Al From’s Democratic Party

by lizard

I have heard the name Al From before, but I had no idea he was the man responsible for expunging the spirit of the New Deal from the Democratic Party, birthing a new Democratic movement that culminated in the electoral victory of Bill Clinton in 1992.

Matt Stoller has a very important review of From’s book, The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Stoller titles his review Why the Democratic Party Acts The Way It Does and it’s quite illuminating.

From created the Democratic Leadership Council and used this organization to enact a “bloodless revolution” within the party:

The DLC was controversial from the start, both because it was competitive with existing party institutions and because the existing party establishment did not agree with this new agenda. The DLC was called the “southern white boys’ caucus”, and Jesse Jackson and populist Senator Howard Metzenbaum, both called it the “Democrats for the Leisure Class.” From mediated this anger by appointing a man with a conciliatory personality, Dick Gephart, as the DLC’s first chairman. While controversial, the DLC was also spectacularly successful at placing itself in the center of the party. Groups of DLC politicians dubbed “the cavalry” traveled around the country to talk to reporters, activists, and operatives about what they were doing and what the Democrats needed to do to be successful. Their message was, well, “change and hope.” Arizona Governor and later Clinton cabinet member Bruce Babbitt explained it as such. “We’re revolutionaries. We believe the Democratic Party in the last several decades has been complacent. . . . We’re out to refresh, revitalize, regenerate, carry on the revolutionary tradition.” It was immediately successful among media elites — the Washington Post’s David Broder headlined his column: “A Welcome Attack of Sanity Has Hit Washington.”

Over the course of the late 1980s, the DLC continued its attack on the orthodoxy of the populism that had residual power in the party. The DLC’s Chairman, Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, said it clearly in an influential speech during this period. “The New Deal consensus which dominated American politics for 50 years has run its course.” Economic growth, not redistribution or getting in the way of corporate power, was now on the menu. The DLC attacked all facets of policymaking, setting up a think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute (because From was tired of being called conservative) and hosting forums on poverty, welfare and crime with liberals like New York Governor Mario Cuomo. PPI and the DLC pushed globalization, the shareholder revolution, and reforms in entitlements like Social Security and Medicare (initially pressing to link their growth to productivity growth).

The DLC group is sometimes portrayed as a pro-Wall Street set of lobbyists. And From did recruit hedge fund legends like Michael Steinhardt to fund his movement. But to argue these people were corrupt or motivated by a pay to play form of politics is wrong. From is clearly a reformer and an ideologue, and his colleagues believed they were serving the public interest. “Make no mistake about it,” wrote From in a memo about his organization’s strategy, “what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party. It is not unlike what the conservatives accomplished in the Republican Party during the 1960s and 1970s.”

Now that Democrats are back to getting their asses kicked, electorally speaking, maybe it’s a good time to scrutinize From’s revolutionary dismantling of the New Deal legacy.

Just a thought.


  1. steve kelly

    Excellent post. Thanks for everything you and JC do to keep it real.

  2. steve kelly

    Also from Stoller’s article: “It’s reformist rhetoric, but without explicitly stating that it seeks to centralize economic power and organize itself around technocratic and anti-democratic structures.”

    Explains a lot, I think. Message received. Those who want democracy must now go elsewhere.

  3. Turner

    The prejudice among most Republicans that poor people, “the takers,” deserve to be punished (by cutting their food stamps, school lunches, Medicaid, etc.) because they are morally and intellectually inferior has a long history. Contempt for “the people” was widespread among our nation’s founders. This contempt went alongside their reverence for the wealthy and a belief that government should protect their interests.

    Madison wrote that “the primary function of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority of the poor.”

    And Hamilton wrote:
    “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrollable disposition requires checks.”

    New Deal Democrats, bless their hearts, tried to repudiate this set of prejudices through their policies. Modern day elitist Democrats, however, have allowed them to seep back into their thinking. The head of Montana’s AFL/CIO recently told me that he strongly favored the MSTI power line (on hold for now) and the Keystone pipeline because the big corporations behind them “create jobs.” This labor leader’s position is indistinguishable from those of Steve Daines and Ryan Zinke.

    Even Amanda Curtis, who had to depend on the AFL/CIO to be a serious candidate, was forced to weaken her position of energy and the environment to retain their support.

    Modern Democrats, by embracing the makers vs. takers ideology implicit in the early writings of Madison and Hamilton, have done all of us a great disservice. Their dependence on money from the wealthy and large corporations makes it unlikely that they will re-embrace New Deal thinking any day soon.

  4. steve kelly

    So, Swede, sounds like you think it is a good thing to flood Canada with political/economic refugees, but not okay in this country? Am I close?

    I question your competency to estimate the level of misery among democracy-seekers. If that was intended in the singular (personal), double-ditto.

    That pretty much nails it, Turner. Now, on to what´s next.

  5. James Maxie

    Well dang it anyway. It’s almost lilke Gaza is a forgotten speed-bump. What about the Palestinians?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,693,002 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,735 other subscribers
  • November 2014
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: