The Audacity of Populism: What Obama Needs to Do

Eighty-one percent of Americans now agree that "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track," the most since this question has been asked and a remarkable preponderance of pessimism by any comparison.

And this recession is only beginning; real home prices have dropped only about 13 percent, (since peak) after rising 70 percent (in real, inflation-adjusted terms) from trend levels until mid-2006. There is a long way to go before we see a sustained recovery.

The combination of a long, deeply unpopular war and what looks like it will be the worst recession in at least 25 years -- and possibly much longer -- carries the potential for serious political upheaval. It would take political incompetence of the highest order for the Democrats not to score significant gains in Congress and win the presidency in November.

But first Barack Obama, the likely Democratic candidate, has to clinch the nomination. The experts agree that if he wins Pennsylvania on April 22, the race will be effectively over.

His major obstacle is the race issue, and this will probably be true for the general election. The white working-class voters that will swing Pennsylvania in the Democratic primary will probably also be the swing voters in the general election (if it turns out to be a close election). The whole flap about Obama's pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, was mainly a means of introducing race into the campaign.

Obama's brilliant speech on March 18, which confronted the issue head-on, elevated the level of discussion and managed to win high praise from both the New York Times (which had endorsed Clinton) and the Washington Post (an early and strong supporter of the Iraq war) editorial boards. This was no mean feat. But there is only a limited amount of education about race and racism that can take place during an election campaign -- in fact we may have already seen most of it.

The Democrats have not taken the majority of the white vote in a presidential election in 44 years. After the civil rights movement had won its victories in voting rights and other institutional changes in the 1960s, President Nixon's "Southern Strategy" molded the white backlash into a semi-permanent electoral majority for the Republican Party. President Reagan launched his 1980 campaign with a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- a place most known for the murder of three civil rights workers in the 1964. The speech was about "states' rights," long known to Southern whites as code for racial segregation. It was no coincidence, and Reagan's other coded messages about such concepts as "welfare queens," helped to consolidate the Republicans' political niche as the "white people's party." It is rarely talked about here, but similar phenomena in poorer countries are often referred to as "tribalism."

But there is one way that Obama can reach those white working class voters who are currently -- without consciously recognizing that it might have something to do with race -- groping for excuses not to vote for him. It may be old fashioned, but he can appeal directly to their class interests. He has moved in that direction since losing these voters in Ohio and elsewhere. In Pennsylvania, he is talking about how he has "met too many workers who have to compete with their teenage kids for jobs at the local fast-food joint that pay $7, $8 an hour because they lost their pension and their health care."

But he needs to do more. He needs to convince these voters that he will do everything in his power to protect them from the impact of this recession. He should say: "Enough already with the billions of our tax dollars going to the bankers and the homebuilders and the greedy, irresponsible, super-rich people who got us into this mess." He can promise he will fight for legislation that would ensure that no homeowner who can pay the current rental value of their home - now generally much less than their mortgage payment -- will be evicted. This is something that could be guaranteed easily with no cost to the taxpayers.

He needs to propose a bold stimulus package -- several times larger than the relatively small amount that Congress has passed -- on a scale that we have not seen since the New Deal. Something that would focus on employment creation and deliver jobs to the de-industrialized areas where 3.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost over the last decade. He needs to promise labor law reform that will restore the right of workers to join unions and protect their wages, which have not even kept up with inflation over the last year and have stagnated over the last three decades.

This kind of appeal won't please the media and the pundits, who will rail against "class warfare" and "populism." But it can win over these "Reagan Democrats" whom the party has been unable to capture since 1964. They are more ready than ever for a strong populist message, and as the recession deepens, the gap between them and the media's conventional wisdom will widen. He can talk about how the Iraq war, too, drains resources that could be used to help working people here at home.

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, only 13 percent of registered voters think Obama would pursue polices that favor the rich over other citizens; 53 percent think McCain would do so. What Obama needs to do is convince the swing voters that this difference will have a significant impact on their lives. If he can do that, he will do well in Pennsylvania, and will most likely become the 44th President of the United States.

This was published by AlterNet on April 7, 2008.

Comments

[PioneerKing]

Yo, Mark:

The voters you describe will not vote for Sen. Obama regardless of what he says. Their bigotry will not allow them to vote for Sen. Obama.

[marysandra]

With all due respect to white people,{i was one last time I looked}, the poorer ones among us consistently vote against their own economic self interests. The richer ones vote Republican,and even some of them won't be quite as rich much longer if they keep that up. Republicans wave the flag around in the red states, and push tax cuts to the wealthy in the blue ones. They are terrible at running things once they get into office, but it's too late then to do much for at least four years. Thank God, that the evangelicals don't seem to have a foothold this year, but just give them some time, they will have McCain praising and passing the hat before this is over. I really hope that Obama can make some inroads with them, but it's a hard sell , I wish him well.

[Sneaky]

Am I the only one who dies a little inside when I see posts proclaiming our problems as being the fault of one political party? Am I?

The Bush administration sucked at their jobs. Nobody's denying that. But before you complain about their foreign policy, understand very clearly that they're following CLINTON's foreign policy in Iraq stated near the end of his second term. Mr. Clinton wasn't a shining example of spreading good will to foreign nations, either (Somalia was only one mistake).

This is a bipartisan mess. It's not a Republican mess any more than it's a Democratic mess, but I'll be the first to say it's both of their faults, and our fault for letting it become a two-party issue where one party is seen as right just because another party has done wrong.

[larry278]

Mark's proposals make for Obama's campaign make much more sense than showing him bowling. BHO is a lousy bowler. His campaign must dispense with the clumsy photo op's that try to show that he's everyman. BHO isn't Joe Six-pack. BHO is a powerful, learned, crafty, thoughtful politician who's got a workable platform which will pull the USA & its people out of the mess the Republicans from Nixon to W & the DLC have created. BHO isn't a DLC type as Sen Clinton is who's a clone of W, the full strength version which has wrecked the USA. With Clinton, you get SS/DD. As for McCain, he's also the full strength W but with new more harmful ingrediants.
The trolls who've commented on Mark's blog & point out what they allege are Obama's faults are using examples & arguments which have been proven to be false. The trolls can shout all they want but they are wrong about BHO & his proposals. The old saw, "It's all over but the shouting.", apply to Sen Clinton, Sen McCain & their trolls. Shouting a lie, constantly doesn't make it a fact. It's obviouse that Clinton & McCain are damaged goods trying to sell useless panaces[sp] as new miracle drugs. The truth is that McCain & Clinton are selling snake oil laced with 190 proof industrial alcohol; that isn't a cure. Clinton & McCain are selling a leathel[sp] mix of poison.

[whimsicalpig]

that plans sounds just silly.

who wants to pay rent and acquire no equity in a home.

who would purchase the forclosed home if they had to continue to rent it out?

if you don't own the home, what incentive do you have to keep up the property and respect the neighborhood.


this is just some wacky way to deny the reality of the whole economic situation in this country.

Jack nicholson said it best."you can't handle the truth!"

most americans in the middle class live in an unreal world that, until now, had been buffeted from reality by the purchasing power of their credit cards and the illusitory value of their home equity.

it's time for them to deal with what has been happening,(for real) in thisnation.

while they blindly supported bush et al and diverted themselves from the facts by consuming themselves into an oblivion of denial the world was crumbling around them.

welcome them to the real world, don't try and wrap them in another blanket of denial.

[Sneaky]

Well-said.

One of the points I've maintained for some time now, which you've mentioned earlier, is that we can't afford much of what Wesibrot has to offer in his article. Every country that's ever successfully implimented universal health care of any kind has been economically sound and stable at the time of implementation. We are not. Even if we as a country wanted it (I personally don't, for several reasons), we can't afford it. I worry strongly that Wesibrot and others have so steadfastly touted what amounts to passive class warfare ("evil rich people", for example) instead of simple fixing of the problems of corruption in government.

[JacobSinger]

In the sense of being fiscal responsible, I must agree, but let's be realistic about an approach to the problem; first., are you asserting that we can afford actual war, but not efforts to close our economic gaps? If we can afford to wage a pointless war, then we are to accept that along with the current status of socio-economic disparity? To think that such is acceptable is naive; if we do not address this issue, it will address us, and this country will see civil unrest in a manner that none of us have ever witnessed. Better to address these issues by shoring up from the bottom than having the folks on the bottom rise up and eat those "evil rich people" you seem to be so concerned about. Had we kept our house in order for the last three decades [rather than buying into GOP nonsense] addressing government corruption might be enough, but the problem is so profound at this point that dealing with corrpution alone is not enough.

[EbonBear]

Assuming the USA could implement universal healthcare for roughly the same price as England (roughly $2000 per person per year), the total cost would be roughly $600 billion. The current US military budget, if memory serves, is around $610 billion, not counting the funds for the war in Iraq. That budget is higher than the rest of the world COMBINED. Even slashing 50% off it would leave a military easily large enough to defend the nation. Even just eliminating the obsolete and flawed weapons programs would save around $100 billion a year.

[JacobSinger]

"The combination of a long, deeply unpopular war and what looks like it will be the worst recession in at least 25 years -- and possibly much longer -- carries the potential for serious political upheaval."

You nailed it, Mark. IMO, should Obama be the dem nominee, he should address the following in a powerful way:

Corporate Bail Outs -- draw the distinction of how the Republicans are more than willing to bail out the Financial corporations, but are far from eager to bail out home owners;

Corporate Identity & Rights-- the bail out issue leads to the opportunity to do something that US citizens care about, but politicians ignore, namely the disparity between corporate rights and responsibilites compared to the same for the average American;

Universal Healthcare -- here Obama needs to bite the bullet and scrap his ineffective healthcare proposals and switch to supporting Conyer's H.R. 676 "Medicare for All" bill. This would send the message that he's serious about a real and substantial reform effort, rather than a plan that will be forgotten once he's elected;

Jobs & Infrastructure -- Obama should promote the idea of putting Americans back to work through infrastructure rebuilding programs.

Those are just a few items that Obama could increase his base with, should he decide to really address what US citizens are concerned about, rather than take the path of least resistance.

[JacobSinger]

In addition, this is an opportunity for Democrats to finally reframe the concept of how America should proceed with financial markets and the economic [stressing the growing income gap and pointing out the failure of supplyside economic principles], restructure our foreign policy, and set aggressive goals to address alternative fuel resources and Global Warming.

Democrats have for too long allowed the republicans to re-define American operative principles with economic and social structures that clearly favor the enrichment of the 1% and deprive the rest of the country of a sound 1st world social safety net.

Obama can face his fear and change a great deal--or, he can play it safe and simply be the first African American president, with such being his only real distinction from those who came before him.

[whimsicalpig]

I heard senator biden state yesterday that we can't even afford to shore up our assistance to Pakistan,(where terrorism is a major probelm, unlike Iraq) but that we can't afford it because of Iraq.

He also stated that we cannot just pre-emptively pull-out of that region without some sort of logical exit strategy.

the entire war on terrosim has been put on a tab which china holds.

with all the other financial crises around this nation

just how is obama going to pay for infrastructure, healthcare jobs etc?

its niceto promise the world, everyone likes you, but let's get realistic here

where is all this spending going to come from?

shouldn't we pay off all our current debts first?

[JacobSinger]

"shouldn't we pay off all our current debts first?"

That's fair enough--if we were actually trying to be fiscally responsible; but when have we ever done such?

Don't get me wrong here--I'm no economist, and I don't claim to know where the real limits are--but we are dumping billions per month into this profiteering scam disguised as a war on terror. Take that away and what are we left with? I don't know; but if we can continue the war indefinitely, then surely we can get rid of that pointless expenditure and replace it with something that actually benefits the rest of us rather than funneling it to that faction of the 1% who are currently soaking up war profits.

Hey, for all I know Chalmers Johnson is a great prophet and correctly identified us as being on the edge of oblivion due to our economic crisis [and in his perception, such could be what brings us down as a nation].

But I think it's a no-brainer if it's a matter choosing between war or efforts of national recovery.

On the other hand, if either effort essentially breaks the bank because we simply can't pay, then we need to pull out of Iraq imediately, damn the consequences, and try to come up with a realistic recovery plan. That would require a different set of goals, I imagine, but first we have to know where we really stand.

[JacobSinger]

On Biden:

I don't think Biden's plan will work in the long run, but if we insist on shoving a plan down their throat, then his is better than most. The problem is, he doesn't have enough support to be taken seriously, even though many agree with him.

But IMO, in the end Iraq will eventually reject and destroy anything we implement there; Iraq must be sorted out by Iraqis, and anything we do to try to stablize them to satisfy our POV will ultimately be rejected.

The situation in Iraq is akin to a gambling addict on a losing streak at the blackjack table, who hasn't realized that the House is dealing to him with a stacked deck; if he continues to play, he will continue to lose. The only real solution is to see the situation for what it is, and drop out of the game to contain the overall losses.

[Researchguy66]

Hmmm...not sure where to disagree most, but I'll try...

It's not clear to me that any recession we are in or will be in will be deep or long. The run-up in the economy was supported by rising home prices and the slowdown exacerbated by falling house prices, but that doesn't mean that the housing market needs to recover in addition for the general economy to do so

Secondly, I don't see Obama as someone who's going to protect the little guy from market forces. Lower classes always pay the costs of economic cycles, while upper classes generally reap the rewards of the correction. But few politicians see it that way, and I doubt Obama does. If anything, his "reach-across-the-aisle" approach would indicate his support for public investments in private enterprise (aka corporate welfare) to reduce the effects of prolonged unemployment. Certainly, you don't envision him creating a Civilian Conservation Corp. That will never happen again, unfortunately.

Lastly, I don't know why people always want to lower the prices for people to stay in houses that they never should have bought at the prices they paid for them. Best case scenarios, they are still shouldered with an albatross when at some point, government mortgage control expires. This is a good opportunity for poorer people to dispose of debt they shouldn't have. They should dispose of it and we'll be a better country for it.

[Nommo]

The question Mark, is whether or not the Dems will do that by way of default or by way of initiative. History is dropping this circumstance into their laps, will they manage, or just play along?.

[DoninJoisey]

I think he needs to highlight the choices -
You can pick him, or a liar, or someone who is as sharp as Bush about Al Qaeda, Sunni, and Shia.

Drum home Hilly's lobbyist ties, her NAFTA support, the Penn mess, and yes, her Iraq vote. Pointing out the truth isn't dirty politics.

Point out that when out of college, he went to a poor area and helped people, she went to WalMart corporate, known for screwing people.

McCain will defeat himself - whenever there isn't a teleprompter, he blows it.

[JacobSinger]

Oh please! Why not make a recommendation that isn't out of the "kiss-aas pundit's playbook"?

Do you seriously consider these issues to have any real importance?

[altohone]

MarK-

Obama is winning because his message has been consistent.
Unlike Hillary who has to run away from her voting record without fully disowning it so she can change back if needed, and Edwards who disavowed his voting record when he adopted populist positions, Obama has opposed policies that exploit average Americans.

Maybe the truth isn't known due to the failures of the corporate media, but Obama doesn't need to adopt populism.

I'm not so sure Obama should take your advice though.
Right now, any New Deal type program would end up being compromised into a package that creates an artificial floor to housing prices that need to fall further. It would be anti-populist to keep housing prices higher than is affordable.
Don't ignore that the provision that would have given bankruptcy judges the ability to prevent legal exploitation was just blocked in Congress and our side will not get the reform we desire.

Should we spend tens of billions this year the wrong way, or wait less than a year and use that money properly?

[TinaFreeman]

The most important change that could be made to help in the housing crisis would be to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms, and allow for "cramdowns", on a case by case basis. This is the only solution that could make a huge difference in keeping people in their homes at this juncture. The mortgage industry has been forced to get much more conservative, after years of ridiculously loose lending practices, and now most homeowners in danger cannot qualify for any program in existence that will allow them to refinance out of their problem mortgages. Furthermore, the complicated relationships between mortgage servicers and security holders makes loan modification programs difficult to actually solve borrower's problems, and the process is so cumbersome and inefficient the servicers, even where they have latitude, can't handle the volume.


Ironically, bankruptcy judges are free to modify mortgages to investment property holders, who may have 5-10-20 mortgages on "bad investments"...but can't help families at risk of losing their homes.

Congress needs to get off it and pass this legislation ASAP...this housing crisis has years to go to run its course, and if we don't act to slow the rate of foreclosures, everyone loses...including those of us who can afford our mortgages but will see our property values continue to fall, and the mortgage investors who will see even worse pain than the bankruptcy judges will inflict if we don't stop the real estate collapse.

[Researchguy66]

This is a unique period when people can take advantage of short sales and even foreclosures to get OUT OF HOMES THEY CANNOT AFFORD. I know of no reason why the government should encourage people not to take advantage of this opportunity. The banks don't want to take all the write-downs at once, so they'll make deals to stagger them. In any case, removing that massive burgen from people who shouldn't have had it in the first place is far more of a cure.

[meanguy]

well, mush IS generally consistent

[JacobSinger]

I beg to differ; Obama needs to adopt populism now more than ever--not only for what it can for his general election campaign, but also because it will benefit voters with leverage that his platform's general vagueness has prevented so far.

[altohone]

I understand your point, but you should be saying he needs to adopt "MORE populism now more than ever".

Ignoring his early populist positions and voting record isn't fair.

Give the man some credit for voting against the bankruptcy bill that both Edwards and Clinton supported. Don't act like Obama needs to be converted to our view when he has supported our views... unlike Hillary.

I have no problem with encouraging him to emphasize his record or pressuring him to expand the topics he covers, just remember that dealing with the GOP means not handing them ammunition too... too much class warfare rhetoric can backfire.

[poppaculture]

I agree that consistency (and being presidential) is Obama's main strength, but the "class card" could be played with a populist appeal (it is the essence of Democratic roots).

By talking against corporate welfare, Obama can appeal to Reagan Democrats.
By promising to do all he can to help families achieve the American Dream, he might overcome semi-racist (or fearful) voters.

Howard Dean asked why lower-class Southern whites would vote Republican (it's also asked in "What's the Matter with Kansas?").

Emphasize love of country (how America's on the wrong track and needs our help in fixing it).
Emphasize ruggged individualism (corporate socialism must go)
Emphasize communities working together in a positive populist way.

In a way, it's what Obama's been saying all along.

[altohone]

Your last sentence makes my point.

Thanks.

[Jazz42]

Great article.
I completely agree.

[RabidRightRebel]

Why go to all that trouble of setting up all those extra agencies to impliment your make work program. Wouldn't it be easier to transfer half of the Bush tax cuts to everone by increasing the minimun tax free income allowance. This keeps that money flowing and moves it from Swiss bank accounts into the hands of people who actually need it.

[magen]

This was John Edward's main campaign message, maybe Barack should choose him as veep.

[WorkingClass]

You are right. This was Edward's campaign message. And the Democrats rejected it.

[CaptainObvious]

You mean the "Democrats" in the traditional media who completely blacked him out after his second place showing in Iowa?

[JacobSinger]

Wrong; it was still a "American Idol" campaign at that point. The shit has hit the fan now though, and the majority of us are going to get soiled to some degree. If Obama were to offer Edwards the VP slot [assuming Edwards would change his mind and accept it], he would have an extremely powerful ticket.

Even if he co-opts Edwards populist rhetoric, such would give him an incredible boost.

Have no doubt: the candidate that is seen as embracing the plight of the average American will win the election; Obama can eliminate McCain early on by taking that tack, and create a landslide for his efforts, but not on his current track.

[Herrington]

Its really the most interesting political development in three decades, the doubt creeping into the minds of working class Republicans. What started out, many years ago, as their suspicion of the U.N. being a beginning of a ‘One World’ government, was co-opted by the Reagan working class supporters to frighten about the goals of Bill Clinton as President, has now come full circle. Ron Paul supporters seem to have made a vital step in realizing that the ‘One World’ government they feared is the doing of big business. Very astute, and it only took forty or so years.

Paul and Huckabee are both populists, to a point. But we have not seen a Republican populist since Teddy Roosevelt.

As the American Dream has gotten more and more like a nightmare, more and more of the social Darwinism message of the Right Wing is failing to reach the public. The knee jerk Republican is a well trained and orderly creature who does not respond well to uncertainty. And that is the key, uncertainty.

When the dogma to which they have faithfully paid homage has led to 81% fear, the time is ripe to offer an alternative. Paint it Red, White, and Blue and call it a return to old time values or whatever you want, but move them by inches, because they are afraid.

[SCharb]

TR was actually a Progressive... and really, that was back when the Republican party was liberal and the Democratic party was conservative. They switched somewhere during FDR's terms. The Populists were a different movement, but they overlapped in policy. William Jennings Bryan accused Teddy Roosevelt of stealing his platform.

So there's never been a Populist Republican President. And there never will be, unless there's another polar swap.

[chendri887]

Well-said. Unfortunately, a large part of American identity is rooted in the Calvinist work ethic/Social Darwinism (take your pick; they both appear the same to an outsider). Moreover, the Christian belief that humans are inherently evil and in premillenial dispensationalist philosophy, now prevents many Americans from throwing their support behind socialist/utopian solutions to economic and social problems. There was perhaps more belief in post-millenial dispensationalist doctrine (or less certainty about pre-mil doctrine) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This convinced more Americans to support candidate such as TR and William Bryant, both who used Christianity to teach that Americans had a moral duty to support social causes, at that time. But unless Obama can tie his populism into that Christian belief system, his road is a tough one. There is simply too much skepticism of dialectical materialism in this country for it to be done any other way. Sad but true.

[TinaFreeman]

The Christian Right has used two issues, abortion and gay marriage, to try to suck all Christians into the Republican party, with some success. But if you set aside these two hot button issues....a more liberal society with respect to care of the poor, opportunities for all in the form of better educational opportunities, "teach a man to fish" programs, health care availability, and a tax system that doesn't unfairly favor the super rich...these are far more in line with the teachings of Christianity than the current Republican agenda.

It's time for Christians who believe in social justice and opportunity to stand up for their beliefs...there is a moderate Christian majority.

And if you set aside the "hot button" issues, which by the way won't be solved by the Repubs either, but are just used to manipulate the Christian vote....Jesus would most definitely have been a social liberal.

[Herrington]

Dispensationalism. Not a term that gets much press. I could never firgure out why Darby created it in the first place. It makes no more sense than The Covenants periods that are the mainstay of more established churhces. In fact, if anything, it makes less sense. But we are talking about religion.

But dispensationalism does explain the rather bizzare fascination of the christian right with the end times. And, to my cynical mind, explains why Bush, a fundamantalist and dispensationalist, seems untroubled by having created a white hot conflict in the middle east. Perhaps that is what he means by history vindicating him. Apparently if you kick off Armageddon you would be a christian, or at least a dispensationalist, hero.

Think I'm making this up? Dispensationalist leaders, Falwell for one, support Israel because they beleive it must exist as the setting for biblical end times.

[Herrington]

Dispensationalism. Not a term that gets much press. I could never figure out why Darby created it in the first place. It makes no more sense than The Covenants periods that are the mainstay of more established churches. In fact, if anything, it makes less sense. But we are talking about religion.

But dispensationalism does explain the rather bizzare fascination of the christian right with the end times. And, to my cynical mind, explains why Bush, a fundamentalist and dispensationalist, seems untroubled by having created a white hot conflict in the middle east. Perhaps that is what he means by history vindicating him. Apparently if you kick off Armageddon you would be a christian, or at least a dispensationalist, hero.

Think I'm making this up? Dispensationalist leaders, Falwell for one, support Israel because they believe it must exist as the setting for biblical end times.

[grendl]

If only the Hillary campaign had reserved the Rovian tactics for John McCain.

She probably would've won this race, had she maintained her cool. But they panicked, and decided to go for the knock out blow after Iowa and Super Tuesday, opening that bag of tricks early, and resorting to lowest of the low innuendo, and fear mongering.

But she's not what this party needs as a president right now. Because the war we're all fighting is not the one in Iraq, its the war against big business, monopolies, people who are farming our jobs overseas and relegating this to a third world nation. We need someone who hasn't made 109 million dollars in their lifetime, who hasn't tasted the nectar of absolute power. Someone who's untarnished, and honest, and maybe even naive enough to still think they can change this country.

All Mr. Obama has to do, is paint Mr. McCain as the shell shocked individual, determined to please his father by dressing up this chaos in Iraq as some kind of legitimate war, like WW2. All he has to do is relay to the people Mr. McCain's preposterous claims that Viet Nam was winnable, had we only stuck to our guns there. And all he has to do is point out the problem in the Middle East is not a military one, its an ideological one. Religious sectarianism's elitism, and Sunnis and Shiites can never engage in democracy until they're willing to acknowledge all men are created equal.