was an early member, and the DLC helped frame his presidential candidacy.
I always had mixed feelings about the group. I think it was about half innovative effort to counterbalance traditional Democratic interest groups, and half naked effort to suck up to corporate America and/or give contentless messaging cover to red state Democrats.
But for the main part, the DLC disappeared because its work was over. The remaking of the Democratic Party begun by Clinton held in place. The DLC floundered because it had nowhere else to go -- having moved the party to the center, it could only advocate for the party is it stood in the Clinton and post-Clinton era, or advocate that it move further still toward the center. It became a an anachronism.
5 comments
At this point, moving the Democratic Party "further towards the center" would entail moving them to the left.
- santoast
February 7, 2011 at 5:11pm
Funny, I remember the 1992 debates, where the 8 candidates recruited by Clinton (and the DLC?) all debated each other -- including Clinton. This was at a time when Bush-I was seen as a sitting president who'd won a war, and therefore couldn't lose. Sadly, almost all of those candidates were "also-rans" -- the front runner Democratic candidates like Mario Cuomo wouldn't run. Their debate answers ranged from unrealistically liberal to optimistically liberal. Only Clinton seemed to have realistic answers and policies. So Clinton wound up running himself, and ultimately winning the unwinnable contest, thanks to Ross Perot splitting the conservative vote. Good times.
- AllanL5
February 7, 2011 at 5:18pm
I remember checking out the DLC site recently and thought it could have been produced by the Heritage Foundation. There is obviously no place for this group now.
- MikeB.
February 7, 2011 at 5:40pm
Your feelings about the DLC are just about exactly my own, Jonathan. Years back, I expected that eventually they would wither away, and they seem to be almost there now. Ditto, MikeB.
- liberalref
February 7, 2011 at 7:25pm
All good comments, but @ AllanL5, most scholars of the 1992 election believe Perot drew votes about equally from either candidate--which isn't to say he wasn't necessary to a Democratic victory. His critique of the borrow-and-spend Republicans during that cycle was more effective than Democratic criticism had been, and helped pave the way for the short-lived centre-left coalition Clinton was able to put together in 1992-3. One question, though: don't we sort of need someone to provide contentless messaging copy to Democrats in red states...?
- Curran1
February 7, 2011 at 7:53pm