Has the DLC ever made a single policy proposal outside the context of how that policy proposal will help Democrats win general elections? It would surprise me if that were the case, and today's broadside is no different (emphasis mine):
Paul Weinstein Jr., a senior fellow at the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute who teaches public policy at Johns Hopkins University, and Marc Dunkelman, the DLC's vice president for strategic communications, argue that either Clinton or Obama will have to propose at least some spending cuts if they want to take advantage of President Bush's record of deficit spending.
"They have to offer some really specific proposals on spending to pass the smell test," Weinstein said in an interview. "That would give them some credibility, and voters would not be so easily scared that they're just interested in raising taxes."
If Democrats don't establish their bona fides on reining in spending and "demanding that the federal government live within its means," Weinstein and Dunkelman suggested, then they'll continue to be vulnerable to GOP charges that they're tax-and-spenders.
This is the essence of DLC language: policy proposals are always presented in the context of how those proposals will help Democrats win elections. They do this all thetime. The obvious problem with this sort of language is that it causes Democrats to appear to only be proposing policy because it will help them win elections, not because of some set of core values. Couching every proposal in the language of electability functions as a perpetual, public statement that you are a power-hungry, spineless panderer. This sort of language is especially damaging for Democrats, given that one of the longstanding negative images of the party is that they are power-hungry, spineless panderers who don't stand for anything. Given that our language has been dominated by DLC speak for so long, I don't think it is a secret where that image came from.
Of course, the irony is that publicly stating how your policy proposals will help you get elected will actually make it far less likely that you will be elected. The fact is that people do not like pandering politicians whose only values are getting elected. As such, publicly pointing out that we are power-hungry, spineless panderers it probably not a good election strategy. However, it appears to be the only strategy the DLC ever employs, and certainly the only strategy that ever gets them media attention. The more we are able to stamp out DLC speak among Democrats, the better our election chances will become across the board.
