David Sirota’s post, Sen. Frankenstein (D-IN) Starts Presidential Run By Attacking People With Pulses, criticizes Evan Bayh as “a man who, last I checked, hasn’t come up with one mildly interesting idea in his entire career in public office, and has ridden his daddy’s name to remain prominent in Indiana (and, who) has mastered the art of regurgitating Republican talking points and building up Democratic straw men so that he can tear them down.”

Sirota refers to an Associated Press story which says in part:

White House hopeful Sen. Evan Bayh warned on Monday that Democrats could lose their newfound grip on Congress if the party pursues an ideological course.

At a stop in the early voting state of Iowa, Bayh told business leaders that Democrats' hold on power, secured with Election Day wins last month, could be brief if the party isn't careful.

"We cannot be as partisan as the other side," Bayh said. "We cannot be as ideologically extreme as the other side."

In Sirota’s view, Bayh, a former DLC (Democrat Leadership Conference chair) equates ideology with having ideas and believes Democrats can win by standing for nothing and avoiding extremism. The false claim that Democrats stand for nothing while being simultaneously controlled by liberal extremists is a basic Republican talking point used in attacks on Democrats and liberals.

Unfortunately, that’s not the only way the DLC plays right along with Republicans. An article published on the DLC website entitled, The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism attacks liberals for standing up for progressive values. Al From founded the DLC after writing a 1985 memo attacking feminists, gays, labor unions and other progressive interests and suggesting the need for an organization that would distance the Democratic party from them – the DLC. The title of the From memo was rather arrogant: “Saving the Democratic Party”.(See also The Myth of the Resurgent Left).

Sirota notes that Bayh has attacked Democrats as weak on national security for not supporting the Iraq war. So, it should come as no surprise that Democratic hawk Joseph Lieberman is also a former DLC chairman and that Hillary Clinton, another Democratic hawk, is chair of the DLC’s American Dream Initiative. Witness The State of the American Dream, which uses Republican language instead of Democratic language to describe the agenda, thereby, promoting the Republican lie that it is the Republicans and not the Democrats who support policies which benefit average Americans. 

It gets worse. Will Marshall, the DLC’s co-founder, signed a letter to George W. Bush supporting the invasion of Iraq written by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and The Progressive Police Institute, the DLC’s think tank, receives funding from the same sources that fund PNAC.

Bayh confuses ideas with extremism. Ideas, in and of themselves, are not extreme. It is the unwillingness to change one's mind in the face of contradictory facts that is extreme. Bayh's confusion comes from a DLC talking point he got wrong. The distinction Bill Clinton (another former DLC chairman) makes between “ideology” and “philosophy” is useful and correct. According to Clinton, when one has a philosophy, facts matter, so one can change one’s mind when the facts don’t fit. Whereas, when one has an ideology, one has already made up one’s mind and facts don’t matter. Clinton uses this distinction to describe the difference between Republicans, who have an ideology, and are therefore stubbornly immune to facts, and Democrats, who have a philosophy, and are therefore amenable to changing their minds based on the facts.

Bayh was likely parroting Clinton without understanding that he used “ideology” in this special sense and left out the contrast with a “philosophy” — which makes his remarks, not only nonsensical, but extremely dangerous to the Democratic Party. The “ideology” vs. “philosophy” distinction is inconsistent with, and obscures, the DLC agenda. Ironically, by not understanding this distinction, Bayh accurately states the true DLC agenda — to win by standing for nothing so that the DLC won't be held accountable for anything and can therefore implement their corporate agenda.

David Sirota states that Evan Bayh is “ the guy who says Democrats must be as bloodless as him and not be ‘of or concerned with ideas’” and that he is a “a guy who doesn’t seem to realize that having an ‘ideology’ - that is, having actual ideas and a belief system and convictions - is what makes people human rather than animals to be herded (and that) his prescription is not to try to fix the public’s belief that Democrats stand for nothing, but instead go out and campaign on the fact that Democrats have no ideology and stand for nothing.’

The DLC is actually pushing the “squishy nothing,” not the “squishy middle” as many have accused them. Yes, Bayh is bloodless. But, Bayh’s not Frankenstein. He’s Dracula, who along with the rest of the DLC, wants to suck the blood right out of the Democratic Party. Just when the public has woken up and taken the House and Senate for the Democrats, the DLC wants to help Republicans cast the voters as Night of the Living Dead zombies. 

The DLC thinks that the way to win elections is to capitalize on the false Republican claim that Democrats stand for nothing by actually standing for nothing and campaigning as if standing for nothing were a good thing.

Don’t forget that immediately following the 2004 election, some voters explained their votes for Bush by saying, "I don't agree with Bush, but I voted for him because he stands something and stands up for what he believes."

Pushing Republican propaganda that Democrats stand for nothing won't win elections, but if the DLC succeeds, it will destroy the Democratic Party.