The Numbers Don't Lie - As I Said Long Ago, Populism Is On the Rise

Back in August, I wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled "An Economic Populist Is Rising In the GOP Presidential Primary." In that article, I predicted that Republican Mike Huckabee would rise and potentially win the Iowa caucuses based on his relentless focus on economic inequality and class-based populism. I chided the media and Democrats for ignoring him, and when I wrote this article, I was laughed at by many reporters, pundits and readers alike.

In November, I wrote a nationally syndicated column for Creators Syndicate entitled "The Huey Longs of Iowa" about both Huckabee and John Edwards. I once again noted that these two underdog candidates were competing in the Iowa caucus despite being outspent precisely because both men were running as bare-knuckled economic populists. As the only nationally syndicated columnist to write something like this, I was largely dismissed and laughed off by national political reporters, pundits and many readers, with most telling me the Iowa race was between only Romney and Giuliani on the Republican side, and only Clinton and Obama on the Democratic side.

Now the results are in: Huckabee has resoundingly won the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards duked it out in a dogfight with Barack Obama, who has over the last month adopted much of Edwards' populist rhetoric. That Edwards was even close in this race at all, and that Huckabee won outright is a success for both candidates considering they were grossly outspent by candidates being funded by huge corporate interests. More importantly, these results (regardless of who ends up winning what is effectively a tie in the Democratic race) resoundingly support precisely what I wrote way back when the Punditburo in Washington was still berating economic populism, and downplaying the very real class-based anger that is roiling America.

In the last week, a few columnists have scurried to point out what I pointed out a long time ago about both Huckabee and Edwards - as if it is some sort of new revelation that the country is ready for a truly populist economic politics. However, watching CNN, it is clear national political reporters will continue to ignore economic populism's central role in American politics. When it comes to Huckabee, all the talk is about religious conservatism, even as conservative publications like the Weekly Standard have very recently acknowledged that Huckabee's economic message is what has propelled him to victory. Similarly, when it comes to Edwards miraculously being in the middle of the race despite being outspent, all the talk is about the horserace. It is as if the Washington media and political Establishment will do anything to pretend that the public's anger at corporate greed and economic inequality simply does not exist.

They don't want to admit this anger exists because it fundamentally indicts the corrupt system that has allowed such economic oppression to flourish - a corrupt system brought on by the hostile takeover of our government by big money interests that I described in my first book. But, as they say, the numbers do not lie. They are there for all to see - and they prove what I and many progressives have been saying for years.

As I said at the beginning of the day, no matter what the final exact tallies, we the progressive movement - and We The People - are already winning.

Comments

[Thad]

A little self-congratulatory for my tastes, David, but once you get past patting yourself on the back to your actual message, it's a good one. Keep up the emphasis on economic populism -- just relax the supervillain "They all thought I was mad...MAD!" monologuing a bit.

[Tiny68300]

It's not populism, toot-your-own-horn Sirota, it's identity politics for Huckabee, where 60% of voters were evangelicals. AS for Edwards, pfft.

[racetoinfinity]

D.S. wrote in his post -

"It is as if the Washington media and political Establishment will do anything to pretend that the public's anger at corporate greed and economic inequality simply does not exist."

You're so right, David, and great post!

It's post Iowa Caucus results time now, and CNN is busily analyzing Obama's and Clinton's chances, while ignoring Edwards, while David Gergen has declared Edwards' candidacy dead, because he doesn't have money.

[sabocat]

Folks should really check out Allan Nairn's conversation with Amy Goodman on today's broadcast of Democracy Now. Nairn has done an extensive survey of all the advisors to the top presidential candidates, democrats and republicans, and guess what? They're all part of the establishment, with solid lobbyist ties to the corporatocracy. Obama's chief advisor is Brezinski. Some f*$%#ing change. Even Edwards has advisors representing corporations doing business with the Pentagon. And let's not even talk about Clinton. Nope. It's all just hot air, bread and circuses. Good night and good luck, as the country continues to delude itself that people voting actually changes anything. Everyone is bought and paid for!!

[zull2]

First of all, Obama isn't so wealthy that he can use part of a personal fortune made as a top notch trial lawyer for an election bid. The guy worked as a community activist and a constitutional law professor. Sure, Edwards had his start in poverty, and he probably does, on some level, mean all the things he says. But he hasn't lived like the people he claims to care about in a long, long time. He sure does realize that you can't beat a Clinton by going after the sort of folks that vote for a Hillary Clinton, you have to go after that base that respects a populist. The type that would have been thrilled to have a Paul Wellstone as a candidate rather than a Paul Tsongas type.

Second, the overwhelming bulk of his funds come from folks donating 25 bucks or so. Here and there, a few rich people drop decent donations, but they also pay out big donations to the other two frontrunners (yes, that means Edwards sees that dough too). Edwards doesn't have the funding that Obama has mainly because he was late to the party when it came to building a base of supporters that could regularly send a few bucks to their candidate. Those little 25 buck donations really add up when you get 200,000 of them.

Third, the Democrat taking the bulk of corporate funding in this race is Hillary Clinton. That's not even something she can argue about, it's the truth. Her and her husband's ties to Wall Street result in instant donations. Clinton supporters even often argue that business invests in her because she understands business, whatever that actually means.

[Jjc2006]

Well, Broder, Brooks and Bennett are THRILLED with Obama. For me, they seem like a strange group of "populists."

I am not surprised the young males would hoop and holler that this ia a victory for "populists." I disagree. But hey, I am only a woman. What do I know?

[Mariel]

Well, it's a victory to me too! I have been speaking up for the "populists" here on Huffpo for a long time. I have said I would vote for either Edwards or Huckabee.

I loved what Edwards said tonight, and I am happy he feels its a win, even if Obama was ahead. I will now see if I could vote for Obama. Not sure yet...have felt he was not a true populist, but I'll be listening.

[gorkri]

David Sirota is one of the few progressive pundits who understand the significance of Huckabees populism. The conservative establishment can't stand him because he doesn't follow their economic royalist line. He has actually read the parts of the Bible that talk about helping the poor and condemning greed. We can look for their bought and paid for pundits and talk show hosts to now go after Huckabee with even more intensity. Their nighmare would be a race between Huckabee and Edwards. May it be so.

[SD61]

Yes, David. Yes, my friend.

You feel the vibrations, and I feel them, too. Every intelligent, non-deluded person in America feels them. The hypocritical, dumbed-down, spin-doctored mainstream-media walls are crumbling down, and every attempt to restore them -- by plastic, hypocritical pundits like David Brooks, William Kristol, and all their ilk -- simply adds fuel to the soon to be raging populist fire. These men expose themselves with their own words, along with their vastly wealthy, disconnected, behind-the-curtain masters.

What a great night for America!


"Something is happening, and you don't know what it is... DO you, Mister Jones?"

Bob Dylan

[KRANKY]

Kucinich tossed a layup to Obama.

[Chewelahboy]

Exactly, and it's a good thing for our country.

[RogerHWerner]

I can only imagine that Milton Friedman and his free market capitalistic supporters are freaking at the thought of Obama and Huckabee presidencies. The entire Chicago School of Economics is grossly anti-populist and even anti-democratic since the only way its doctrines can be implemented is by brute force against popular will. Personally, I find Huckabee as unacceptable as Romney or Giuliani (or any other Republican) but I am getting a kick out of the fact that the man actually beat Romney rather badly.

[baghdadjoe]

This certainly is a repudiation of the Clinton campaign.

I was almost lured into voting for Hillary Clinton, but her recent vote FOR the insane, neocon Kyl-Lieberman amendment showed me the way.

Obama '08

[OhgReaTone]

I am happy for Obama - but this is not a repudiation of Clinton - it speaks to the depth of dissatisfaction with Bush, and the desire for change.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/04/obama-turns-out-msnbc-reports/

[tinkaboutit]

What about the blatantly unfair media Hillary got since the first debate?

She wasn't treated right by the media cartel. There cannot be any honest reckoning of her status without mentioning that.

Edwards '08