The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was organized by southern governors, business Democrats, defense hawks, and social conservatives to push the party to the center. The theory was that this repositioning would win presidential elections (and also raise a ton of corporate money). Bill Clinton was taken as the DLC's vindication. But how is the DLC doing now that the Democrats are in opposition?
Mostly, the DLC is up to its old habits of splitting the differencewith a Republican administration. This is not exactly useful either in energizingthe party base or in helping congressional Democrats resist the Bush onslaught.For instance, the 1996 welfare-reform program is now up for renewal. Welfarereform worked better than expected, partly because a strong economy providedplenty of jobs; the ensuing surplus could then be spent on job training, wagesubsidies, and child care so that former welfare recipients could succeed in theworkplace.
The Republicans and their DLC allies are stuck in a 1996 time warp, in whichthe issue is who can be tougher on the poor. The Republican House bill increasesthe percentage of welfare recipients who must work 40 hours a week (someshort-term education and training also counts) to qualify for government help. AsMark Greenberg demonstrates in our forthcoming special supplement on reformingwelfare reform, this screw-tightening will make it harder for welfare recipientsto succeed at work; and more families with serious problems will just be dumped. (For a preview, click here.)
The DLC bill sponsored by New Democrat Senators Bayh and Carper basicallyaccepts the harsher Republican work formula and adds more child care money. It'sactually to the right of a "tripartisan" plan co-sponsored by Senators Breaux,Hatch, and Jeffords. The Senate bill, of course, must ultimately go to conferencewith the Republican House. One could imagine a final deal that reluctantly tradeddraconian work requirements for better child care. But why give away your finalcompromise as the opening gambit? You can understand the White House using salamitactics on the Democrats. But why are New Dems doing it to their own party?Aren't we macho enough on the poor?
Or take the DLC on trade. Senate Democrats, long a pushover for the corporateversion of free trade, recently showed some moxie by passing the Dayton-Craigamendment, making any trade deal that guts antidumping protections subject tofloor amendment. The Democrats' skepticism about Bush's plan to extend the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the entire continent was deepened byabominations such as NAFTA's Chapter 11, which allows corporations to challengestates' health, safety, and environmental regulations as inconsistent with freecommerce.
The DLC was outraged. The New Democrats want their Republican president tohave an absolutely free hand to negotiate this pro-corporate hemispheric tradedeal. Said the DLC statement of the Dayton-Craig amendment: "It is critical thatthis 'gutting' provision be dropped in the House-Senate conference committee."
New Democrats are also trying to reposition Senator Lieberman as a champion ofcorporate accountability. "The Enron scandal cries out for governmental action,"Lieberman writes in the DLC's magazine, Blueprint, quickly adding: "But we must acknowledge before we act that there are twin dangers of doing too little and doing too much." Ah yes, how very DLC. Before the Enron scandal broke, Lieberman was the leading Democrat working to rein in the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The DLC's New Dem Daily Web feature even counsels Democrats to avoid pushingpopular liberal issues such as Social Security and prescription drugs. "This isthe same bad advice President Clinton rejected in the 1990s," declares theanonymous DLC commentator, urging Democrats instead to demonstrate toughness onnational security. But are these two postures mutually exclusive? I recentlydebated Bill Kristol before an audience of prominent conservatives. Severalexpressed real worry that Democrats will eat the Republicans' lunch on SocialSecurity in this fall's midterm elections. If they do, it will be no thanks toNew Democrats.
