Whenever President Obama starts sounding like an economic progressive, as he did when he used his constitutional power to make recess appointments, or when he vowed to extend the payroll tax cuts without harming Social Security or Medicare, you can count on his critics to accuse him of resorting to "populism" or "class warfare."
David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, warned that Obama had been elected to be a conciliator, not a populist (look at what his conciliator phase got him).
When Obama had kind words for the Wall Street protesters, Bloomberg BusinessWeek warned that, "populism shouldn't be Obama's battle cry."
Obama, warned Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, "pits American against American on the basis of their bank accounts, saying it's time for 'millionaires and billionaires' to 'pay their fair share.'"
Typically, the people who disparage "populism" either have a self-interest in damping down popular comprehension of just who has been wrecking the economy, or they are supporters of a perverse austerity agenda, or they worry that Obama's "populism", more consistently applied, just might work.
Yet it's a pity that the defense of working people and the policies that help them gets described by a word that has ugly overtones. Populism, in the late 19th Century, described a movement that sought to protect farmers and artisans from bankers, tight money policies and the economic influence of railroads and other monopolists. One wing of the populist movement was also racist, though the other wing was remarkably integrationist.
In recent years, far-right nationalists in Europe and elsewhere who scapegoat immigrants and appeal to narrow-minded nationalism are also described as "populist," as are economic radicals who criticize rules of international trade that benefits multinational corporations but not workers.
So when a newspaper column or conservative politician describes a liberal leader as resorting to "populism," there is usually an undertone of disapproval, and the implication that the leader is appealing demagogically to people's baser instincts.
The sloppy use of an ambiguous label in turn leads to sloppy logic. It doesn't follow that economic progressives are extreme nationalists, demagogues, much less racists -- but "populism" conveniently carries that freight.
Consider: The Republican strategy of paralyzing agencies of which they disapprove by refusing to confirm their officials is harming consumers and working people. It is hardly "populist" in the ugly sense of the word to remedy that blockade by using the president's power to make a recess appointment.
Nor is it "populist" in the odious meaning of the word to defend Social Security and Medicare from the Right and center-right's cynical use of the fiscal crisis to undermine programs that did not cause it. Rather, Obama's refusal to let social insurance be the scapegoat is just good progressive politics.
It would be nice if we had a word like "populist" that meant defense of regular people against the malign influence of economic royalists, but without the overtones of nativism or racism. But we don't, so it is more honest and accurate to refer simply to these policies simply as economic progressivism.
As for class warfare, it's here. The policies of the past three decades, whether on taxes, de-regulation, outsourcing, the assault on unions, or the deliberate weakening of social insurance, have been top-down class warfare. It's just charming that when progressives begin to show some spine and start fighting back, the Right screams "class warfare!" They should know.
The French have a nice rhyming couplet that describes this gambit: Cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend. ("This animal is very wicked. When you attack it, it defends itself.")
The only thing wrong with Obama's populism, excuse me, his economic progressivism, is that it took him until nearly the year of his re-election to practice it resolutely. More, please.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril. Follow Bob at RobertKuttner.com.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
* China's teeming masses are happy to get 5$ a day wages - they are not rebelling.
* India's millions live in high contrast with a newly formed middle class and upper classes surrounded by millions of poor who eke out a living in the most squalid conditions, - they are not rebelling.
* Brazil's businesses and individuals live with 40-60% interest rates on their loans and they are not rebelling.
What the ruling elites really want is for the uppity American and West European Middle classes to meekly bow their heads as they are being placed in their proper habitat: third world misery.
What is shockingly clear to the elites is that there is no reason to maintain an expensive American Middle class - anyone who refuses to see the overwhelming evidence of the continuous destruction of the middle class is either blind or thoroughly deceived.
Obama tried for governing with cooperation and compromise. It didn't work, the goals of his opposition didn't allow for it . . . I'm satisfied he tried.
The fact that so many said it wouldn't work and feel strongly it should not have been tried - that doesn't work for me.
Another lesson Obama learned is this latest one with Daley. Lessons learned, progress was still made, now if we vote a true mandate for this President I believe we shall see much more being accomplished.
If we give him a Congress as we have now we doom his efforts.
That said, how can I ever vote for a Republican? I won't. Which leaves me out in the cold once again in the election process. We vote for supposedly different candidates who act exactly the same once elected. Case in point: Is Guantanamo closed? Do we have a public option for health care? Do we have a revamped tax code that makes it once again progressive rather than regressive? Have we stopped illegally spying on Americans? Have we made government more transparent?
None of the above
Moreover, our system simply would never elect an honest person to public office. Consequently, if you refuse to vote for liars, you will never vote, period.
It is not Obama's fault that he is a pathological liar. It is our fault for having elected him.
The US citizenry must demand an end to Perpetual War as it is destabilizing the nation, and our political leadership. The now planned expansion of war into Syria and/or Iran is actually directed at Russia and/or China. The monetary financial system continues to imploded. Insanity.
The Wall St. cabal, the recipient of $29 trillion dollars, that terrorizes and corrupts the Congress, must be indicted, competently prosecuted to reestablish justice, sanity and the stabilization of the United States. The President who has become a dictator, who can only expand Perpetual War, sign the militarization of domestic law legislation, must be legally removed from office ASAP, or this nation is doomed.
The national security crisis expressed in hunger, homelessness, unemployment, etc, demands the immediate implementation of the Glass-Steagall standard in US banking. Put the Fed into bankruptcy protection, recover the bailout trillions. Create the US National Bank that funds the 50 states, then fund the necessary economy platforms that enhance the population's standard of living. No other options exist, and time is wasting.
Who knew?
Curiously, it does not seem to pit American against American to claim (as some GOP candidates have done) that the poor should pay more or get along with less. The growing shift of wealth is just fine so long as it continues to shift to the advantage of the wealthy. (although, even some billionaires are uneasy with that).
The warning shots being fired by cyber revolutionaries and the technological explosion in communications make it much harder to maintain a FOX news propaganda.
This extreme power grab by a powerful cadre of sociopathic billionaires will not herald a new golden age of extreme wealth - rather it will bring about the complete establishment of evolutionary survival of the fittest "crony capitalism", the demise of any semblance of "meritocracy".
Lastly as the few rival wealthy who for moral, ethic, or just plain sane reasoning join the fray on the side of the oppressed; a revolution that has a completely uncertain outcome could well be in the cards.
John Lennon said it best:
A "working class hero" is something to be-e.
Use that phrase.