Yawn...Clintonoids miss the point--again

Via Karmic Inquisition and the Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, I read the Washington Post article by two Democratic Leadership (Corporate) Council talking heads on what ails the Democratic Party.

As usual, they want a retreat from something they call "liberalism." While they talk about dropping gay marriage--agreed, as I don't see why we fight over a word if we're for civil unions among consenting adults--and opposition to parental consent laws--can we talk about that in terms of the actual experience with those laws, at least?--they get all misty eyed talking about "nothing less than a 21st Century economic and social policy." Huh?

For these Clintonoids, that mostly means jettisoning unions and embracing coroprate trade deals.

Ironically, as folks such as Kevin Phillips and Thomas Frank have pointed out, such a retreat from economic populism (aka New Deal politics) is what makes Dems look so weak on what should be their strongest platform: Supporting working families in cities, rural areas and suburbs. It is precisely what causes working folks, at least those who are both white-skinned and religious, to feel at least the Republicans speak to their cultural concerns or fears.

I agree with Kevin Drum. It's no use arguing with the DLC on these things. They are putzim who I wish would just leave the Dems, join the Republicans and work with Arlen Specter types to take back the Republican Party.

Instead, I say the Democrats must field candidates who want to walk into and engage Christian church goers in their churches with a platform that is based upon the following: (1) Make it easier for workers to organize at their workplaces so workers act collectively, not through mine-field lawsuits (kudos to Thomas Geoghean for writing what I have myself written about within my RFK novel), (2) Pass a plan for national health insurance, (3) pass (after repealing tax cuts for those above $200,000 and increasing, not cutting the estate tax) a nationally funded, but locally enacted, child care programs, (4) pursuing trade deals that support workers and the environment, (5) lessening the power of money in campaigns through public financing, and fill in your own blank here.

On foreign policy, we ought to be pro-soldier and state clearly we only send our loved ones to war as a last, not first, resort, that we don't manipulate intelligence data, and we finish the job of going after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01, not continuing the diversion and disaster of the current administration's wrongful invasion in Iraq. And one more thing: We should not be menacing a mere potential Peronist like Hugo Chavez in oil-rich Venezuela while continuing to cozy up to far more repressive leaders in Saudi Arabia. To agitate against Chavez, who is both popular and popularly elected, on the basis of saying you support "democracy," while smelling the underwear of Saudi princes, is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy.

I don't see how out of touch that is with most Americans, especially if one reviews polls on American opinions about national health care, child care, wanting to join unions, and views about Iraq, for starters.