Reply #7: Real populism---and it isn't the tea party (sorry hit the wrong button) [View All]

[Thats my opinion]

REAL POPULISM----AND IT ISN’T THE TEA PARTY (9/29)

A contemporary fantasy assumes that the Tea Party is today’s best example of populism. As we pointed out a few weeks ago, populism in the United States has always been embodied in progressive groups that spoke for the common folks against big business, corporate power and the influence of wealth. But the Tea Party is funded by forces speaking for big business, corporate power and the influence of wealth! Somehow a few million Americans have been hoodwinked without realizing how far the T.P. line is from real progressivism. The Tea party embodies the mirror opposite. Its backing resides not in the grassroots, but in the very corporate power brokers that real populism seeks to dethrone. Fox News, and its multi-billionaire owner Rupert Murdoch, is a prime example of what fuels the Tea Party—and he is hardly a populist. Major funding has come from the Koch brothers. Not only have they bankrolled both the Tea Party and almost every other right-wing powerhouse, they have been vigorously opposed to everything grass-roots progressives stand for.

Perhaps the Bull Moose, Teddy Roosevelt, was the last great American populist. Look at the major planks in the 1912 platform of his “Progressive Party.”
• A National Health Service encompassing all existing government medical agencies.
• Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
• Limited injunctions in strikes.
• A minimum wage law for women.
• An eight-hour workday.
• A federal securities commission.
• Farm workers economic relief. Workers' compensation for work-related injuries.
• An inheritance tax.
• A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.
• Women's suffrage.

That’s populism, and what it echoes is the opposite of what the Tea Party—now in virtual control of the Republican machine—assumes is progressive ideology! Jim Hightower of Texas, who has been publishing a monthly news sheet (The Hightower Lowdown) for decades, is today’s best example of what populism is really all about. He describes how it began in Texas in 1877 when the banks and railroads controlled destitute farmers who finally revolted at the 20 to 25% interest they were being charged. They got organized, and populist candidates were subsequently elected all across the country, emanating in the Progressive Party.

Jim Hightower says, “Populism at its essence is a determined focus on helping people be able to get out of the iron grip of corporate power that has overwhelmed our economy, the environment, energy, the media, and government. Real populists understand that government has become a subsidiary of corporate power.”

Is there any responsible populist movement today? One might hope the Democratic Party would at least understand what is going on within its own constituency, but it too may now be at the mercy of the corporate funders. What happened to Obama’s pre-election grassroots fundraising? Perhaps Move On is all that’s left.

While some residue of populism may reside in a couple of splinter parties, there is not enough energy in them to launch anything but trouble for the Democrats. Purists might want to look in the direction of a new party or even a different Democratic candidate, but most of us remember the body blow we took when support of Nader in Florida elected Bush.

Nevertheless, the populist remnant of the Democratic Party sits looking for a reason to get involved in the next election. Maybe there is a newly found backbone somewhere buried in the President’s jobs bill. We may have an intimation that he is no longer willing to back off hoping the Republicans will come along in sufficient numbers. If so there may be a reason for progressives to stay involved. It also may portend a winning electoral strategy. I’m willing to wait and see before I jump off the roof.
Charles Bayer
[e-mail]