Now that the president's State of the Union is behind us, we have a good indication of what kind of campaign he is going to run: economic populism. President Obama and his team have been signaling such a strategy for the past few months, but they put a fine point on it Tuesday night.
If you look at the speech Tuesday night and search for the thematic value on which he touched most, it was all about fairness and equity. Obama said "fair share," "unfair," "play by the same rules," etc., a number of times throughout the speech. He has chosen to run as an economic populist in this election cycle, especially with Mitt Romney once considered the presumptive GOP nominee. The president will use the economy and tax rates and what the he sees as economic inequity to appeal to blue-collar workers and middle-class voters who will decide this election.
This raises another interesting point: The speech seems to have been mostly written a few weeks ago when the dynamics of the Republican nomination process were very different. It seems to be from a time when the White House thought Romney would be the inevitable nominee and that Newt Gingrich didn't have a chance. We all know today the race is much different with Gingrich riding a wave of momentum.
Gingrich's latest rise and appeal seem to be directly tied to his message touching the frustrations and concerns of blue-collar and middle-income voters in the Republican primaries. He, like the president, has chosen a populist approach to his campaign. But Gingrich's message seems to be one much more aligned with cultural populism than economic populism.
This cultural populism doesn't speak to income inequality and tax rate unfairness. It is much more about a forceful argument against cultural elites such as the media and Hollywood who, Gingrich says, are, at best, out of touch with true American values (including religion and faith) and, at worst, are undermining these values. It is a values-based argument much more about U.S. culture than about economic unfairness.
And, so, we have a president who has for now chosen to run as an economic populist against economic elites (as he sees Romney), and the rising candidacy of Gingrich, who is running as a cultural populist against cultural elites in this country. And both are attempting to appeal to the exact same group of voters: frustrated and disillusioned blue-collar and middle-class voters.
Gingrich's emerging as the Republican nominee would be a historic, never-before-held battle all around populism. A true clash of the Titans, economic populist vs. cultural populist. Wow. Stay tuned and let's see how this develops after the Florida primary next week.
Cross-posted from ABCNews.com.
William O'Rourke: Our Post-Satirical Primaries
Who does Gingrich love more than himself? Gingrich is a profiteer not an honorable public servant. He will certainly engage in a dog-fight to be the Republican nominee but he will never be elected POTUS. Most of his "ingenious" ideas are ridiculous, especially to young people and to women.
In the end, his own party elites will find a way to ensure he self-destructs. The (R) primaries are only in state #4 and he still needs over a thousand delegates to get the nomination. That's a long road to haul. I bet his casino benefactors are investing in his campaign then laying their bets against him for the big money just like the Wall Street casinos did against their investments with CDS bets. LOL!
The election- should we be a country that excludes all but a few or be inclusive?
A Presidential campaign on cultural value's and Gingrich personal take on our current office holder shows me that's what the Republican Party is about.
The cultural populace thing is largely an alter call to delusion to use your lingo. There has always been a segment of our country that thought themselves culturally outcast from pop and elite culture. But it’s not culture that is killing them. It’s economics. Culture is the thing that is dividing them, but primarily by their own choice. The nanosecond they get with the 99%, where they economically belong, issues that are hurting us all can be quickly solved through the ballot. Otherwise, they will continue to be confounded, By choice.
The obvious irony is the Mr. GetRich has violated every social conservative rule of behavior. So that qualifies him to be a "cultural" representative?
Another irony is the InActive President knows knowing about the economy since it has been dead on arrival (from the Bush Regime) during the last three years. So we are to believe his message of revival?
The understatement of Mr. Dowd's summary is that both candidates are disqualified to argue their viewpoints.
Secondly, after three years of stonewalling by the Congressional GOP caucus on exactly this issue, Obama is right to whip the populace into a frenzy on this matter. Whether or not Romney is the nominee, or Gingrich, it is a winner for Obama for the election and for his second term if he should win.
Should Gingrich win the nomination, it would not surprise me at all if he adopted some positions that would be classified as economic populism to win election.
Personally, I think Gingrich would make an erratic President, but I do think because of his ever changing positions he would make a tough opponent for Obama.
If he were, he wouldn't be able to campaign on allowing the Bush tax cuts for millionaires expire.......the party wouldn't allow it.
I noticed what appeared to be a change in attitude of the Republicans in Congress during the SOTU address....the anger that an "other" is in the White House has subsided and you can see they already know he's getting another term....they seem resigned to take a beating in November.
That's good, because his cultural populism does nothing but stir or even create imaginary resentments among those on the right, convincing them that Obama and the liberals are trying to destroy Christianity, among other things. It's not helpful to the national dialogue, and has the ability to stir dangerous passions among those not wrapped too tight.