But if you put aside all of the platitudes, mushy rhetoric and feel-good proposals, the heart of Obama’s remarks demonstrated that he’s intent on pursuing a far more combative and populist path to a second term than the one Clinton followed.Essentially, Obama's purported "populism" reduces to economics, as the plasma-owning masses apparently can't feed their families. Obama is clearly positioning himself as a voice for the 99%, casting avaricious millionaires as the primary enemy. And in doing so, by casting a tiny portion of the population as unfairly hurting the masses, one could maybe interpret this as populism.
But his central message stressed a sharp and basic philosophical contrast with his partisan opponents – one he clearly plans to make the centerpiece of his reelection effort.
“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” Obama said early in his speech, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
Yet, can economics, i.e. class warfare, really undergird a populist movement, especially in the context of Decmorat's general liberalism? Can a movement of "the people" succeed if all that binds "the people" is a shared envy and resentment towards the greedy class? I'd argue that populism can not exist as a solely economic movement, an insight implicit to the ultimate class warriors of 20th century Communism. These regimes understood that mass-based movements need to be cleansed of their cultural, religious, and social differences - with any line of demarcation leading to a fragmentation of the pitchfork mob.
In sum, populism can not be based on merely the fact that my neighbor does not have what I do not have. Populism must be supported by an overarching cultural and social narrative from which people ultimately bond. I admit that this ultimately comes down to psychology - do people only care about the bottomline in coming together? Or are all social and political movements ultimately defined by an incredibly complicated confluence of factors? The recent election successes of the homogeneous Tea Party versus the aimless and conflict-filled Occupy Movement should answer that. People just can't seem to ignore their differences, whether racial, religious, or cultural, in forming coalitions. It's ironic then that a Democrat, the party of The Other, the party that champions multiculturalism and population replacement of natives, would go the populist route.
27 comments:
"Populism must be supported by an overarching cultural and social narrative from which people ultimately bond."
This is why populism in the 1890s, or 1930s, when the country was far more culturally homogenous than it is today, tended to be very left wing. Think of William Jennings Bryan, or Huey Long. You're probably right that in modern America any lefist populism would collapse under its own cultural and ethnic tensions. You can, and do, still have left wing populists in places like South Korea and much of Eastern Europe.
Given 2 poles of thought about economics (left vs right) and 2 poles of thought about culture (left vs right), there are 4 totally positions.
Left economics + Left culture = Democrat
Right economics + Right culture = Republican
Right economics + Left culture = Libertarian
Left economics + Right culture = Populist
There are many people, especially in the South who vote either DEM or GOP, but who would better fit as a Populist.
However, given the nature of our winner-take-all election system, there is only room for TWO parties. Populists get squeezed out, not represented by either party, and tend to be non-voters or swing voters.
Frankfurt School
Cultural Marxism
All his economic rhetoric is codetalk or as our lovely corporate media calls it a dog whistle. He means "we will get those white males and make them pay".
I think an important difference between left wing populism and right wing populism is that the former tends to lead to dictatorship, or at least a soft tyranny. Right wing populism strikes me as more of a "leave us alone and MYOB" sort of movement.
Populism can ONLY be of the right, because Leftists put Blacks, rich White people (of the "correct" ideology) and other non-Whites first.
Leftism demands that poor Whites give up half their paycheck to fund Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Snoop Dogg's "Reparations for Slavery" demands. At its base.
Left Wing populism is ONLY possible where there are no, I mean NONE, members of another ethnic/racial group. Otherwise Leftism plays the moralism game of "We are more 'Saved' than you are" in a post-Calvinist way. Using the non-majority as moral props in an eternal morality play.
Look at Obama -- his "populism" amounts to shoveling money to Al Gore, George Soros, and Warren Buffett who benefit from crony capitalist insider deals on "Green" farces like Solyndra, and preference for Black and Hispanic people. Illegal aliens don't have to obey the law, but Whites MUST. Particularly Blue collar and middle class Whites.
By definition, only the Right can be populist. In the sense of advocating for the lower/middle parts of the earnings spectrum. The Left consists of what Sailer calls the High-Low team-up. Everywhere.
All his economic rhetoric is codetalk or as our lovely corporate media calls it a dog whistle. He means "we will get those white males and make them pay".
Yea I agree with the obvious undertones of his rhetoric.
But I didn't feel like getting racial in this post. (In general, sometimes I don't feel like broaching race in a certain issue, but it's funny that race is always there no matter what. You can't escpae it.)
"We're on your side you ignorant, mouth-breathing rednecks."
Liberals can't be Americans, that's the real problem. You can't be an internationalist and a nationalist at the same time, you can't work to dissolve the borders and sovereignty of your nation and claim to be loyal to it at the same time. Liberalism is treason at its root beliefs. Republicans are also liberals.
During the university AA battles of the '90's, I used to see a banner that read, "redefine merit." This writer has simply redefined populist to mean "black."
The Democrats always give the most lip-service to opposing the "elite", relying on the fact that the typical voter is too dumb to know that the the Democrat are even more the party of the "elite" than the Republicans.
Obama has a spent a good deal of time rhetorically attacking big bankers, and at the same time has taken concrete action to make them even richer. You have to distinguish between populist rhetoric and populist action.
Left economics + Right culture = Populist
Populist does not mean "left economics". If your equations were correct we should see populist economics from the Democrats, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Left economics meaning socialism, restraints on the free market, labor over business, etc. That certainly is DEM rhetoric, at least traditionally.
The problem is, at least since Clinton's approval of NAFTA, the national DEM party has been dominated by globalists. The pro-labor Left, the anti-globalist OWS crowd, is extremely disillusioned with DEM leadership right now.
Left economics + Right culture = Populist
That is why Southern Whites were traditionally Democrats, and many Northern blue-collar Whites remain Democrats. Democrats are for the poor, duh!
William Jennings Bryant perfectly embodies that Populist formula, and it precisely explains why the White South flipped parties after the Modern Reconstruction Era - Southern Populists feel more alienated by the DEMs Left culture than they do by the GOPs Right economics.
To answer the original question, can Liberals be Populists: they half are, already. The most prevalent usage of the word Populist today is in the phrase Progressive Populist (google it).
This is why the RICH ELITES keep highlighting CULTURE WAR ISSUES in their media channels. Only if the Left and Right can be kept divided culturally can they be prevented from forming a Populist economic coalition.
The Clinton presidency ruined any chance for democratic populism with it's support of NAFTA, GATT, and the entry into anti-sovereignty WTO. Add to that the acceptance of all sorts of of Cultural Marxist policies now codified into the party platform for the benefit non-whites and it's no surprise working class whites have permanently left the party in droves and now "vote against their own best interests".
Post-modern libs now display the arrogance and class snobbery they formerly excoriated country club conservatives for exhibiting. They are so proud of mentioning how the republican party is now the home of the less educated and substantially less affluent whites and how the more seconday education (braingwashing?), the more likely you are to vote democrat.
Left economics meaning socialism, restraints on the free market, labor over business, etc
But that doesn't = populism.
Populism means seeing the world as being divided into a good majority and a bad "elite" who need to be overcome. The American Founders were populists, for instance. Populism is not another word for socialism, as you seem to think.
In some times and places populists and socialists might be united in their opposition to the same elite, but that is not the case in America today. In America today the elites are socialists.
William Jennings Bryant perfectly embodies that Populist formula
Populists are devout Presbyterians? Populists oppose the Gold Standard?
Southern Populists feel more alienated by the DEMs Left culture than they do by the GOPs Right economics.
Populists don't care about right economics or left economics as such. Populists care about defeating what they see as a wicked and corrupt elite. There is nothing in principle either right-wing or left-wing about such a goal.
In practice in modern America, to be opposed to the current elite is to be a right-wing populist, because the existing elite is quite left-wing.
I think that the real split now on the left is between liberals and progressives. The words are used interchangeably but should not be. Progressive politics to me is based on a good government whereas liberalism is simply transferring wealth from one group to another.
Good government implies a merit based system where everything is exposed to sunlight. This collides directly into affirmative action and race / ethnic based politics. Civil service testing and promotion is a perfect example. You can ether have competence or color but not both. The same is true with scholastic policies, government contracts, government guaranteed loans and the like.
Liberals are in charge of the Democratic Party and anything that interferes with or slows down payments to their core constituency is not tolerated.
"Look at Obama -- his "populism" amounts to shoveling money to Al Gore, George Soros, and Warren Buffett"
Utter nonsense. Again.
As if Reagan and national politician of recent lore to the right of George McGovern hasn't enacted more brazen pay-for-play scams.
What a reach in looking for a crony-capital president.
"Look at Obama -- his "populism" amounts to shoveling money to Al Gore, George Soros, and Warren Buffett"
Utter nonsense. Again.
As if Reagan and national politician of recent lore to the right of George McGovern hasn't enacted more brazen pay-for-play scams.
Even assuming that "Reagan and national politician of recent lore to the right of George McGovern" (whatever that means) have enacted more brazen pay-for-play scams (and you don't even attempt to back up that claim) how is it "utter nonsense" to say that Obama has talked like a populist but has shoveled money at left-wing plutocrats?
The Heritage study is very interesting and I'll peruse it later.
One thing it doesn't talk about is debt. They made the right choice skipping the debt topic, because in a lot of way debt probably hurts the middle class harder than anyone else, because middle class values associate debt with shame. It's about future time orientation--the poor, with their big-screen TVs, Medicaid "rights" and single-family homes, are probably pretty happy even with loads of debt, lousy credit ratings, and no real prospects for autonomy.
The middle class find that situation (minus the Medicaid, of course) to be singularly depressing. Thus a middle-class populist movement, IF it concentrated on economic reform through political means, would probably concentrate on capping interest rates, limiting credit card offers to under 21s (are credits any less addictive than alcohol? I'm not sure), a reduction or end to student loans for non-STEM majors, and of course reduction of taxes.
But a middle-class populist movement could (and, really, DOES) concentrate on anti-consumption pro-family movements outside the political sector. The left ignores the constituency that needs help. In fact, politics in general ignores it. No William Jennings Bryan will come around to fight credit card or student debt.
The middle class are going to have to fight with a religious fervor, literal or figurative, against the forces who have tried (and to a great disagree succeeded) at enslaving them with debt. Dave Ramsey is ten times the populist that Obama could ever be.
I think it's not unobtainable to establish a tenable left wing populism based on class & income issues. Michael Moores' documentary "Capitalism: A love story" gives some prime examples of the talking points that these Left-populists could adopt. It's easy to imagine substituting the populist rights' "moral and cultural elite bashing" with a left wing narrative of "squeezing the parasites in the financial and banking industries dry." Chuck in some other rhetoric about ending the war on drugs, the prison-industrial complex, LGBT rights and helping battling families (well, this issue transcends party lines to a degree) and you have yourself a movement.
It's probably safe to say that economical issues have, in part, historically been looked after by trade union & other grass roots organizations. these have tended to have had a 'complex' relationship with both mainstream political parties, to say the least. I personally think a large part of the reason that the Democrats have lost their connection with the white working class is due to the a decline in the roles of trade unions in American working life.
Marc B says,
"The Clinton presidency ruined any chance for democratic populism with it's support of NAFTA, GATT, and the entry into anti-sovereignty WTO."
Sure did. But I disagree with most of the rest of your comment.
Q asks,
"how is it "utter nonsense" to say that Obama has talked like a populist but has shoveled money at left-wing plutocrats?"
Come to think of it, I don't know, because I'm realizing that I don't really understand how the term 'populist' is being consistently used in this post. Or if there is a consistency. I do think the scheming alignments of presidential administrations with plutocrats occurs in on both sides and traditionally happens more with the GOP, a la the housing collapse and congressional reformation of the CRA, which greased the skids for the financial services industry and got the liar-loans up and running. (just one example; and I realize there are thousands that happen on both sides politically)
Neither liberals like Obama and Soros nor fake conservatives like Beck and Palin can be populists. Populism concerns itself with authoritarianism and communitarianism in the private and the public life. Liberals would have a heart attack and suffer brain damage because their precious sexual freedom would be attacked and the neoconservatives would go insane because populists don't typically support the "expanding Western freedom and democracy abroad through wars" ideology. As for the libertarians their financial freedom would be at risk. If the end game was between culture and economics though I think that populists would rather side with culture since culture dictates economics and is far more important.
10:51 anon here again
@One -- You may not be interested in race war but race war is interested in you.
Modern liberalism is specifically engineered (by Germans OF COURSE), to destroy western civilization. That is the entire point. No, "american" liberals can't be populists. Period. End of story.
Frankfurt School
Cultural Marxism
I agree with Justin's interpretations. Well said.
However a true populist movement can only come from the alt-right now. I've become convinced that nationalism and culture will be the driving forces.
I do think the scheming alignments of presidential administrations with plutocrats occurs in on both sides and traditionally happens more with the GOP, a la the housing collapse and congressional reformation of the CRA, which greased the skids for the financial services industry and got the liar-loans up and running.
You spend way too much time reading Talking Points Memo, The New Republic, and The America Prospect. As Reagan, put it, "The problem with our liberal friends is not the things they don't know, but the things they do know which just aren't true". The was plenty of blame to go around for the housing bubble, but if you had to pick just one name which stands out it would be Barney Frank.
Post a Comment