Centerfield

Rick, I disagree with you that Berkeley has so much influence in the Democratic Party. It would like to, no doubt. But as much as people complain about how out of touch the party is with Middle America, the fact is the party's platform is pretty moderate. In fact, that's what infuriates the left. The issue is more guilt by association. People see statements and actions by leftists and associate it with the Democratic Party, when it really has nothing to do with it. And as for the Daily Kos and similar blogs, the last I saw, Howard Dean wasn't the nominee. So I think it's more perception than reality. But I agree that the perception is a problem for the Democratic Party.

I think it's going to be very difficult for the left to move the Democratic Party significantly to the left, despite the efforts in Berkeley. The party is institionally and,yes, financially, controlled by the DLC. Most Democratic office holders are much closer to the DLC than to the Berkeley left. I don't see the left getting a whole lot more influence than it has had.

I agree, Marc.

Marc is correct.

This election was never about issues.

They did not succeed in setting the 2004 agenda, but I think they will have greater influence in the next 4 years. This is a new generation that is still learning. The congressional party is very weak, and can only be reactive, not agenda-setting. Harry Reid will be a low-profile tactician.

While the platform might be moderate, it's the talking points, the message, and the surrounding area of minipundits and activists that often prove more influential than the platform itself. For instance, while the Republican platform is extremely conservative, it's not that message that comes out, and it's not the platform itself that is the part of the party that wins the most voters but the effective message and sales of some of the parties more moderate members (even if they get short shrift when it comes to passing the policies they want.)

In that sense Berklee is more influential because it is more of a public face than the DLC and the platform, they act as salesman for the democratic party even if they not hawking the right features of the product.

Rick, I don't see any evidence of the "MoveOn" faction of the party setting the agenda. What have you heard/read to lead you to this conclusion?

What I see is a bunch of different groups who have failed to form the type of coalition necessary to gain power. I think it's coming from inside the beltway and I think it's ego/poll driven. There could also be a sincere effort to continue to try and use reason as a persuasive tool. Any way you slice it, I don't hear a unified voice setting an agenda or promoting new ideas.

The "MoveOn" faction of the party is definitely liberal..but certainly not properly characterized on this blog, IMO.

Jaime,

The Dean group came very close to taking over the Democratic Party. It was only gaffes by the candidate himself in the month or so before the Iowa caucuses which prevented it.

I see MoveOn as the most organized outside the beltway or grassroots group in the party. Air America is another important new voice which is still ramping up. It looks like it will survive and grow in influence.

I've also seen that former allies of the DLC like Simon Rosenberg have shifted more toward the Dean faction. The DLC is playing an inside game, but the message of "moving to the center" is extremely unpopular, and even they are not saying it much out loud. The momentum seems to be for the Democrats to move toward a base strategy like the one that worked for the Republicans. I, however, don't think the Democrats can use the same strategy successfully because the liberal base is not as wide.

Thanks for the examples, Rick. I didn't get a chance to know much about Dean before he fell. But, I know he had and still has a substantial following who are organizing to make him the DNC chair. Do you really think he torpedoed himself or did the media and his primary opponents tear him down? I don't know. He sounded reasonable to me in his concession and his appearances on behalf of KE'04.

I, however, don't think the Democrats can use the same strategy successfully because the liberal base is not as wide.

I've followed your post election commentary on this subject. I have to agree that Dems will not prevail by moving to the left. I'm just not convinced that the far left is taking over. I'm still watching this play out.

I wouldn't characterize MoveOn as "far left" which I would reserve for the part of the political spectrum which starts at Nader and beyond. But they are certainly liberal, and it seems to me, they want to bring the party back to the New Deal tradition of Mondale and Dukakis rather than the New Democrat approach of Clinton.

Recall that Clinton "triangulated" between Congressional Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic congressional delegation is pretty liberal, and to the left of the Clinton/New Democrat agenda.

Regarding Dean, among his gaffes was his refusal to admit that the capture of Saddam made the country any safer. It didn't require endorsing the Iraq invasion to admit the common sense truth that it was better for Saddam to be in custody than for him to be at large.

There was also a famous incident in the days before the caucuses where he put down in a humiliating way a Republican farmer who attended one of his speeches, and asked a hostile question. This was considered rude by many Iowans, and reflected poorly on the candidate.

Carla,

I would be interested in how you would characterize MoveOn and how you think it has been mischaracterized here. My impression is that it is liberal but not "far left." My problem with MoveOn, like the other liberal groups, is that it's obsession with ABB blinded it to the idea that Bush wasn't hated everywhere.

I agree with Mr. Proliferation that the public face of the leftist groups is far more damaging to the Democrats than their actual influence in the party. I think Kerry was really hurt by the perception that, whatever he said about pursuing a strong foreign policy, he was too liberal to mean it. I actually think that was an incorrect perception although Kerry didn't help it any by his muddling on Iraq.

Marc:

I would characterize MoveOn as a liberal, grassroots group that gives voice to the liberals of the Democratic party and liberals in general. I think they've been cast on this blog as antiwar/against going after terrorism..which is as far as I've seen not true. (I've been on their mailing list pretty much from their inception and I can't once recall getting anything from them that was against the Afghanistan invasion or going hard after Al Qaida).

They were foursquare against going into Iraq. But then most liberals were against that. That was most definitely NOT about being soft on terrorism..in fact just the opposite. Liberals (this is in general...I'm obviously not speaking for everyone) believe Iraq had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaida and terrorism that was exacted against the US. We wanted the focus to remain on those that came after us and then to get to the root causes of terrorism and eradicate them. And we believe in that passionately. That hasn't been done nor even indicated by Bush...which is why MoveOn has fought him every step of the way.

I think that the reason these groups damage the Democrats is that they're demonized and cast in ways that don't match up with what they really do. But then...the same thing happened to Kerry.

It's not about issues. It's about perception.

There is a significant amount of truth in Carla's statement.

It's not about issues. It's about perception.

But the public seems to prefer the Republicans as people more than the Democrats. I think it's a matter of culture, and part of the problem for Democrats is that they're wingnuts are much more visible that the Republican wingnuts. Despite books like "What Liberal Media?" the people who show up on broadcast TV and major cable channels like HBO are very liberal. Conservatives, on the other hand, narrowcast on talk radio or religious networks. You might think that liberal prominence in such media would be an asset. In fact, it does have a powerful effect in producing cultural change, but it doesn't seem to deliver votes. Quite the opposite.

My overarching question, only partially addressed so far is: Is the significant "new money" coming in for the Dems coming from across the Democratic party spectrum or mainly from the left?

And if so, can we safely say the same for the Republicans? And finally, do "true believers" in general give more money?

They were foursquare against going into Iraq. But then most liberals were against that. That was most definitely NOT about being soft on terrorism..in fact just the opposite. Liberals (this is in general...I'm obviously not speaking for everyone) believe Iraq had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaida and terrorism that was exacted against the US. We wanted the focus to remain on those that came after us and then to get to the root causes of terrorism and eradicate them. And we believe in that passionately. That hasn't been done nor even indicated by Bush...which is why MoveOn has fought him every step of the way.

The way that I (and a lot of others on the right) look at it, going into Iraq is about going after the root causes of terrorism. Middle Eastern totalitarianism is the swamp that the terrorist mosquitos breed in. So long as the local thugs can relieve the pressure for change by firing up their Angry Young Men(tm) to go bother the Zionists and The Great Satan, we're going to be dealing with terrorists. Making an example of Saddam cows the local thugs, and building a reasonably functional democracy in the region gives the Angry Young Men(tm) a better example of how things can be.

I have so much crap to put up with the far left on DK

MoveOn.org certainly thinks it now owns the Democratic base, and their arrogant tone ("Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back") is, as Joe Gandelman points out, a sure-fire way to alienate the center - you know, those people who put the Democrats in power for most of the '90s.

The center-left (forget the far left) has a major problem: we are confronting an aggressive totalitarian ideology and there is a considerable range of opinion as to the degree of threat it actually represents. The Michael Moore faction says it's all bogus (and in fact opposed action in Afghanistan), and many others think we have more important priorities and don't get why this is such a key issue to so many people. Peter Beinart recently wrote in the New Republic that this is the major challenge of our era, and liberals should be highly vocal in speaking out against totalitarianism. IMHO, until Democrats can convince the public that they are serious about the war on terror, they will continue to be a minority party.