Obama Calls Himself A New Democrat

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 20:31


Just in case there was any doubt about which wing of the Democratic Party President Obama sides with, he put that to rest yesterday.  While he has long resisted ideological labels, President Obama declared himself to be a New Democrat:

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

"I am a New Democrat," he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

It is worth noting that the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Democrat Coalition (their own phrasing is "Democrat," rather than "Democratic") are openly affiliated with each other. From the DLC's website:

The New Democrat Coalition was formed in 1997 by Congressmen Cal Dooley (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), and Tim Roemer (D-IN) to establish an ideological home in the U.S. House of Representatives for the New Democratic movement started by the Democratic Leadership Council in the late 1980's and led nationally by President Bill Clinton in the 1990's

Recently, when faced with losing their tax-exempt status for being a partisan political organization, the DLC claimed that "its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its "Third Way" agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for--e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements--got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress."

Personally, I have recently been quite critical of the New Democrats, but also indicated I don't consider membership in the group to be worthy of writing off activism on someone's behalf.  The New Democrats aren't as right-wing as Blue Dogs, with the exception of the 15 or so members that are both New Dems and Blue Dogs. They are, however, slightly to the right of Democrats who don't affiliate themselves with any ideological caucus, and also obviously to the right of the Progressives. Wikipedia offers, I believe, an accurate description of New Democrats:

The New Democrat Coalition was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (California), Jim Moran (Virginia) and Timothy J. Roemer (Indiana) as a congressional affiliate of the avowedly centrist Democratic Leadership Council, whose members, including former President Bill Clinton, call themselves "New Democrats." As of February 2005, the House New Democrats are chaired by Representative Ellen Tauscher (California), with Representatives Artur Davis (Alabama) and Ron Kind (Wisconsin) serving as co-chairs. Representative Adam Smith (Washington) serves as chair of the group's political action committee.

The Senate New Democrat Coalition was founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana), Bob Graham (Florida), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), and Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas).

Check out a list of Senate New Democrat here. At some point, it would be nice if we had a serious contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination who wasn't in this group. With the exception of Howard Dean, who was once in the DLC, I believe, that hasn't happened since, oh, 1984. Nice.

So, there you have it, from President Obama's own mouth. He considers himself a "New Democrat," not a left-wing progressive. That is his labeling, not mine.
Chris Bowers :: Obama Calls Himself A New Democrat

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Calls Himself A New Democrat | 109 comments
I'm sorry (1.33 / 6)
but you need to get a grip. The New Democrats group is NOT affiliated with the DLC and is made up of socially liberal and pro-business dems which isn't even close to what the DLC or blue dogs are.

Is OpenLeft anti-business? Seriously, because if you are I will stop coming here because whether you like it or not, businesses do create jobs and if they can help communities across the country while being fair to their employees I see no problem with this coalition.

Yeah (4.00 / 17)
The New Democrats group is NOT affiliated with the DLC

Which is why, on the DLC website, under the heading "The DLC on Capitol Hill," the link takes you to About the House New Democrat Coalition.

It has been on their website for four years now. I'm sure if the New Democrats objected to this, they might have asked them to remove it at some point during those four years.

[ Parent ]
Obama is inconsistent on this (4.00 / 5)
Just last July you praised him for calling himself "progressive" twice in one speech. So, unless Obama somehow moved to the right since then, he just has a habit of playing to his audience. Or maybe, he just doesn't care about these labels quite as much as we do, and is willing to identify with different Democratic groups.

I doubt you'll ever hear him call himself a Blue Dog, however.

[ Parent ]
also (4.00 / 2)
Obama has consistently, since he first arrived in the Senate, distanced himself from the DLC despite their attempts to link themselves with him.

So saying Obama=New Democrat=DLC is a bit disingenuous considering the facts.

I'm right with you when Obama's policies are out of the DLC book, but trying to close the book on Obama's leanings based on a thinly sourced Politico piece is a bit too reactionary for me.

[ Parent ]
It is not actually a contradiction (4.00 / 4)
The DLC calls itself progressive. They are quite emphatic about it. Their Think Tank is even called The Progressive Policy Institute.

DLC insist on being called progressive. People just use the term to mean different things.

[ Parent ]
that said... (4.00 / 3)
If he fights for the most progressive policies we've seen in a generation, he can call himself whatever the hell he wants.

For months now, Obama has done a pretty good job of talking like a centrist while enacting fairly progressive policies. Yes, we can find things to nitpick (stimulus bill had too many tax cuts, single payer is off the table, FISA, state secrets), but 90% of what he's done has been great from a progressive perspective. I'd much rather have a candidate who frames his liberal ideas as centrist ones than a politician who labels his centrist ideas as liberal ones (the DLC, as you point out).

This gives him a lot more room to move left without looking extremist, and moves the center in the nation as a whole.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 8)
It is quite possible to be the most progressive prez in a generation, and still not be progressive enough. The biggest example is the bailout.

The sheer size of the bailout, which Obama both suppported an continued, is oveer $2 trillion when you include what the Fed is doing buying up toxic assests. If it doesn't work because he didn't nationnalize, then in the end, we are all fucked, and Obama just wasn't progressive enough.

That's the worst case scenario, and hopefully it won't go down with that for one reason or another, but it could happen.  

[ Parent ]
AIG is nationlized. (0.00 / 0)
Gov owns 80% of it and has replaced the manegment and the board. tell me how it is not still sucking up billions in bail outs? nationalizing banks is not cheaper and possibly even more expensive as AIG ( and now freddi that is also nationalized is asking for 30 billion more) is sucking up more dough than banks like citi and BoA that are not nationalized (infact citi is making profits in the last 2 months, and the latest word is so is JPmorgane, both not nationalized like AIG and freddi and fanni).

Nationalizing seems to be the worst options from the examples that we have right now. i dont know why blogsphere is so blind in following their dear leader paul krugmen and Richard shelby (who is calling for the same thing too, taking over banks after letting them fail) to the path of another AIG.

[ Parent ]
Pro-business (4.00 / 5)
There's a difference between favoring businesses in the abstract or favoring "good" businesses, and favoring the actual businesses that exist, which are mostly bad. And it's sort of not even their fault that they are bad--our legal system almost forces them to be bad, with it's concept of "fiduciary duty."
[ Parent ]
And what does "pro-business" mean? (3.67 / 12)
Pro WalMart, which pays its workers a miserable wage with wretched benefits and does everything it possibly can to stop them from forming a union?

Pro the health care insurance industry, which is and has been the most important force in preventing universal health care from coming to the United States?

Pro the oil business, which has gouged the American consumer and go to great lengths to prevent the rise of green energy?

Pro the lumber and mining businesses, which stand in the way of environmental reforms?

Pro businesses who outsource every last worker they can overseas so that they can fire their American workers and save a few bucks?

You see, being pro-business may actually have a downside, if you're just a bit too indiscriminate about what that might mean.

The problem with the New Democrats appears to be the same as that of the DLC: though they claim to be real Democrats, and friends of the working person, far, far too many of their positions are "pro-business" exactly when it pits the interests of those businesses against the interests of the people.  

[ Parent ]
Oops, (4.00 / 9)
and how could I have forgotten:

Pro Wall Street and the bankers, who have driven us into a recession the likes of which we haven't seen since the Depression?

[ Parent ]
On a similar note (4.00 / 2)
New York State is on its way to continuing said recession as our Governor embarrasses himself yet again.

Right now we are facing a budget proposal that unfairly continues the state's history of regressive taxation.  While today we learned that Gov. Paterson will forgo his initial idea to tax haircuts, non-diet soda, and iTunes, he is going to compensate by raiding the stimulus funds directed to Medicaid.  

Progressive Senator Eric Schneiderman has introduced legislation that calls for Fair Share Tax Reform.  It appropriately asks our state to correct its record of asking the same tax rate from taxi drivers as it does corporate executives.  The Working Families Party here in New York is doing all it can to assist in this effort, but we don't have much time left and could use all of the support we can get.  

You can learn more at http://www.fairsharereform.com.

[ Parent ]
Business (4.00 / 6)
screwed America for 30 years and we all suffer now in this depression.

I am not pro-business.  I am pro-worker and pro-America.

[ Parent ]
It's a good point (4.00 / 5)
about which way things have been going in policy in the last 30 years or more: always pro-business.

Time and again, Republicans and DLC/New Democrat types have raised the specter of businesses being made to languish and fail, and consequently their workers to suffer, if "pro-business" legislation is not adopted.

Yet I can't think of a single piece of legislation that's been enacted in the last 30 years or more where one could make a good argument that it punished or constricted business in favor of the workers to a degree that the larger economy and population -- including the workers themselves -- might have been said to suffer.

I can, however, come up with countless pieces of legislation that punished workers in favor of business, all, again, on the pretext that somehow workers would themselves get the trickle down -- which, of course, never came about.

The question is, why should a set of Democrats, of all people, be so eager to embrace such policies as an overarching philosophy? Why should we, as workers and voters, support them and their cause, which stands so much against our own interests?

[ Parent ]
New Dems formed by DLC and Rosenberg (4.00 / 7)
Read all about it.

Simon Rosenberg talks about the New Democrats in 2000

..."Simon Rosenberg has witnessed the reversal firsthand. As a student at Tufts University in the late '80s, he founded a middle-of-the-road magazine critical of the campus left. After stints in the Clinton campaign war room in 1992 and then at the DLC, in 1996 he founded the New Democrat Network, a political action committee that funds centrist congressional candidates. At first, he ran the PAC by himself out of his Washington, D.C., apartment. Now he has twelve people working in his Capitol Hill office, and he hopes to raise $5.5 million this election cycle.

The New Democrats, Rosenberg explains to me in the convention center cafeteria, have consciously emulated the conservative movement's gradual takeover of the GOP. He pulls out a sheet of paper from his black canvas bag and draws a timeline of modern conservatism's rise: "National Review to Goldwater to the Heritage Foundation to Reagan. It took thirty years for them to take over the party." He then draws a parallel line for the New Democrats, starting with the founding of the DLC in 1985 and running through Lieberman's addition to the Democratic ticket this month. "This all happened very quickly, much more quickly than on the right," he says, staring down at his diagram. "When I worked at the DLC, I studied the institutional infrastructure of the right, especially gopac. You need to fund candidates who support your ideas. We learned lessons from the right, and we borrowed from them."


[ Parent ]
Sell-outs and purists, both running to the right (4.00 / 6)
The parallel between New Democrats and conservatives leaves out the inconvenient fact that the main characteristic of New Democrats is selling out the basic ideas of the Democratic Party to make themselves look more like conservatives, whereas conservatism defined itself by adherence to the traditional low-tax, Big Defense, laissez faire ideology of the Republican Party, only more so.

In other words, New Democrats only exist to sell out the base of the Democratic Party, while the historic role of the conservative movement was forcing the Republican Party to conform more strictly to its base.

What the two movements really have in common is that both of them are running to the right, but shills for New Democrats always redefine "running to the right" as "running to the center" because that redefinition makes it easier to conceal the fact that they are actually running away from the historic center of the Democratic Party.  

[ Parent ]
OOh, a threat. (4.00 / 2)
Threats always liven up the conversation considerably, don't they?  Threats really are more an index of a person's self-importance than anything.
[ Parent ]
Oh and also about the New Dems (4.00 / 1)
Their head wants to repeal Dont' Ask Don't Tell.

Name a blue dog who wants to do that. Jesus.

she needs more troops for her war (4.00 / 4)
The head of the New Dems is not only one of the dumbest people in America, much less congress, but she is also best known as a total whore for big business and disaster when it comes to foreign policy. She has no redeeming characteristics. None.
[ Parent ]
Easy. (4.00 / 2)
Iraq war vet Patrick Murphy (PA-08).
[ Parent ]
Scott beat me to it (4.00 / 1)
Patrick Murphy.

also Mike Michaud, Mike Arcuri, Steve Israel, Jane Harman, Mike Thompson.  

[ Parent ]
You must be devestated (4.00 / 2)
BTW in what world was Howard Dean a left wing progressive. Did anyone pay attention to how he governed the state of Vermont? I supported Dean, but had no indication that he was some left wing progressive...just made complete sense.

It was Iraq, wasn't it?

I don't think we've ever had a left wing progressive as a serious presidential candidate.  

Here is what I don't understand (2.67 / 3)
it sounds as if you aren't in lockstop on EVERY SINGLE THING THAT OPEN LEFT ADVOCATES FOR you can't be progressive.  

To me, being progressive includes advocating for healthcare for all, focusing on energy, not getting us into unnecessary wars, diplomacy, stem cell research, good trade policies that protect workers, upholding a woman's right to choose, etc.

I guess that isn't progressive...

[ Parent ]
the left blogsphere (4.00 / 5)
has gotten into a habit of huddling people into groups. Chris, you can't tell me many of the New Democrats aren't good for the party;

John Edwards was a New Democrat, Rush Holt is a New Democrat, Carolyn McCarthy, Brian Higgins, John Larson, Eliot Engel, Bruce Braley, Lois Capps, Jay Inslee...Jim Moran, who so vehemently opposed the Iraq War.

Some of these people can be labeled left wing progressives too. Sometimes these things overlap. President Obama may not be a left wing progressive, but if he isn't, it's not simply because he called himself a New Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Carolyn McCarthy is not good for the party (4.00 / 4)
She's a single-issue nut who was a registered Republican until 2002.
[ Parent ]
I Suppose You'd Like to Have (0.00 / 0)
Dan Frisa, the drunk, moron, wingnut who held the seat before her back?

McCarthy isn't perfect but she is a big improvement over her predecessor.  Also, LI, while it is better for Dems than it used to be, is not going to elect Jerry Nadler.  Whoever replaces McCarthy will probably have a very similar voting record.

[ Parent ]
whoever replaces McCarthy (0.00 / 0)
Will almost undoubtedly not be a single-issue nut. Hopefully she'll run for senate so we can find out.
[ Parent ]
Been to her district? (4.00 / 2)
There aren't any good Democrats there...none. There's a real possibility whoever replaces her will be a Republican...cause that's all they have in elected office there. There are the occasional Democratic county legislator and One State Assemblywoman (who is african-american) in the district, but even they aren't progressive.

Everyone else is a Republican. If you think NY-04 is progressive, you're deluding yourself.  

[ Parent ]
Good Point (0.00 / 0)
It is possible that her district could flip back to the Rs.  LI is better for Dems these days but it is hardly a lock.
[ Parent ]
I didn't call him a lef-twing progressive (4.00 / 6)
I just said he wasn't affiliated with the DLC when he ran for President.  Obama wasn't either, but he seems to have changed his mind.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for this (4.00 / 10)
post, Chris.

Obama tries to be all things to all people rhetorically, but I think he was being real here.

His appointments like Summers, Geitner, and Rahm Emmanuel make a lot of sense.

I used to talk about his Hamilton Project ties and leanings.  That is New Democrat central.

It is a long struggle.  

[ Parent ]
He feels secure enough now to declare who he is (4.00 / 2)
All presidents get a bit too comfortable in  that bubble and start to feel invincible after awhile.  Obama seems to already be in invincibility mode.

No one who really followed Obama from the Ken Silverstein piece "Barack Obama, Inc." in "Harper's" to Moberg's "Obamanomics" to Martens "Obama Money Cartel" to Gonzalez "Obama Craze: Count Me Out" ever thought he was a liberal.
I believe that the people of blackagendareport.com pushed Obama to finally get his name removed from the DLC.  Now he thinks he can safely rejoin.

You cannot have Summers, Geithner,and Bernanke around you and be a liberal.  You can't.  This is Rubin's Hamilton Project.  Read up on Hamilton.  Then read the anti-federalists like Tom Paine.  Which side are you on?

Me, I'm with Tom Wells and Tom Paine.  I'm pro-labor and pro Main Street.  The free market is a flim flam. Just repackaged feudalism.    

[ Parent ]
One last thing! (4.00 / 1)
You wrote:

I believe, that hasn't happened since, oh, 1984. Nice.

And in 1984 dems won ONE state.

It's not 1984 anymore (4.00 / 6)
Conservatism is dying.
[ Parent ]
And liberalism (2.00 / 2)
Will be dying if we become as extreme as conservatives. (For example some loons here saying Taliban has does nothing to US and should be left alone)

P.S. 40% call still call themselves conservative in all polls as opposed to 20% liberal.

P.S.S stop your fetish with ideological labels openleft front pagers. Obama also called him self a progressive numerous times during the campaign.

[ Parent ]
there's a difference (4.00 / 12)
Liberalism works.  It's not "extremity" we're after, but functionality, and if the people inured with bad ideas find that extreme, so be it.  Conservative extremism didn't fail because it was extreme, but because the ideas are shitty.

[ Parent ]
Thank you. (4.00 / 4)
It's about time someone made this point.  I've seen Burry's argument repeatedly, and it's just a fallacy.
[ Parent ]
Issues (4.00 / 3)
I wish we had an openly liberal President, but we don't. And I greatly dislike the New Democrats.

But I am going to judge Obama based on the policies he proposes and signs.

yeah (4.00 / 4)
he can call himself a flying squirrel for all I care; I'll judge him by his actions
[ Parent ]
you mean this? (4.00 / 4)

[ Parent ]
an ACORN organizer! (4.00 / 4)
:p
[ Parent ]
what if he called himself llama? (4.00 / 4)

[ Parent ]
That Would Be Fine (4.00 / 3)
I think labels are highly overrated.  It is how he governs that is important and so far I am pretty happy.
[ Parent ]
great... (0.00 / 0)
photoshop job! Seamless  transition from llama to obama head.
[ Parent ]
Nothing but trolls on this one. (4.00 / 6)
You must be doing something right, Chris.

For my part, I hope that Obama will be true to his New Democrat claim and lead us in a way that would make Eisenhower proud.

I saw it coming. He never pretended he was other than he is.

He will preserve Wall Street and the corporate oligopoly. He will build strategic infrastructure. We will engage diplomatically with other countries. We will promote the well-being (health, education and labor) of our citizens.

It could be worse.

(It also could be better, but I guess I'll have to wait.)

The one thing I think he pretended on (4.00 / 10)
was trade in primary. The labor movement and Iowa being first forced him left. I never really bought that he was really against free trade deals like NAFTA. And if it wasn't for fierce opposition from probably 30-40% of the Democratic caucus, especially in the house, I imagine he'd be right where clinton was. For me the giveaway on this was how he always talked about during the campaign how a lot of those manufacturing jobs that went to China weren't coming back. He never talked about changing our trade policy so more don't leave or so that we start penalizing the Chinese for keeping wages artificially low or having no environmental standards. Just that we're going to have green collar jobs and 100% of the population with B.S's or B.A.'s that will lead us out of the wilderness. He (along with 90% of all Democratic politicians) never owned up to the fact that education as a panacea is a failure. Having a bachelor's degree doesn't do squat for you if the only jobs available pay $10 an hour at home depot with no benefits (not to mention the thousands of dollars of debt from student loans). I'm rambling, but the point is Obama always sounded very DLCish on some things the whole time he ran, but sounded more progressive on others. If it wasn't for the checks provided by the Democratic caucus and by the lessons I think the Obama admin has learned from Clinton trying to pass NAFTA, I think Obama would take largely the same path as Clinton on trade and the economy.
[ Parent ]
He never wanted to scrap nafta (0.00 / 0)
Show me the transcript of it if he did. he wanted to negotiate it based on better environmental and labor issues. things he said IN Canada on his visit.
The rhetoric might have been sharper but the substance was the same.
[ Parent ]
Show me where I said he said he wanted to scrap NAFTA (0.00 / 0)
He won't ever renegotiate NAFTA. He believes in it.
[ Parent ]
Umm (0.00 / 0)
Did you watch his news conference with Canadian prime minsiter? he siad he wants to put labor and environmental laws IN IT (which means renegotiation, means opening it up) as opposed to side agreements that are in place right now. he said that IN THE LIONS DEN beside the Canadian prime minister (and his language was far more tepid, he said free trade was important & we should avoid protectionism while the cnd. prime minster was hailing NAFTA the best thing since sliced bread ie best creator of wealth between US and Canada).

Like i said, the rhetoric is not as sharp, but the substance is the same.

P.S. how the hell do you know what he believes? why hasn't he moved on with Columbia trade agreement and Korea agreement if he loves free trade so much as opposed to fair trade?

[ Parent ]
He never intended to renegotiate it either. (4.00 / 1)
Goolsbee when speaking the truth when he went to Canada.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 1)
It seemed to me that he presented a more populist outlook on trade and more conservative views on social issues from marriage to guns than he actually believed.

Though, if I remember right, he basically lays out his pro-free trade views in "Audacity of Hope," so I never thought he would actually renegotiate NAFTA or CAFTA.

However, given that most of these countries that we sign agreements with tend to already have preferential access to the U.S. market any way and that the highly egalitarian Nordic countries are also very open, Obama's trade views don't bother me. I believe Galbraith's argument that the whole "free trade/fair trade" thing is pretty much a distraction and we would be much better off focusing on creating a stronger social safety net, increasing unionization, and improving regulation.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
Well I can go with your comprimise (4.00 / 2)
in terms of unionization, etc. but if that's the case it sure doesn't seem like Obama is spending much political capital trying to expand unionization. He's supportive of EFCA which I'm very happy about, but is he trying to twist the arms of Blanche Lincoln et al. to make sure it reaches cloture? If we get neither fair trade nor increased unionization then we really are screwed as a country and will continue on this path of the middle class shrinking and shrinking. No matter what we do on health care. Wages are just not keeping up.
[ Parent ]
Adam I agree that on trade Obama both pandered and lied (2.67 / 6)
You are completely right that neo liberals from Robert reich to Barack Obama saw eduaction as the panacea for shipping jobs overseas.  It is of course riduculous, there are smart and educated engineers, lawyers, designers in India, China etc.  

In the debate with Hillary Clinton, while they in the midwest states of Penn and Ohio, in a political calculation, he mimicked her statement that he would hold the renewal of NAFTA hostage to renegotiating labor and environmental standards.  He never meant it.  It was a lie when he uttered it.  It was clear becasue as you note he never said all the other things that would be the underpinnings of such a belief.

Hillary meant it. And I am so sick and tired of Obama supporters excusing his stance on issues like trade because Hillary was no better.  On the issue of trade, she was, always had been and those who refused to admit it were just engaging in political contortionism.

Hillary wasn't a neo liberal, back before Bill got defeated after his first term as governor, she was an old fashioned 60's liberal.  (not a radical revolutionary, but a liberal)

On a personal level, all that trashing and flaming and zeros I got at Daily Kos, whenever I actually pointed out the moderacy of his views...were, just as I thought,  people who willingly deluded themselves.

I compared his words to the beliefs and stances of a group like the DLC constantly and find they were very consonant with his own words.  Boy was I trolled for that.  So it's feels like a vindication to me.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
rofl (2.67 / 3)
pls STFU with your false primary fetiches. Obama is 10 times more progressive as Hillary would be. his budget only supplants this proof that was apparent back then.

Hillary was NAFTA incarnate and shouldn't come close to anything domestic imo (good thing she is not assigned anything on healthcare in this admin)

[ Parent ]
Burry, you are always very free with your troll ratings (4.00 / 2)
You take debate personally far too often.

Secondly STFU is  just not acceptable discourse.  Never.  I don't care who says it.  

This may be one of maybe 5 zeros (if that) that I have ever given on this site.

And factually you are all wet.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
You're right (4.00 / 2)
it could be worse Chris...Hillary Clinton could be President.  
[ Parent ]
Uprated (4.00 / 4)
because of bad troll rating.

[ Parent ]
thank you (4.00 / 1)
Burry is far too "liberal" doing that just because he disagrees.  


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
The Ohio debate (4.00 / 1)
over NAFTA between Clinton and Obama was a prime example of two candidates trying to be against something that they actually supported.

Whatever else he may be, Obama has never struck me as progressive on trade or other issues related to globalization.  

[ Parent ]
too bad, on all counts (4.00 / 4)
It is too bad that the wankers in the meeting would slime the President by telling the press that he called himself such an insult.

But what is really bad is that once upon a time, Obama rocked at standing up to DLC crap.

It was a pose (0.00 / 0)
Because he knew which way the wind was blowing.  and the wind is blowing our way, the progressive way...so we just have to help the wind blow him past his own moderate inclinations

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
so wait a minute (4.00 / 3)
Obama never joined the group when he was in the Senate, but now we're supposed to take this statement seriously? Obviously he is not the left wing of the Democratic party, but I don't see why I should care about this.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
I'm just waiting (4.00 / 6)
for the talk radio circuit to say "See, we told ya he was a socialist: he goes to Canada for a day, and he comes back and says he's NDP!"
The DLC is jumping all over it (4.00 / 1)
"Yes He Is: Obama Calls Himself a New Democrat, And Shows What It Means"
http://www.slate.com/id/2213474/

They've gone from virtually dead to having the most popular Democrat in the country pronounce himself one of them. I wish the President had continued to reject labels..

Nonetheless, I do like some of the work the New Democrat Network (NDN) has done, especially on Hispanic outreach. Their agenda seems all in all pretty progressive (though more in favor of "FTAs" and "education reform" than most Democrats)

http://ndnblog.org/?q=node/980

In fact, after reading through NDN's agenda, "New Democrat" is probably the most accurate description of President Obama if you had to put him in one of the 4 caucuses.

I guess in the end, I still don't care too much about labels. Go ahead and call yourself post-partisan, bi-partisan, pragmatic, moderate, centrist, New Democrat, or anything else, just make good policy.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

The New Democartic Network is not the same as the New Democrats in Congress. (0.00 / 0)
The New Democratic Network is an organization in the non profit world.  The New Democrats are a caucus in the House of Representatives.

They are not the same people at all.  Though I will say that it's not clear whether or not they have ideas or values in common.  But they are not the same.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
should progressives be concerned? yes. should progressives reject (4.00 / 1)
this "New Democrat" label -- yes and no.  First, Barack Obama is now President and must appear at least to be somewhat centrist (e.g. Education pronouncements).  Second, even those swept in to House seats by the Obama "tsunami" recognize that in 2010 they won't have that wave at their backs and will be out there on their own.

Democrats in Congress are likely to lurch to the center.

It is our responsibility to try to keep them as progressive as we and they can be.

Not Ideas About The Thing, But The Thing Itself -- Wallace Stevens

So What Do You Expect Him to Say When He Speaks Before Them (4.00 / 3)
"I hate the New Democrats but please vote for my proposals when they come before Congress."

Come on.  Of course Obama is going to say nice things about both New Dems and DLCers - he needs them to vote for his proposals.

Obama has proposed a very progressive budget - the most liberal budget proposal I can remember.  That should be what we judge Obama on, not what he says when trying to curry favor with groups whose support he needs to pass his proposals.

so... (4.00 / 7)
Obama is giving a speech to group X.  According your formulation, his options are:

1) Declare himself a member of said group.
J) Declare his hatred of that group.

well...

[ Parent ]
This Is The Oldest Piece of Political Theatre (4.00 / 2)
Go before a group and tell them I am with you or one of you.  So now Obama is some horrible, right winger because he told the New Democrats he was one of them.  Let's just throw out his budget, the stimulus, health reform, the green economy, etc because he made a statement to a coalition whose votes he needs.

People get way too hung up on labels sometimes.  As is pointed out further down in the comments, the New Democratic Coalition in its first incarnation was made up of anti-Vietnam war activists who were upset about the 1968 Chicago Convention and wanted to move the party leftward.  Who knows what it will be in its next incarnation.

[ Parent ]
the reason everyone is so fixated on labels and words (4.00 / 2)
is because they matter.  how such a thoughtful linguist as our president chooses to define himself is quite telling; especially if it changes from day to day.  de groot made the salient point.  this was not an either/or.
[ Parent ]
Actions versus Words (0.00 / 0)
Obama's actions, especially his budget, show where he plans to govern.  It is hardly a conservative or a centrist document.  It is quite progressive and one of the boldest budgets since the early Reagan years.

I was exagerating in my post but the point I am trying to make is that politicians do this stuff all the time so I don't get why this is so remarkable.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (4.00 / 1)
...and I'm a Berliner.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
oh dear (3.20 / 5)
Who will tell Mike Lux?

As many have pointed out, anyone who looked closely at Obama's policy proposals, or knew anything about the career of his senior domestic policy advisors in the campaign could easily see his DLC heritage. Despite, after pressure, removing his name from the DLC list, he made his position on the Democratic spectrum perfectly clear to anyone who bothered to listen to what he said in the primary. The voters were not fooled, his message effectively appealed to the moderate, upper-middle class it was aimed at. His actions in office should, by now, have destroyed any remaining illusions a few harbor that Obama is a secret progressive.

Obama is a Democrat, he largely shares the priorities of the people here. He has a different notion of how to address those priorities, moderate notions, centrist notions, in many cases the wrong notion. We can push him to learn from his mistakes, but not if we pretend that he is anything other than a moderate to conservative Democrat.

Does Anyone (But Me) Remember the Original New Democratic Coalition? (4.00 / 3)
Historical Footnote: The New Democratic Coalition was founded in 1968 as a reform movement in response to the Chicago Democratic Convention. Allard Lowenstein and Bella Abzug were among the founding members. My father, Marvin L. Madeson of St. Louis, who attended the Chicago convention as a Eugene McCarthy delegate, was also in their number, and served as the national chairman from 1970-1972. He donated his papers, which reference Senators Bayh, Eagleton, McCarthy, McGovern, (both) Symington(s), Muskie, and (Ted) Kennedy, to the University of Missouri in St. Louis. The archive contents are detailed here:
http://www.umsl.edu/~whmc/guid...
I've yet to make the hajj, but maybe someone out there will find it of interest.

Yes (4.00 / 1)
My parents were both involved in it when I was young.  It was a pretty powerful movement in the early to mid 1970s but petered out after Carter was elected if my memory serves me correctly.
[ Parent ]
I voted for your father (0.00 / 0)
in the primary for County Suprevisor in 1974, I think.  He did a lot for change.  
[ Parent ]
That's very touching to hear (0.00 / 0)
Thank you so kindly.
[ Parent ]
this is (2.00 / 2)
beyond silly. not worth a substantive response.
I Don't Know Why Some Are So Surprised. (3.60 / 10)
Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon at Black Agenda Report have been saying this ever since Obama won his Senate seat (hell, Adolph Reed, Jr. had Obama pegged at the start of his political career): that his political philosophy is neoliberal. That's why I couldn't understand for the life of me why progressive populists like David Sirota was extremely critical towards Hillary Clinton during the primaries when Obama was her political twin. I have a lot of respect for Sirota, still find him to be one of the smartest journalists working today, but even today, Sirota will tell us -- as he did on NPR a few weeks ago -- that Obama ran as a full-throttled progressive, when to me, all I kept hearing and seeing was Clintonite talking points and maneuvers. (Even more surprisingly is that Sirota in 2004 had Obama's political philosophy all figured out before Obama became this media phenom, and yet even a cynic like Sirota got fooled by the corporate campaign. Oh well. Even some of the greatest minds can be lead astray at times.)

I don't see the big news here when Obama has made it clear time and time again that he's a Clintonite. Perhaps a little more to the left than Clinton since the country isn't as conservative as it was in the 90s, and he has more leverage because of this, but still a neoliberal at heart.

It won't help him, (4.00 / 5)
not in the way he thinks it will.

I have two observations:

1. New Democrats aren't as new as they think they are.

2. Obama is indeed the chosen one. Meaning that he sits in the seat, much like FDR did in 1932. If we're right, and Clinton's salvation of the Democratic cause was an illusion, which didn't even save Clinton himself, Obama's donning of the mantle of a failed strategy won't save him either. It'll buy him a little time, I imagine, but not much. Events are now driving the narrative, not the spinmeisters, no matter the exalted opinions they have of themselves.

I'm pretty confident that Obama and all the gnomes the Beltway can conjure can't bring back what was. As I see it, Obama can choose FDR's path, rather than Clinton's, and grow into the moment, or he can become the kind of joke Clinton has become. Either way, we shouldn't bother condemning a brief moment of pandering, nor mistake a Washington consensus for the key to our future, or an overconfident young President, regardless of his skills, for the master anyone's fate, including his own.

[ Parent ]
I Hope You're Right, My Brother. (2.67 / 3)
Even though I don't care for his politics, and I go to college here in Illinois (meaning my vote wouldn't of meant anything anyway), I voted for him for that very reason. Not because I believe Obama's a "secret progressive," but because the mood and condition of the country will push him in a direction that's out his comfort zone (this is what economist Robert Kuttner predicted as well). That Obama, like FDR, has no other choice but to leave his personal preference to politics aside and lead in a way that's against the prevailing conventional wisdom of the day. Also, what's different now compared to the 90s is that progressives have created a strong infrastructure in the blogosphere (even though one have to ask if there's a split in the blogosphere itself regarding Obama's politics).

So you're right, it was another one of his pandering moments to show that he's not this scary socialist that the right wing media has painted him to be. But I also think it was one of the few moments where he was straightforward and honest for once about where he stood without any backtracking and vagueness.

[ Parent ]
I think the bank response might be a good test of this (4.00 / 3)
if they finally give up on the wall street ethos and just nationalize the damn banks and get it over with. Or will they continue down the Geithner path and keep believing that the market will sort this out if we just keep shoveling money at them until that glorious day arrives.  
[ Parent ]
would it really help? (0.00 / 0)
Isn't it helping with AIG?  
[ Parent ]
You know we keep saying that AIG is nationalized (4.00 / 4)
but they're not really. It's the same as the TARP except that it's times 100. We still don't exert control over the company. We still aren't making the credit default swap parties take a haircut on their debt holdings. All we're doing is shoveling money into AIG so we can pay off its debts. We're not running the company.  
[ Parent ]
AIG (0.00 / 1)
and freddi and fanni are nationalized. both have sucked up ~10x more a bilouts than non nationalized banks (and citi just turned a profit, while AIG lost 60 billion and fani is asking for 28 billion more now).

Drop out of this illusion that whatever krugmen tells you is gospel. Obama was right, blogspehere is simplistic and illogical sometimes. They should be semi-ignored till they can do better in offering comprehensive solutions based on facts not just choose their solutions to complex things based on ideology, impulse & punditry.

[ Parent ]
sigh..... (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Yes...whatever Krugman says is gospel (4.00 / 1)
you've got me pegged.

[ Parent ]
Does that make me a New New Democrat? (3.33 / 6)
PS Our troops will be in Iraq well past the mid term elections; then we will be faced with "the lesser of two evils" argument when our troops are still in Iraq in 2012 and the right wing tosses up Palin or some other non-starter.

Until we do what the original Progressives did and amend the Constitution a couple of times, we will never get the reforms we need.

It all starts with a multi-party parliament.

Yes, my friend. (0.00 / 0)
You have put your finger on it.  This is the best post on this entire website.
[ Parent ]
Uprated fro bad troll rating. (4.00 / 4)
Bury is troll rating everything he or she disagrees with.  That is bs.
[ Parent ]
I really don't understand this. (4.00 / 7)
Obama is what he is. We're really, really familiar with him by now. I don't understand why there is still this effort to try try to divine "the real Obama" from statements like this.

We know who Obama is! He wants funding for high speed rail and investment in renewable energy; an end to the Iraq War, but not a very rapid end; universal health care, but not single-payer; a centrist economic policy; support for science; support for more funding for education, and support for teacher standards; escalation in Afghanistan; a very slight increase in the progressivity of tax policy; cautious steps to fight global warming under a cap and trade system; a moderate stance on free trade; pro-labor policies; a beefed up EPA...

Obama campaigned on this platform for two years. He is now governing on this platform. This insistence on divining his true essence through this sort of selective quotation is just bonkers. Just judge the man by what he does! That's all you have to do.

Best post (0.00 / 0)
And most logical in this whole threat. Reced.
[ Parent ]
curious (4.00 / 4)
I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Chachy makes the same argument here that I made a few posts up, but while you've praised and reced his comment you troll rated mine. Is there a substantive basis for your opposite reactions or are you just using a KWIC algorithm where you troll rate any comment with "Obama" within twenty-five words of the term "DLC"?

Chachy's second paragraph outlines the DLC platform, they advocate for moderate, centrist Democratic policies. Chris, like most of the blogosphere, may have a Manichean take on political organizations, where every group and individual must be categorized into heroes or goats, but in reality things are not so simple. That habit leads to contradictory responses where the DLC is condemned while a favored politician implementing their policies is applauded.

Many moderate, centrist policies are legitimate and well reasoned, but they are different from liberal policies. When liberals like me criticise Obama or the DLC we have legitimate political differences that go deeper than skins and shirts disputes.

[ Parent ]
Not nearly the same (0.00 / 1)
Your, tone and intention matters. the fact is Obama distanced himself from DLC time and time again when he was in congress and Clinton was the token DLC candidate. No matter if you think his policies are close to DLC (I laugh at that assertion, if the most progressive budget since LBJ is DLC you live in a fantasy land).

P.S. I know your affliction from MYDD and primaries. You are linking Obama to DLC not based on facts or his budget or even good intentions. you just want to vindicate your false primary feelings cause you choose to side with the candidate of DLC.

[ Parent ]
The DLC is the NDC (0.00 / 0)
Ah, "tone" and mind reading. OK, sorry the snark offends you.

I still don't get your substantive response, given that you like what Chachy posted. How can a budget that reflects "a centrist economic policy," "support for teacher standards;" "a very slight increase in the progressivity of tax policy; cautious steps to fight global warming under a cap and trade system; a moderate stance on free trade;" not be DLC? Have you read the DLC position papers on these issues? Obama's budget implements DLC proposals chapter and verse.

Furthermore, as Bruce Reed gleefully points out, "The New Democrat" was the name of the DLC's publication for years. And for the final nail, the New Democrat caucus, with which Obama has aligned himself, is the DLC (While there is significant overlap the Blue Dog coalition is more conservative than the NDC).

Whether my preferred candidate in the primary was more or less DLC is debatable, but moot since Hillary Clinton is not President and is not implementing her policies. Obama is implementing policy, and the policy he is implementing is centrist, moderate and aligned with DLC policy. As a liberal I am pulling him to the left.

[ Parent ]
I disagree with your assetions on the budget. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is FAR more cautious on trade than DLC, you would know that by watching him IN THE LION'S DEN beside the cnd pm effectively calling for a renegotiation of NAFTA in code (he was saying they need to bring the labor and environmental side agreements in which means reopening it). His praise for NAFTA (which bill clinton enacted) was tepid at best (sayings its important to avoid protectionism) while the cnd pm was calling it the best wealth creator in US/canada history. he is not moving in on Columbia and korea agreements while DLC is supportive of them mostly.

He is cutting aggro business subsidies, dems like conrad are whining about it. he is making a historic cap and trade system, BIG OIL despises this so do conrad (again) and his blue dog ilk. he is moving on universal health care on his first year, something that FDR/rossovelt/clinton some of the most progressive couldnt achieve if he is successful. he is reforming education, on this subject he is pulling from both sides of the argument. proposing more funding AND demanding more quality. I suppose you can link that to centrist dems on this one (I dont regard this as bad, I love it in fact casue it may be labed centerist but it is sound common sense to demand quality while at the same time providing more resources). Also rolling back tax cuts for hedge funds, Rich while giving middle class tax breaks. imagine a dem who is following through on tax breaks for middle class only (unlike bill Clinton).

If you need creds for how progressive this is read krugmen who called it the most progressive in 25 years and the QH  by Robert Reich who calls the budget revolutionary.These  two might not have creds with you but they are regarded the most progressive economists around in the blogspehre including openleft.The gop is calling it scary and super radical. if you think that is a budget that a DLC member or a centrist would present you are smoking some good crack. no offense.

[ Parent ]
DLC proposals (0.00 / 0)
As I've written repeatedly in this thread Obama has Democratic (and progressive) priorities, which show in his budget, which is exactly what Krugman says. Krugman says "Obama's new budget represents a huge break ... with policy trends over the past 30 years," not the most progressive budget, but one that reverses the long decline in spending on progressive policies.

As for the specifics you cite, the DLC proposed replacing agricultural subsidies with market approaches, cap-and-trade, universal health care, Charter schools and teacher performance pay and taxing hedge funds. On NAFTA, I will be interested to see when Obama switches from code to action.

The unifying characteristic to each of these efforts, and to DLC policies generally, is the use of market mechanisms to implement government policy. Obama's strong preference for the market, especially in areas like health care reform, is what identifies his policies with DLC policies. It is a mistake to identify DLC policies with big oil, big agriculture or the health care industry, their preference is for market solutions, but their proposals are often at odds with industry interests. The same goes for Obama, his health care proposals seek to preserve private insurance, but that does not mean he is captive to insurance interests.

[ Parent ]
What is your problem? (0.00 / 0)
I have watched you flip donuts to people because you think they should wash Obama's feet with their tears or because you simply disagree with them.  You really need to get a life.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
I learned a new word today (4.00 / 2)
from reading Paulo Friere's Education for Critical Consciousness. He's extremely interesting to me right now (undergrad student majoring in sociology), I would be interested to hear some Open Left takes on his work if anyone is familiar with him. I am likely going to use his work in my thesis next year.

Anyway the word is "Assistencialism", a term used in Latin America to describe policies of finanicial or social assistance which attack symptoms, but not causes, of social ills. To me this sheds some light on Obama's policies so far and where the progressive divide with Obama appears. Daniel gets at this when he was saying higher up that we want liberal policies because they work, not because they are extreme. Progressives who are unhappy with Obama want root causes addressed, countervailing powers in the vocabulary of Keynes, not just plans like the homeowners assistance money without cramdown provisions. Weare getting progressive policy, but not progressive shifts from policy. Well, not enough and not in the right places, anyway. Conservatives have of course perfected the art of the hegemonic shift, disaster capitalism being a primo example of that process at work.

This is why it is possible to approve of Obama's start but want more, and hopefully he will recognize soon that bipartisanship that doesn't actively shift power structures is a losing game for those of us not benefiting from the current power structure. But that would involve a level of risk taking that I think Obama is uncomfortable with right now. This paean to the New Democrats and the continued acceptance of right wing frames is critical - they seem to be process and perception oriented. But Obama isn't a product of the progressive movement, he co-opted it. In my opinion we need a greater level of political and social education about root causes of social ills, as some of the greatest barriers I encounter at least on a personal basis is a lack of critical understanding on that score. Seems like people will reject progressive policy as "extreme" until they understand WHY single payer is more efficient, etc etc.  

New Democrat...or Bankercrat..? (4.00 / 1)
   Is that the same as a Goldman Sachs Democrat..?

  Or is that the same as a Bilderberg Group Democrat..?

  Maybe Bankercrat would be more accurate..?

     "Ours is not a system based upon trust but one of suspicion.."  Thomas Jefferson

whenever someone calls himself a "New" Democrat, (3.20 / 5)
you can expect him to be the same old same old.

Obama is no exception.

You guys still haven't learned how Obama operates (4.00 / 2)
Obama is about being all things to all people...and the term "New Democrat" is perfect for Obama to embrace because it's specific enough to make the caucus think he's identifying with them, but its also vague enough to simply mean Obama is declaring himself a different kind of democrat. Its vintage Obama. That you guys are running with this as some betrayal, when his budget was effectively a slap in the face of budget/entitlement hawks and an embrace of progressives, is surprising.
They are spoiled (0.00 / 1)
They are not satisfied with 80-90% of the cake, they want 120% and outlawing of wall street for the icing. Also some Taliban love are valuable to their foreign policy, we should leave them alone and give them money so they can behead people in peace.

Their attitude if spread is going to kill the dems in the long run just like radical elements of GOP killed them for now.

P.S. most of them are closet primary losers who are clocking their criticism under far left arguments (Amerglow for example, who is advocating for the Taliban has this history in huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
you can call their bluff when they bring up the primary and how they warned against Obama and wanted Hillary or someone else.

[ Parent ]
You REALLY need to get over the primaries (0.00 / 0)
Not only can you not change the outcome -- your guy won.

There's no need to keep fighting the primary fight.

[ Parent ]
If 'New Democrats' in the U.S. are anything like 'New Labour' in the U.K.... (0.00 / 0)
...THEN GOD PLEASE HELP US!
Obama Calls Himself A New Democrat | 109 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox