Print
Email
The 2008 presidential race has seen both an unusual array of populist candidates in the major parties and a surprising rejection of their messages. In this cycle, populism has no mo, and no mojo.
Candidates who have embraced various aspects of the traditional populist amalgam – class warfare, corporate greed, fundamental monetary reform, and general antiestablishmentarianism – have tanked.
John Edwards is the first casualty, dropping out of the race after failing to win one primary, not even in Iowa where he railed about corporate greed and promised to fight the big boys every day. Populist messages are always dissed by the establishment, but in Edwards' case he was criticized for promoting "class warfare" (George Will ridiculously compared him to Leon Trotsky) and being a hypocrite: What kind of populist gets $400 Beverly Hills hairdos and lives in a mansion?
True populists are grittier. Think George Wallace, Fred Harris, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Ross Perot, even Jesse Ventura. Mike Huckabee fits the mold better – his Christian evangelism, his preacher's folksy humor, his suspicion of corporate interests, his Arkansas roots. Even the fact that he isn't a pretty boy but a former fat man slimmed down, yet with the dark, jowly look of a Richard Nixon (albeit a nicer Nixon). But his cloth-coat, anti-Wall Street conservatism would make him person non grata in either major party. Huckabee has said of people elected to office: "They are not elected to the ruling class but to the servant class." I don't think many in Washington, D.C., have gotten that memo. It was probably round-filed by the lobbyists in the foyer before the butler ever had a chance to deliver it.
Ron Paul's candidacy is even more out of step with his own party. The former Libertarian candidate, in fact, seems like he would be more comfortable back in the Libertarian party where he could be a freewheeling insurgent. He definitely has populist appeal to the Internet masses, and his belief in fundamental changes in the monetary system – he hates the Fed, wants to go back to the gold standard – resonates of 19th century debates (though turn-of-the-20th-century populists favored free silver and hated that old "cross of gold"). Nevertheless, as the primaries continue, Paul is fading into the single digits.
One thing interesting about today's populists is that red meat around race, immigration, and nativism is mostly missing. No major candidate is standing at the border waving a musket like Pat Buchanan – Huckabee has, in fact, drawn fire for coddling the children of illegal immigrants. Paul has distanced himself from race war rhetoric that used to pollute the pages of his newsletter. Edwards' protectionism seems half-hearted.
So why has populism fallen flat in 2008? Despite fears of recession, war, and immigration angst, there seems to be a lack of the anger and fear that fuel populist movements. After eight years of Bush, voters seem drawn to competence first, but also they are willing to risk a twist – a black, a woman, a Mormon, a maverick – as long as they don't seem like real boat-rockers. Spirit boosters, perhaps. People seem to want a change in tone, not an uprising.
On the progressive side, voters are drawn to the Kennedy-esque, unifying appeal of Obama or the ultra-experienced, tough-as-nails competence of Clinton. In either case, both are very establishment-style candidates who work across party lines.
On the conservative side, the choice is between maverick John McCain, a mainstream Republican with appeal to independent voters because of his willingness to buck the party line, and Mitt Romney, who looks like the Ken doll version of a president. McCain has experience in war, Romney is a businessman who has worked effectively as the governor of a liberal state. Both can make a good case accusing the other of having held some liberal positions.
So bipartisanship and blurred borders between left and right seem to be in: We can all embrace JFK and Ronald Reagan. The only other insurgency in the offing is the possible candidacy of independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is not a populist but a mainstream politician who promotes bipartisanship – hardly the platform of a fire-breather.
Populism is constantly morphing; It is a current, not the mainstream. It comes and goes throughout our political history. It's sometimes a cult of personality. It's rarely in the driver's seat, and if it is, it's not long before it gets its licensed pulled. Its coalitions are almost always unlikely and unstable. These days, populism works best through the old reforms that populism brought into being a century ago, the initiative and the referendum. People don't necessarily trust populists to govern, but in places like Washington, California, Oregon, and Colorado, they don't mind situational insurgencies that hamstring the powerful.
Unless something alters the mood, populism's not going to get much of a speaking part on the national stage, but its low-level insurgency in the states will continue to shape local political playing fields.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 9:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Respectfully, I Disagree, Completely: I'm sorry Mr. Berger but contrary to your thesis every candidate still in the race is a populist to some degree. Just because the phonies drop out does not a theory prove.
True, Hillary is perhaps the closest thing to an establishment candidate - but the de facto success of their bi-partisan approach to managing the economy reflects the best of that establishment. It isn't a case of R's vs. D's in the economy and their leadership made it work perhaps better than any other presidency in the 20th Century.
Life is win-win, not win-lose - something the media and the law, not to mention the UW, seem to have forgotten.
Hillary is the best candidate, though I can't say it bothers me when her out of control supporters undermine her credibility - whether she wins or loses depends on that issue more than any other.
Populists can make mistakes too - the key is finding a quality balance. Hilary and McCain have it - Barack and Romney might. As to Paul or Bloomberg - I wouldn't totally count them out either.
Sure, it doesn't make for a knee jerk easy story of R's vs. D's, but you can do better than that in making it interesting, can't you?
After all they do still pay you to give us your expert, 'non-populist' opinions, don't they? Nothing personal, just this reader's opinion - FWIW I do think you are better than the all to typical limousine leadership like the Federal Way Judge Colleen Hartl who go around accusing anyone of calling them to perform 'harrassers' and instigators of 'workplace domestic violence'.
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma
My Blog
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 9:54 a.m. Inappropriate
Populism is Unpopular With the Media: John Edwards got very little press coverage - but when people heard him, they liked what he was saying.
But the "sexy" news lies only in the horse race between the Black man and the White woman.
Corporate media and corporations in general were very afraid of Edwards so he got very little play, whether in earned media or the debates. Ron Paul is also finding the same problem and if Huckabee wasn't an evangelical (they're also sexy), we wouldn't hear much about him either.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 10:52 a.m. Inappropriate
Media Distorts Important Message: The failure of John Edwards' campaign reflects some of the national temperament. It reflects, to a much greater extent, media bias toward more glamorous causes and events. This is not a political bias, exactly, but an inclination toward whatever will captivate quickly, with the least effort, and therefore jack up the traffic, and increase ad revenue.
While we keep operating in this cynical and self-preserving vein, nothing will be accomplished.
One function of media ought to be to get information to people who need it. But our news services do this very poorly. The people who could benefit immensely from an understanding of Edwards' principles, will never get that message. They will only read how John Edwards' populist message wasn't popular. More defeatism.
People have been cheated and lied to by fake populists like Bush. They are burnt out by double talk, and the language of politicians needs interpretation by media, to make it accessible to an exhausted working person at the end of the day.
If middle class and low income voters knew what Edwards' and Obama's programs could really do for the average family and for poor people, they might vote differently. What we are seeing in 2008 is the little guy versus the political machine. Thanks to lethargic reporting and voter confusion, the machine is winning.
If you, too (at an online pub that could take more chances) decide to sit down and accept the state of things, then it is over. You're right. Elitism wins. The rich get richer. Welcome, President McCain, to a nation of aristocrats and the people who serve them.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Media Distorts Important Message: Good points, but generalizing from local experience nationwide is hard - Seattle and Greater Bellevue may well be a region of aristocrats and those who serve them, but the situation is different elsewhere.
FWIW, McCain, given his support for immigration reform, may well grab the Latino majority.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 12:05 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Media Distorts Important Message: I hear you, but I am talking about the country in general. As we are seeing right now, the wealthy (and tax advantaged) class and corporations have far too much power in determining the outcome of an election. And most news providers are happy to go right along with that. Type copy, collect paycheck. We see it everywhere. Some political blogs fight the trends, but their influence only extends to those who use computers, and then to people already inclined to agree with them.
btw--My personal experience bridges two worlds. I come from Hickville, and I live in the Emerald City. I understand why voters are not embracing populist candidates. Many journalists do, too. But how many will make sense out of the rhetoric, for our benefit and education, instead of just going along with whatever everyone else is reporting today?
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 12:34 p.m. Inappropriate
What has been true for 100 years is that mainstream candidates appropriate populist messages that seem to get traction. You could see how Bill Clinton seemed to get much more focussed on fiscal responsibility after Ross Perot got attention with it. Earlier, the Democrats virtually killed the Populist Party in this country by adopting the Free Silver plank as their own cause. You can see a bit of that now as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are vying for Edwards' support by promising to make fighting poverty a priority of their presidencies (though such a commitment is not necessarily populist; Lyndon Johnson brought us the Great Society and he was a big government Democrat). But neither Obama or Clinton are populists by tone or substance. They are mainstream, establishment candidates. As are McCain and Romney. (McCain doesn't harken back to populism, but more often his fans like to see him as a Teddy Roosevelt, Bull Moose-stye Progressive, a different critter with some crossover appeal). I do agree that "populism" has become a kind of dirty word in media and political circles. It is not a dirty word with me.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 2:03 p.m. Inappropriate
Extensive Coverage to Edwards, et al: Where? If it wasn't for the blogs, I would have no idea about any of Edwards' positions. I haven't really seen much in any of the corporate media sites and I get most of my news online.
I certainly don't hear about it on public radio either.
This isn't meant as a criticism of you, Mr. Berger, just a recitation of the facts as I see them.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 2:19 p.m. Inappropriate
Why Edwards Cratered: In Edwards' world, there are "two Americas". Evil businesses and... uh... What? Smarmy little trial lawyers? I don't have a dog in that fight. Most people work for businesses. Thankfully, we haven't reached the point where government is the raison d'etre of our civilization. So while it's in people's interest to keep corrupt businessmen from running roughshod over the economy, it's also in their interest to keep government from strangling the golden goose that pays not only their bills, but the government's. I think in the cold hard light of day, many people realize that Edwards is just as big a parasite as those he rails against, if not a greater one. He wants vast governmental power to dictate to business, but who will have the power to keep his style of government in check?
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 3:08 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: xtensive Coverage to Edwards, et al: Go to the Washington Post John Edwards page and you will find links to his position papers and links to scores of articles about Edwards, his campaign, his issues, his personal life. There's more at the New York Times. This is on top of thorough coverage of his 2004 run for both the presidency and vice presidency. Tons of stuff in the blogosphere too, including a lot of very favorable coverage on Daily Kos etc. I don't have cable, so maybe he's been blacked out on Fox but that's okay by me since I blackout Fox. But I do watch some network news (ABC, NBC) and often the PBS NewsHour, dull though it is. Edwards has not been invisible on any of those networks. Google Edwards and you'll find tons more. The coverage has been there. But for whatever reason, it just hasn't clicked with people. Personally, I'm sad about that, but I don't think it's because the mainstream media ignored him.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 8:18 p.m. Inappropriate
John Edwards was - thankfully now in the past tense - an opportunist. It's not just his $400 haircuts or the ill-fitting suits Casey Corr described a couple weeks ago, it's in the tenor and sense of the man. One Canadian journalist described him this way:
"John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as tragedy and farce simultaneously."
Respected Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote an incisive piece on the difference between the Edwards who campaigned versus the Edwards who cast contrary votes in the U.S. Senate. In it, he quotes Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold as follows:
"The one [presidential candidate] that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told the Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war. . . . He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."
Edwards' so-called "populism" was every bit as affected as his regard for the "little guy" as he pocketed multi-million dollar damage claims that were based upon shoddy junk science and huge fees from working with Wall Street hedge funds. Let's not forget his questionable ties to a firm that's neck deep in the sub-prime scandal, up to and including foreclosing on some New Orleans homeowners. He didn't move left, he just talked it - after he pocketed the cash.
As an aside, a genuine populist is someone with the people's interests at heart, not one who panders to them on sensitive subjects such as race - are you listening Bill and Hillary? - and immigration - Mossback, have you watched the debates? In this campaign, the one is being slyly tossed by a Senator and her former President husband who should both be ashamed and know better, while the other is a legitimate issue of concern to millions of Americans.
But when it comes to the real populist deal, the American people viscerally sense a phony, and John Edwards has $3 bill written all over him.
The Piper
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 8:46 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: eal versus fake: Your point about Eyman is exactly mine: I think he is a populist and I think he represents the latest version of successful populism, which is local and situational, not institutional. It is also possible, by the way, to be both a populist and an opportunist, in fact some might argue that it is impossible to be a successful populist without being at least opportunistic because a populist has to adapt to political shifts (seek new alliances, adjust tactics) and capitalize on events and the popular mood.
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 9:02 p.m. Inappropriate
THOSE WHO STEP UP: One of my takes on anyone who steps up for elected office is bless them because someone was/is willing to do the job. The Presidency is referred to as the ultimate campaign. We can argue 'til the cows come home about populism, its roots and those who purport to be such or are called by the media as such.
Politics is highly instinctual and it requires an appeal to people's emotional state with some intellectual underpinnings thrown in for good measure. Jack Kennedy was a populist in the sense that - from his place of privilege and wartime service - he made the point that the powers-that-be have their interests represented in Congress and elsewhere in the Federal government. He was there to represent those who were not. . .
To that extent, the role of the President is to be one of us and represent each of us. The reality is that it is extremely difficult to get through a campaign today without selling much of yourself off to the many who want a piece of you. At the end of the day, the John Edwards, Mike Huckabees, Ron Pauls, et. al. are - at some level - either saying EXACTLY what they think and being pigeonholed or 'testing a message to see if it resonates.' Is one more genuine than the other - who knows?
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 9:10 p.m. Inappropriate
By opportunist I wasn't referring to someone who sees opportunites and then strategically capitalizes on them. Instead, I was thinking of an Elmer Gantry-type who wears a mantle of something less for what it represents and more for what it will get him.
Take the story of his father, the erstwhile mill worker. Anyone familiar with labor-managment relations in Southern mills in those days can see right through John Edwards, Uriah Heap-ish, "I'm so very 'umble," rhetoric. His dad wasn't just a mill worker, but he was an upper-level manager charged with driving employees to be more productive (read, "More bricks, less straw") I'm pretty sure Norma Rae wouldn't vote for John Edwards on a bet!
Even your definition of opportunist makes him look bad by comparison since he's been rigidly flogging the same phony "Two Americas" theme for years, and he campaigned in Iowa since nearly the days of The Great Commoner, William Jennings Bryan. More stuck than a broken record.
In the movies, Prof. Harold Hill was a charming rascal. In real life, we all would have wanted him jailed!
The Piper
Posted Thu, Jan 31, 10:03 p.m. Inappropriate
'Populism' is in the eye of the beholder: If anything, this discussion makes it clear that 'populism' as a political construct is even foggier than 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Populism seems to be less about any particular political philosophy and more about whatever it is that the 'common man' finds appealing this month.
Earlier this century, the common man seemed to be interested in his own economic security - strong labor unions, social security, and huge goverment works projects like the freeway system and the Grand Coulee dam which created jobs and made simple luxuries like travel and electricity affordable. Judging from the 2004 election, today's common man is just looking for cheap ideological thrills, be it persecuting gay people, lowering taxes for the wealthy, scape-goating immigrants, or forfeiting his civil rights to an all-powerful executive branch.
Four years later, I don't think the common man knows what he wants anymore. These are indeed tough times for the populist politician.
Posted Fri, Feb 1, 9:50 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: xtensive Coverage to Edwards, et al: How many people do you think actually went to New York Times or the Washington Post (sorry, I'm not good with editing online and can't get the italics right) and read their coverage and links to Edwards positions?
How many more people do you think saw the articles in both the New York Times and Washington Post about Edwards' haircuts and wealth?
That is the media coverage I'm talking about. Most Americans do not read the Times or the Post, whether in print or online - but they do listen to the news on the radio (I'm guilty of that) or on TV or see the big story in the paper. They are also aware of the stories that are repeated over and over, whether the stories are true or not. And I believe that you know this. But that is the mainstream media I was talking about - not research on the Internet which I still feel is something that those of us with privilege enjoy while others may only know that it exsts.
As to opportunism (which is a different topic, I know), Obama has been against the war but has voted to continue funding it. Which is worst? And Clinton, after saying that "if she knew then what she knows now" she would not have voted for allowing the President to attack Iraq. But then she votes for Kyl-Lieberman. And while I didn't have the access to the information she had as a US Senator, I knew that Bush-Cheney couldn't be trusted.
But, you're right, it is water under the bridge and now I have to find the fortitude to choose one of those two to vote for...thank God I don't have to decide until November.
Posted Fri, Feb 1, 6:13 p.m. Inappropriate
the victims have to realize what they are: The very term "populism", is archaic. The real question is why the working class (at least half the population but they won't admit it) are afraid to confront the rich and the corporate world Two main reasons: First, they believe when told that the rich "earned" their wealth and continue to swallow the Horatio Alger myth that they too will become rich, even if the chances are about 1 in 10 million (our lousy educational system is partly to blame for this). Second, as I think David Brewster wrote a couple of months ago, the New Democrats are the old Republicans, socially liberal but economically conservative (sure they'll DO things for the poor, anything but empower them, meanwhile we reap the benefits from globalization and tax cuts); The Democratic party is totally controlled by we affluent intellectual pseudo-liberals. In the 2006 off year elections and in current primaries and caucuses–as the collapse of Edwards reveals–Democrats swept university towns, rich environmental communities and the professional dominated suburbs and cities, while working class areas didn't vote or voted Republican! -evidently on those pesky family value and religious issues, and immigration. I think Clinton or Obama could eke out a victory over the father-protector McCain, simply because the Republicans are so much worse, and if they can resist pushing social and environmental causes, but instead focus on health and housing, which are life and death concerns for the less affluent majority. The main and real problem of America remains economic and social inequality, but the victims will never be given anything; they have to recognize their powerlessness and start to fight it, as they last did in the 1960s!
Posted Sat, Feb 2, 11:13 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: the victims have to realize what they are: This may come as a surprise to you, but most people don't see themselves as victims, and have nothing but contempt for those that do.
Posted Sat, Feb 2, 3:24 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: the victims have to realize what they are: Working class people are not victims in this country, despite the attempts of Marxists to pidgeon hold them as such. It's time everyone on the left recognizes Marxism for what it is - a well-intentioned but cartoonish theory of economics that long ago passed it's expiration date.
In the real and much more complicated world, the economic interests of the day laborer, factory worker, middle manager, small business owner, and senior vice president are, in the vast majority of cases, interwined.
Posted Sat, Feb 2, 5:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Let 'em eat cake!: Wow. I guess this proves my point. All I was trying to say is that if the less affluent 2/3 of the population, who are getting lower and lower shares of the nation's income and wealth, were to pursue their self-interest in a good classic capitalist way, they would want to look athow the system has been hijacked,a nd would vote for represenatatives who would try to restore a little more ofthat equal opportunity. If we're doomed to enjoy the glories of a laissez-faire society, we should at least demand that the market works as Adam Smith advertised. Unequal power remains the key. I did not suggest that marxism was the answer, but that the realities of desttructive inequality must be addressed.
Knute is rught. The left is gone. I miss it, and the country and world are worse off by its eclipse. Enjoy your pathetic rebates.
Posted Sun, Feb 3, 9:39 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Let 'em eat cake!: You're title says it all - the "problem" with leftie populists these days is that the workers are eating cake! And watching TV, drinking beer, listening to IPods, and talking on their cell phones. You really have to scrape the bottom of the economic barrel to find people who's standard of living approaches the hunger and desparation of the working class back in Upton Sinclair's day.
That's not to say everything's perfect, fair, and dandy, but it might explain why socialist/populists have so few fans these days.