Correcting the DLC

The Democratic Leadership Council's Ed Kilgore has a new piece in the American Prospect responding to my article called "The Democrats' Da Vinci Code." Kilgore, who used to work for Democratic-turncoat Zell Miller (albeit before he officially left the party), tries to take apart my article. But after you read his piece, you realize how appropriate his last name is – the DLC's attacks on economic populism clearly helped Kill Gore – and other Democrats. Here is my take on his piece:

CLAIM: "[Sirota's] article, of course, also featured several gratuitous shots at the 'corporate-backed' DLC and at the "big-business agenda" of Bill Clinton -- the only Democratic presidential candidate to have carried more than one western or southern state since 1980."

FACT: My article does discuss Clinton - and goes out of its way to praise him for the kind of campaign he ran in 1992: "Clinton’s 1992 campaign was not the free-trade, Republican-lite corporate shilling that many propose as a Democratic panacea. It was, by contrast, populist on all fronts." Sure, I point out that Clinton then, in various ways, unfortunately abandoned that populism as president. But I believe Clinton's 1992 campaign was exemplary: if you run as an economic populist, you can win in red states and red regions.

CLAIM: "Sirota argues that red-state success for Democrats is actually pretty simple, if they will simply abandon any policy positions or messages that interfere with 100-percent economic populism...[That assumes] an economic message can serve as an electoral 'silver bullet'...[But] there's this little matter of national security..."

FACT: The second sentence of my article makes clear the article is dealing with economic issues specifically, not ALL the issues (how much can one article really tackle?): "Yet encrypted within the 2004 election map is a clear national economic platform to build a lasting majority." If Kilgore is criticizing me for not addressing national security (which is clearly a key issue and worthy of a whole other discussion) in an article about economic policy, why did the DLC just hold a forum praising Peter Beinart's national security article, even though Beinart's piece didn't touch economic issues?

CLAIM: "[The DLC has] relentlessly opposed...providing special access for lobbyists who supply campaign contributions."

FACT: The DLC has made its way in Washington, D.C. raising huge amounts of money from business beheamoths like Enron, Philip Morris, Merck and others. As one pundit noted in 2001, a dinner honoring DLC leader Sen. Joe Lieberman and sponsored by DLC-affiliated groups "raised $1.2 million dollars from the likes of Aetna, American Airlines, AT&T, Citicorp and GE." Now, the DLC and the politicians who lead it might claim that they are not giving "special access" to these corporate interests when they are raising money from them, but who really believes that?

CLAIM: "John Spratt of South Carolina is much better known in his district for his tough-minded defense views than for any votes he's cast against trade agreements."

FACT: Kilgore is dishonest on this one – and provides no evidence. First, I never once discussed John Spratt's trade position. Instead, I discussed his work on the deficit, which, as ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, he has made a national name for himself on. Second, he provides no evidence that Spratt is "much better known in his district" for issues other than his high-profile stance on budget/deficit issues.

CLAIM: "Democrats should agree that it's a good idea to frame economic policy positions in values terms, it's no substitute for coming to grips with cultural 'values issues' themselves...Sirota's account of the Schweitzer campaign, interestingly enough, doesn't mention the candidate's embrace of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, or his vocal opposition to any form of gun control."

FACT: As I made clear in my article, the example candidates I used varied on their stands on these cultural/social issues: "The progressive populists profiled do not uniformly hew to the standard liberal line on social issues: some are pro-life, some pro-choice; some pro–gun ownership, some pro–gun control; some pro–gay marriage, some anti–gay marriage; some vociferous about religion, some subdued." But, as I stated, the candidates "have shown that there is another path that moves past wedge issues if the party is willing to fundamentally challenge the excesses of corporate America and big money."

CLAIM: "We're all opposed to unfair trade deals"

FACT: Last I checked, the DLC strongly pushed NAFTA and China PNTR (and is now pushing the FTAA deal). These corporate trade deals have forced American workers to compete with workers that have little-to-no labor or human rights, in countries that have little-to-no environmental standards. That seems a tad "unfair" to American workers, as it provides incentives for Corporate America to troll the globe in search of the most despotic regimes to exploit the most desperate people.

CLAIM: "[Sirota's article says] Democrats cannot win in red states without decisively opposing any sort of trade expansion, a subject he returns to repeatedly. Indeed, his animus toward the DLC, reflecting a less clearly stated but unmistakable animus toward Clinton, appears based on the assumption that the only possible rationale for being pro-trade is slavish devotion to corporate interests."

FACT: I never said (nor do I believe) Democrats must oppose "any sort of trade expansion" – I said they should specifically oppose the kind of corporate trade policy the DLC has pushed for years – a trade policy which includes all the strict patent/copyright protections for large corporate-funders of the DLC, and little (if any) provisions making sure American workers don't have to compete with workers that have no labor, human rights or environmental standards.