With voters angry at the establishment and incumbents in general, and deals in particular, Democrats who are defenders of the established order are working overtime to beat down the idea of winning elections by using scary populism. Using faulty historical analogies, polls with carefully designed questions in order to elicit certain answers, and the specter of far-right anti-intellectualism as reasons not to be populist, they fear what might happen if Democrats actually start listening to real voters and make the changes people were promised in 2008.
The good news is that if the Democrats running for office in this tough, tough year will respond to the anti-establishment anger that is out there and ride it, they can do better than anyone is currently predicting. Of course, if that happened, it would be a very bad thing for corporate Democrats who don't want anything to change, because it would prove the lie that the only way for Democrats to win is to kow-tow to special interest power and conventional wisdom.
We've had pundits like Matt Bai take on populism in this way, and groups like Third Way do it as well. The latest article I have seen comes from a self-described liberal named Kevin Mattson writing in The American Prospect. Mattson's idea of a modern day populism is Sarah Palin, and if you accept that premise, it's easy to see why he dislikes a populist message. He makes arguments unsupported by any polling numbers or actual knowledge of political dynamics, such as: "Since the 1960s, populism has succeeded in the right and produced few if any left-wing counterparts... There is no way to steer that boat back to left-wing shores." He dismisses "recent attempts to paint Harry Truman as a raging populist" (apparently forgetting Truman's 1948 stump speech: "These Republican gluttons of privilege... want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship... ").
He talks about Gore's fatal mistake of populism, conveniently forgetting that after Gore's People vs. The Powerful convention speech, he shot ahead in the polls in that race (only losing his lead after he performed badly in the debates). He ignores the fact that Clinton's winning 1992 election message was even more populist than Gore's in 2000.
However, my point here is not to argue the history of populism's political success or promise -- I have done that here and here in case you want to check those arguments out. What I want to focus on today is a progressive populist platform that wins politically in our currently political environment.
Mattson's most irritating tendency is to throw out sentences like: "Populism -- because it glorifies the 'common sense' of the people -- is prone to the sloppy, slapdash thinking of figures like Palin" and "Too often the advice to adopt populist rhetoric becomes advice to pander" and "Populism's simplicity is its central fault." The disdain of Bai, Mattson and Third Way for progressive populism is evident in these kinds of sentences and strained historical argument. But a platform and message that does actually take on big corporate elites and an entrenched establishment does not have to wallow in simplicity, pandering and proud stupidity the way Palin-style right-wing populism does.
Anger alone does not win elections for progressives, but righteous anger combined with accurate analysis and policies that take on the corruption of wealthy elites certainly can. The way populism wins is to be angry at what the elites have done to this country and smart about how to fix it all at the same time. Here is a winning progressive populist platform for the 21st century.
1. Making government work for the people, not the powerful. Our mission should not be to defend government, because government has screwed up a lot of the time, especially when corporate special interests control it as they have on most issues since the 1980s. Our mission instead is to wrest government from the clutches of the corporate interests who are feeding at the trough and turn government into something that can effectively serve and help middle- and lower-income Americans. There are all kinds of things about government that really are wasteful and don't work -- let's not be afraid to name them:
Progressive populists are not pro-government; we are in favor of a government independent enough of big special interests to work well, and strong enough to oversee big business effectively.
2. Collective action is as important as an effective government. I have always found it funny that even as conservatives hate government, they also hate private actions that hold big business accountable and provide another kind of check on its power. Labor unions, community organizing, class action lawsuits, blogging and netroots organizing, consumer boycotts are all mocked and attacked by the free market worshippers, even though they are private citizens banding together to get things done.
Progressive populists know that we can't rely on government alone to check corporate power. Working together and organizing collectively are key components in providing a way to keep big business from being too powerful. We need stronger labor unions, and policies to make collective bargaining easier, like the Employee Free Choice Act; we need to make it easier for lawyers, stockholders, and consumers to file class action lawsuits against corporate fraud and malfeasance; we should be investing more in community organizing and legal services for the poor like we did in the 60s and 70s. Progressive foundations and donors need to invest in a vibrant blogosphere and a strong consumer movement to keep pushing back against oligarchical corporations with way too much power.
3. Investing in people and a bottom up economic structure is the best way to grow the economy. Conservatives' only solution on the economy, no matter what the problem and what the evidence, is to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on regulations that safeguard us from companies who put profits above everything, including their workers, the environment, safe products, and the overall economy. Progressive populists know that we have to invest in regular people to help lift them up.
We need world class schools. We need a health system where everyone is covered and preventative medicine helps keep us healthier. We need more money for Head Start, school lunches, and early childhood health and nutrition to help lift the poorest children so that they have a good chance to make it. We need big investments in our massively underfunded physical infrastructure, roads, bridges, schools, highways. We need to make sure every American has access to the highest quality high-speed internet service.
We also need for the federal government to actually have a jobs strategy, an industrial policy that helps nurture the industries of the future, like solar and wind power. Every other industrialized country has this kind of policy, and our future is being cannibalized because we don't. Our trade deficit is a bigger long-term economic problem then the federal deficit, but because it benefits certain big special interests, we continue to avoid doing anything about it.
We can't afford to have long-term unemployment at the level it's been since 2008. We have to start investing in our people and our economy.
4. We are pro-business, but against oligarchy. Progressive populists believe in supporting and investing in entrepreneurship, small business, and the manufacturing jobs of tomorrow. The only kind of businesses we are against are overgrown oligarchies who are big enough to stifle competition, distort the marketplace for their own greed, and get special breaks from the government.
We expect businesses to live by the social contract and give back to the country that made it possible for them to do well by treating their workers and communities decently, not polluting the environment and paying a fair share of taxes. Progressive populism is better for business and the economy than the concentrations of wealth and power that have wreaked havoc in the financial, energy, telecom, and health care sectors. We believe in:
5. We need to throw the moneychangers out of the temple. One of the reasons that I am so enthusiastically working with the MoveOn.org campaign to clean up corporate corruption in Washington is that our government and democracy cannot function effectively with the current system we have for campaign finance, special interests lobbying, and corporate money going into elections. A small group of big corporations in a few key sectors of our economy have come to dominate our federal government's decision-making in legislative, executive, and regulatory policy. Defense and security contractors, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, agribusiness, energy conglomerates, and Wall Street have concentrated more political power in fewer hands than at any time in our nation's history, with the possible exception of the era of the robber barons. For the sake of our economy and our democracy, we need to break the inseparable link between big, corporate interests and our government. We need tough lobbying reform, public financing for campaigns, and we need to overturn the Citizens United decision.
Although as far as I know this is not true of Mattson, the anti-populist crowd in the Democratic Party tend to be financially and socially aligned with the corporate special interests -- but they have one other thing in common with them: they are mostly not understanding how much economic pain the massive recession is causing to the American middle class. Real unemployment -- after you count discouraged workers, along with temporary and part-time workers not by choice -- is closer to 20% than 10%, and wages, incomes, and home prices are flat or worse, while the cost of essential items like groceries, gas, insurance, and college tuition have continued to go up too rapidly in price. The anger that is out there at both parties and elites of all stripes is real and palpable, and it is not going away anytime soon. The underlying fundamentals of this economy for middle income people have been badly damaged by the 2008 financial collapse, and the throw-the-bums-out mood that caused the 2006 and 2008 wave elections is still in force. The only thing that's changed is the perception of who the bums are.
If the Democrats don't understand that anger, and respond to it with passionate politics and strong ideas for how to change things, we will lose not only in 2010, but in 2012 as well. A smart, tough-minded populism that is willing to take on the D.C. establishment that is in bed with the special-interest lobbyists is the only thing that will save the Democrats politically, and it is also a political platform that can rebuild our country again.
"Mainstreet Progressives" are a collection of individuals that are ready to be organized,energized and mobilized to political action. Seeds of progressive thought must be sown across the country before they can be cultivated. We must water these seeds gently and frequently so they can take root and grow rather than subject them to a deluge that serves to wash them away.
We are chumps for marketing. They have us arguing the difference between socialism marxism and what some guys who have been dead for 200 years thought instead of noticing that the viability of our nation 3 years down the road is at risk. The imbalance in our system will rip us apart.
There are times when only a leader can alter the arc. Some of us had hoped we had discovered one. We were wrong.
Instead, the existing Dem show, as it is, will lose in 2010, 2012, and into the future.
Doesent Obama want to win more elections? . He is surrounded by people that are specialists in elections and in pleasing everybody
"I do not know the key of success, but the key to failure is to please everybody"
--- Bill Cosby
The electorate out there instinctively knows what the right things to do are, and will not be fooled again by timid general ideas. People want a revolution, and whatever party will deliver this, will win, and will rule for 50 years.
So far the Democrats have not had the courage to embrace the power of the growing populist anger seething in their own ranks. Though it isn't congruous with much of the right's populist anger, at some point, there will be some measure of convergence. And when that happens, the groundswell of angst stands to blow both staid old political parties out of the water.
If one party sees that big wave coming and surfs it successfully, it will be the winner.
Otherwise, the time is getting ripe for a viable third / independent candidates, if not a viable national third party.
The party ( maybe a new third party) that embraces the tidal wave of discontent and is ready to implement real change will rule for 50 years.
Each time the balance tilted, it was brought back, usually after an economic trauma of some sort. Trusts were growing wealth, but eliminating competition and enriching few. Unions fought for good working conditions. The Roosevelts both had a lot to do with it, as did Ike and Lincoln. We worked together.
Now, it seems frightfully out of balance and no correction in sight. Corporations can flood our political system with money and influence. The middle class is now looking down instead of up. We've lost the real meaning of American exceptionalism and are distracted by silly shiny objects.
The solution is not unfettered Capitalism, or Socialism, but balanced Capitalism. Most people don't know what that means anymore.
Members are better educated than the average American and well informed.
I hope the Democrats run on their big government class warfare that BO has helped perpetuate.
However, your assessment of the intellectual status of its members is way off base.
Even though there are populist issues increasingly finding some support on the left, such as immigration reform and "good government" anti-corruption measures---the Tea Party backs itself into an ideological corner with all its tired old right-wing radio hate/fear mongering talking points, like your "big government" one. Anyone with half a brain noticed that government ballooned to its largest size in history under your beloved George W. Bush, God's Own President.
And neither right nor left so far has the you-know-whats to fight the corporate oligarchy that has usurped our representative democracy.
So, whichever side grows its cojones first, wins.
I would add eliminating unions from government jobs. That is simply a conflict of interest. Private unions provide a balance of productivity, profits, and wages. Govt. Unions have little productivity and profits to measure against, resulting in a 60% difference in wages from private sector.
Although I wish stimulus would work from the bottom up, economic research shows otherwise. I'd compromise with equal distribution. But then that could be done through equal tax bracket adjustments.
The best way to combat government and rich is to promote deflation. Consumers are first to benefit with lower prices. Only the government and the rich benefit from inflation. Who do you think keeps yelling we need inflation?
Why is there a 60% difference (citation needed, I don't quite believe you, but for the sake of argument I'll allow it)?
When I went to work for my state (IT manager) at age 40, in 1992. I took an $18,000 pay cut and worked harder than I ever had before. I have ever since. But in that year, budget woes caused the Governor to impose a 39-hour work week and 10 shutdown days. In July of last year, that began again, resulting in a 5% pay cut for our 13,000 workers. We pay more for contract workers than state workers would cost to do the same job, because we're afraid to increase our head count.
But from 1992 to the mid-00's my IT buddies scoffed at me. They were making six figures and I was making mid-seventies. I had a pension, they had 401Ks. They were sailing, I was plodding.
I receive a cost of living raise most years, sometimes none. But now a lot of my friends would love to work for the state and have security. Meantime, the wealthy 5% keep rising.
And you think the problem is unions? I think the problem is that the private sector, not being organized, has had its pocket picked, working harder for less and making their owners richer. Hey, works so well, let's do more of it!
Horsepuckey.
The FACT is that the only ones who want more illegals are the employers and the professional Hispanic groups who think that they will get more power for themselves and keep cheap labor coming across the border to keep the wages down for "their" workers. Back during Eisenhowers deportation round up, LBJ was fighting against that NOT because he loved Mexican Americans, but because his money people were the mainly Anglo ranchers who treated their workers as slaves. The situation now is only different because the employers now are mainly Hispanic. They LOVE illegal workers, and the employers give tons of money to their politicians.
By the way, Eisenhower deportation measures resulted in almost doubling the wages of the workers here. We need MORE of that kind of thing. Skilled auto mechanics earn $8/hr here because of all the Mexicans who work illegally and commute to work across the Rio. Which side should progressives be on?
Because though the rank-and-file Right Wing voter is vehemently anti-immigration, legal or otherwise, those who control the Republican party are rich businessfolk who recognize that illegal immigrants are essential for our plantation economic model which depends on a steady supply of poorly paid laborers. And... a growing population of consumers. Even poor people who aren't supposed to be here buy toilet paper and beer.
I see you left out unions, are they considered a special interest that you are working to clean up donations? If not you're a fraud.
- No-bid government contracts
- Environmental disasters
- Deregulation of the financial industry
- Reduction of inspectors for food and other good
- Taking control of the Internet
- Failing to institute an energy policy that will wean us from fossil fuel before it's too late.
Yeah, right, the unions are to blame for the mess.
We Need . . . We Need . . . We Need . . .
The stimulus package was sold as the cure to fix our, and I quote every Dem in the USA, "CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE"
There aren't enough primary care physicians in this country to support everyone, many of them have already stopped taking new Medicaid or Medicare patients because they lose money on them.
"We also need for the federal government to actually have a jobs strategy, an industrial policy that helps nurture the industries of the future, like solar and wind power."
THE FUTURE IS NOT SOLAR AND WIND . . . I KNOW THIS BECAUSE THESE TECHNOLOGIES HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 30 YEARS AND YET NOBODY ON THE PLANET WOULD BUY THEM UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT PAID THEM TO DO SO.
The fuel of the future isn't wind . . . it isn't solar . . .
They are a joke and the entire industry would fall apart tomorrow if the subsidies stopped.
Obama's been in office 2 years . . . the Dems that we're supposedly electing to do this have been in complete control of Congress for 4 years . . .
Nobody is high enough to think the Federal Government works for them.
People, you might as well strap yourselves in, because this country is going down. This economy is going to take another nosedive and then it's gonna bottom feed for a good decade or more, and we are going to see some fundamental changes in our politics, our economy and our culture before it's all over.
And it's gonna be tough, and it's gonna turn out fine. Really.
But nothing--nothing--is going to stop this economy from a weak decade, at least.
Now is the time to show courage: Stay and work to improve the world around us.