Faced with the the real possibility of a rejection of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in the House, which would mark a significant defeat for George Bush and for the already-cracking "Washington Consensus" on free trade, the Democratic Leadership Council has stepped up to bat in CAFTA's defense.  As David Sirota writes:

As if the DLC is just an arm of the Bush White House, the organization timed this release perfectly to coincide with Bush's final push for the legislation, as if they are just an arm of the Bush White House. Despite the DLC's pathetic, transparent rhetoric about wanting to "bring a spirit of radical pragmatism" to the debate, what the DLC is showing is that it is an organization devoted to urging Democrats to sell their souls to the highest bidder. That may sell well with the DLC's corporate funders in Washington, D.C., but out here in the heartland, that kind of gutless behavior only hurts the Democratic Party over the long run.

Sirota drew some fire from DLC folks after the election for a piece he wrote arguing that the version of "centrism" they promote is well to the right of the average American and thus not only morally but also electorally bankrupt.  I'm even less interested now than I was then in trying to evaluate the claims and counter-claims which flew in the wake of the article about which politicians, or talking points have or haven't gotten gotten the DLC's approval at what times.  As I said at the time, if the DLC wants on board with Elliot Spitzer's prosecutions of CEOs or Howard Dean's condemnations of GOP corruption, the more the merrier.  We need all hands on deck, and the work is too important to let historical differences avert cooperation where there's consensus.

About those historical differences though:

There's a constellation of consultants who see class-conscious economic populism as roughly equivalent to racism, see "big government" as a menace to be tamed by technocrats irregardless of the will of the governed, and see the salvation of the Democratic party in policies which fulfill CEOs' wishlists in the name of liberating their employees.  And they have exerted massive, and unfortunate, influence over the direction of the Democratic party over the two decades since their founding, particularly the eight years of the Clinton Presidency.  At least for those years, the major proponents of that "business-friendly,""free-trading" ideological position with the Democratic party, as they themselves would tell you, were the Democratic Leadership Council as an organization and its affiliated thinkers.  As Thomas Frank in What's the Matter With Kansas?, Thomas Geogehan in Which Side Are You On?, and even self-described "radical centrist" Michael Lind in Up From Conservatism (on DLC: "an echo, not a choice") demonstrate, the consequences included ceding the support of all too many working class voters and the control of the US Congress.

I'd be the first to acknowledge that there's a tendency amongst some of us on the left to throw around the term "DLC" liberally (so to speak) in reference to an ideological position we disagree with rather than to the organization itself, at times even in describing policies the DLC, as an existent think tank and not a symbolic construction, may not fully support (they were indeed in favor of weakening class action lawsuits, but I'm still waiting to know what they make of Bush's bankruptcy bill).  I'd like nothing more than to be convinced never to use the acronym that way again - it's not hard to come up with other epithets for Democrats who vote for Corporate America's interests over everyone else's.  But there's a reason that so many of us associate the DLC, judiciously or not, with corporate courtship and not with, say, crusades against corruption.  It's epitomized, sadly, by the choice to come out swinging for a trade agreement even "dogmatic free trader" Matt Yglesias recognizes as "an effort to impose low labor standards and a misguided intellectual property regime on Central American nations."

Josh