Markos has published an editorial position on the public attack by the Third Way think tank against Elizabeth Warren and other progressive Democrats. He presents it as official site policy. I find it welcome as far as it goes. This needs to be the beginning of a serious discussion about policy directions and not just a response to today's headlines.
The general term third way has been around a long time. The notion describes the policy positions adopted more or less simultaneously by both Tony Blair and New Labour and Bill Clinton and the New Democrats of the DLC. The specific American think tank Third Way dates from 2005. It is my view that they are plausibly connected to the same tradition.
The thrust of Marcos' editorial seems to be the connect the elected Democrats who are allied with the Third Way to the Blue Dog coalition and he comes up with a list.
House members
James Clyburn (Southern South Carolina)
John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Detroit's western suburbs, Michigan)
Ron Kind (Southwestern Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire)
Joseph Crowley (NYC, Bronx, Queens)
Allyson Schwartz (Northeast Philly, eastern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
Jared Polis (Boulder, Colorado)
Senators
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Chris Coons (Delaware)
I don't question the inclusion of any of those particular names, but in terms of policy positions, I think that the list is rather short. These are people who have an official relationship with the organization, but the list of Democrats who have voiced support for some of the policies espoused by the organization is much longer. To take one specific example implementing chained CPI for Social Security benefits, it must include the president and the minority leader of the house.
We have been having a vigorous debate about policy issues within the Democratic Party on this site for several years. I am sure that it will continue. What I think would b e the desirable aim of such debates would be to focus on policies rather than personalities. I am not sufficiently naive enough to expect that to happen, but it does provide a standard for evaluation.
The game that gets played in US politics is pretending that everybody in the Democratic Party is clearly different from everybody in the Republican Party and that there is never any overlap between the two. You can't look at the membership and policies of the Third Way organization and really support that claim. There has been a long standing pattern since the 1970s of the neoliberals of the financial elite providing funding and influence in both parties to encourage a long term shift toward the policies that they support. They have achieved a stunning return on their investment.
It is pretty difficult to recognize the social democracy heritage of the new deal in today's Democratic Party. The claim at least since Bill Clinton has been that they had to triangulate to get elected and that they were all that stood between us and the ravages of pure unadulterated right wing conservatives. While the public has become caught up in passionate battles over minor differences in neoliberal policies, the financial elite has been reaping the benefits. Any hope in reversing this long term trend will require a clear and unequivocal change on policy direction.