Politics has taken an ugly turn in both of the major U.S. political parties. For the Republicans, that which began in the Regan Revolution, followed by the “Contract With America” of the ‘90s, was brought to its most likely conclusion with the Tea Party uprising. The result is the presumptive nomination of a reality show host as its presidential candidate for 2016. What few anticipated, though, was the current rift in the Democratic Party.
One mistake of the media (and they make a lot of them) is that it bought into the handy nomenclature of politics. Political consultants have made a good living by promoting “Us vs. Them” labels, and the media loves to use labels. So, instead of issues, political news is framed in terms of “conservatives” and “liberals”, of “Right” and “Left”, or of “Republicans” and “Democrats”. They are convenient, because ours - for better or worse - is a two-party system. But these unrealistic categories presume that people (and particularly voters) willingly and universally identify with one or the others and that all agree with each other within that subset.
For the Democrats, labels have obscured the dissent within its ranks. The Democratic Leadership Council, founded in 1985 when the party was bleeding support, advanced an agenda resembling the Republican policies of the time. The DLC encouraged the party to abandon the agenda which had made it a favorite of the Middle Class. It advocated welfare reform and trade reform (particularly, NAFTA and CAFTA), rather than strengthening labor rights. It sought mandatory sentencing laws, rather than promoting education programs. It opposed equal rights for LGBT Americans. It also promoted Wall Street deregulation. In later years, it would support President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program, the Iraq War, and even further industry deregulation and the stripping of consumer protections. Republican spin doctors were brought in to work with the Democratic Party. On issues where it once led, the party now followed.
Many who identified with the progressive policies of FDR and JFK rejected the change. They no longer recognized a difference between the two parties, and their votes in both state and national elections were the proof.
Eventually, DLC leaders would ridicule Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama for proposing universal health care and for opposing both NAFTA and the Iraq War. This became the turning point for DLC dominance of the Democratic Party. A shrinking Middle Class, increasingly unable to make ends meet on a single family income, had found a candidate who practiced what he preached.
President Obama pushed Congress for a progressive health care program, providing a first step toward universal care. He demanded - and got - legislation which saved the remaining shreds of American manufacturing in an auto industry fleeced by trade laws and careless financing under deregulation. He pushed for reinstatement of Glass-Steagall protections, which led to new financial industry reforms. With some difficulty, he brought an end to the unpopular Iraq War for which the Bush Administration and the DLC had been scorned. His Administration presided over the final days of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, as well as a shift in the Democratic Party agenda finally to embrace LGBT rights and equal protection for marriage rights. He also promoted the concept of government-paid higher education.
Although the unpopular DLC dissolved in 2011 and turned over its all of its records to the Clinton Foundation for safekeeping, many of its former members remain in positions of control within the Democratic Party. Their apparent contempt for progressive causes has resulted in numerous missteps during the current primary campaign. Opponents of mandatory sentencing have been ridiculed at campaign events. Those who demanded stronger reform of banking laws were dismissed as dupes. A previous rejection of increasing the minimum wage was reversed, after the Party wet its collective finger and checked the direction of public sentiment. And even its wholesale rejection of higher education finance reform was reversed in part.
It is repeating the mistakes it has made throughout President Obama’s years in the White House. Despite the success of his programs, party leadership neglected to campaign on them in the last three election cycles, causing it to lose control of Congress. Perhaps the party failed to understand the reasons that voters want those programs. The naive and circular-reasoning view is that “successful” programs are popular; but that presumes that voters are ignorant and simply support “winners”.
Studies and polls suggest that these programs are popular because they address the struggles which most Americans face every day as a result of the core program of the Democratic Leadership Council. And, if current polls and voting patterns are any indication, approximately one-half of those participating in the Democratic primary are demanding more change and a reversal of those laws and policies.
While some in the Democratic Party have questioned whether these voters are “Democrats”, the same voters ask that about the party leadership. So much for labels. The future of the Democratic Party will depend upon the willingness of party leadership to accept that the days of the DLC agenda have passed. A rejection of reform is a rejection of the voters who demand it.