The Democratic Leadership Council, the group that claims responsibility for electing President Clinton in 1992, is at it again. DLC pollsters unveiled a strategy last week that they believe is the way for Democrats to take back the White House in 2004. Taking an obvious albeit poorly aimed swipe at Howard Dean -- the come from behind front-runner who has stolen the spotlight from New Democrat favorites like Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in recent months -- the DLC believes that only a "Republican Light" candidate has a shot at unseating President Bush in 2004. By abandoning what they call "far left" candidates in favor of a centrist the DLC hopes to defeat a still fairly popular incumbent -- an incumbent, by the way, whose approval rating falls with each new blunder.

In recent months, New Dems have taken to blasting certain Democratic presidential hopefuls for their left-leaning views. With their last dying breath they are forging a schism between what they call rank and file Democrats and those who view themselves as more progressive. This is a strategy that has already backfired, arguably helping to create the very policies that the DLC loves to slam President Bush for. In the end, what New Democrats want is to sit on both sides of the fence and have the whole country, or at least the whole Democratic Party, fall in line behind. According to their website New Dems embrace "policies [that] transcend the stale left-right debate and define a Third Way for governing based on progressive ideas, mainstream values, and innovative solutions that reflect changing times." They subscribe to such ideas as charter schools, work-based welfare reform, and market incentives for environmental protection. At the same time they espouse their "enduring purpose [of] equal opportunity for all, special privilege for none." The great Third Way, they contend, will create happiness and unity, lifting all American boats on the rising tide of globalized markets and vigorous defense of our national interests.

The DLC likes to point to Bill Clinton as a compelling argument for the adoption of New Democratic ideals without considering that Third Way politicking was not the only thing that propelled him to victory in the elections of 1992 and '96. New Democrats also cringe at the very possible scenario that Al Gore's embrace of such policies and choice of a New Democrat running mate may well have cost him the presidency in 2000. A closer look at history reveals important inconsistencies in New Democrats' imagined history of the movement. A fresh perspective on current events may very well call for a redrawing of the DLC's blueprint for a new America.

The Clinton candidacy was about a release from twelve years of conservative hold on the Executive Branch. We really were heady with the potential of a new era and not the era of a return to mainstream values -- gays in the military? -- or market incentives for environmental protection -- Earth in the Balance? For many college students at the time, one of the most memorable images of the 1992 campaign was that of the superimposed heads of Bill Clinton and Al Gore on the embracing bodies of two bare-chested, hot pants-wearing beefcakes. It could have been the dawn of an era of inclusiveness and liberal ideals and empowerment for the American underdogs. Young people came out in record numbers to support the Clinton/Gore ticket, driving voter turnout to its highest level in decades not because of a centrist rush to the polls, but because of a shedding of apathy and the hope for something different--the very antithesis of the 2000 election where voters' biggest complaint was that they couldn't really tell the difference between the candidates.

What about 1996? What, you may ask, kept President Clinton high in the polls and won him a second term despite the failure to see through his most ambitious policy initiatives and embarrassing revelations about his conduct in the Oval Office? Two words: Bob Dole. That and the fact that whatever one may say about President Clinton, he is a master politician, a genuinely charismatic guy.

What really cost Al Gore the presidency, though, was Al Gore and, arguably, the middle-of-the road politics advocated by the DLC. Vice President Gore, who had risen to prominence in large part thanks to his record as an environmentalist, succeeded in alienating what could have been his strongest constituency. By shrinking from his formerly protectionist environmental policies Gore so infuriated the left end of the party that they were forced to send him a message. That message was loud and clear: "You can't afford to ignore us."

As the DLC is quick to remind us, times are different now. The events of September 11 and the ensuing War on Terrorism have turned American's thoughts to security. They have also solidified New Democrats', and many Republicans', commitment to promoting American interests with the full military might of the superpower we remain. Democrats, who were never strong on defense to begin with, find themselves in an awkward position. Must true Democrats stand by and watch as America's place as a respected moral force in the world is squandered? DLC pollster Mark Penn claims, perhaps correctly, "For voters to fire the incumbent and hire the Democrat, they must first believe that the Democrat shares their values, will keep them safe, and can be trusted with their money." A reasonable analysis, but one that falls on its face in the move to a coherent political strategy.

While most Americans want to be assured that the person in the White House is capable of handling the trials of a new and scary world, polls show that security is not the only issue on America's mind. There is a growing sense that the average family is not high on the White House's list of priorities. The current administration's mismanagement of the economy could come back to bite Republicans, especially when, largely because of Clinton, the Democratic Party is now the party of fiscal responsibility.

Just as Bill Clinton rallied a disenfranchised segment of the American public, the left-leaning candidates the DLC admonishes may have the only chance of overcoming American apathy. To paraphrase Howard Dean: the candidates don't need to attract that minority that voted for George W. Bush; they need to give the 40 percent of Americans who don't vote at all a reason to vote again.

But what about security? Is it really the Achilles heel of progressive Democrats? Perhaps not. There is a Democrat afoot who can quickly cut the strings on the Republican claim to dominance on the Security issue. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who publicly opposed the war in Iraq, gives a measured and reasonable response to the hawks in the Administration: We can not go it alone. What Republicans and the DLC don't want you to know is that candidates like Howard Dean are saying something very similar but are being drowned out by the New Democratic voices that are handing a campaign trophy to Republicans.

What do true Democrats need to take back the White House? They need to counter the mindless shortsightedness the Bush administration has been pumping as security and fiscal policy for two-and-a-half years. They need to give all those people who don't vote a reason to vote. That's the promise DLC outsider Howard Dean and would-be candidate Wesley Clark hold out for the Democratic Party.

About Todd Kutyla

Talk politics at the The Water Cooler