Can Populism Be Liberal?

[polichick]

Can populism be liberal?

The GOP has owned it since Nixon. Democrats would have to return to the New Deal to recapture it

By Michael Lind


Salon composite/AP photos
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (left) and Sen. Jim Webb. Background: Protesters rally against government bailouts in New York in April.

"Is a Jackson revival under way? I'm referring not to the late King of Pop but to the 19th century populist president whom his opponents called "King Andrew." According to Michael Barone, in the 2010 elections Republicans have a chance to knock Democrats out of as many as three dozen insecure congressional seats in "Jacksonian districts."

By itself, this would merely reinforce the identification of the Party Formerly Known as Lincoln's with the white South. But in a time of popular anger over banker bonuses and lobby-hobbled government, the themes of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian populism have appeal far beyond the Scots-Irish enclaves of the Appalachians and Ozarks. Witness the calls from Democrats as well as Republicans for President Obama to oust Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and pay more attention to Main Street than to Wall Street.

In itself, American populism is neither left nor right. Translated into economics, Jacksonian populism spells producerism. For generations, Jacksonian populists have believed that the hardworking majority of small producers is threatened from above and below by two classes of drones: unproductive capitalists and unproductive paupers. While government promotion of public goods like defense, infrastructure and utilities that benefit all citizens is acceptable, Jacksonomics is suspicious of crony capitalists who owe their fortunes to political connections (can you spell B-A-I-L-O-U-T?). And Jacksonian producerism naturally is haunted by the nightmare of a class of the idle poor, who are capable of working but instead live off the labors of others and lack an ownership stake in the community."


http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/11/23/populism/index.html

Some here may not like Michael Lind, but I found this piece very interesting. We need to play our cards a lot better imo.

[ixion]

1. The question is, can liberals be populists?

Their nanny-state tendencies say no.

[polichick]

2. I agree with the article - sure it can, if played differently than it's being played now. nt

[ixion]

4. I would agree with that as well

if they're able to do it.

[Demeter]

11. That Depends on the Definition of "Liberal"

Most people under the Liberal banner are flying false flags, they are anything
but liberal. The Most they can aspire to is "political correctness", which is mere window dressing for concealing apathy towards meaningful change.

Those who call themselves Progressives or Radical revolutionaries are far more likely to be truthful, and liberal.

[notesdev]

14. Yes we can!

But we have to ditch command-and-control groupthink first. It can start with a healthy skepticism of anything the elites tell is is for our own good. By this point I think we have enough evidence to show that these things always turn out for their good and leave us worse off.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Here's the problem with that...

In the U.S., since we turned everything into a suburbia dependent on cars, the only social contact people have, are inside churches.

Churches are the propaganda branch of the GOP.

Back when liberal was populist none of that was the case. The Catholic Church was Democrat, it supported unions, as were many others. We lived in suburbia less. We depended upon cars less. Family lived closer. We were not dependant upon churches for our very social ties.

Now, if you don't go to church, you almost have no social contacts. Sure, maybe one or two beings from work, if you're very, very lucky.

[cadmium]

5. CORRECT. It is Churches and Talk radio n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Yep. Unless we force churches to kneel under the weight of the Constitution...

they will continue to be the propaganda machine of the Neo-Cons.

[cadmium]

15. I dont see that happening though. I think it would be

more successful for liberals to infiltrate churches than to try to suppress them. These righties thrive off our efforts to criticize them. Of course I say that, but I cant stomach to any church unless it is a funeral or a wedding.

[cyclezealot]

7. Populism can be what ever the creator wants it to be

Its an adjective not a Political party. At least not in today's world.. Populist Party on the Prairie's in the 1880's was a bonafide political party with socialist ideals.. They once had the majority in the Oklahoma legislature.. / Today , opportunists have stolen that label and given it a philosophy to their liking.. Huey Long gave it a common man theme, but it was sort of socialist. But, then George C Wallace sounded the common man theme, but it was racist.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I believe

the Internet is forming new social centers, these connections may be trans geographic but nonetheless they're reinforcing.

"Now, if you don't go to church, you almost have no social contacts. Sure, maybe one or two beings from work, if you're very, very lucky."

[OHdem10]

8. Historically, most populism has been Liberal.--looking out for the

little guy.

Our Party has discouraged it after the '60s. and most
especially since the founding of the DLC.

Populism is not in keeping with the Pro-Business Image
the party wishes to project. It appears Democrats do
not believe they win elected office without the support
of business. Therefore, they do not want Activists
out campaigning against business practices. They certainly
do not want to be seen as looking out for the little
guy in spite of business interest.

These changes have taken place as GOP were winning in
both Presidential and Congressional Elections.
They decided to move to the right.

"You cannot do this....You cannot do that....They will
think We(Democrats) are not mainstream."

Populism by it nature--"in the interest of the people"
is liberal. As with everything else, the GOP have
hijacked the concept and developed a "dark populism"
which is for the most part divisive--using wedge issues.

[polichick]

12. We would do so much better if we stopped reacting to the other side...

...and spoke strongly about the interest of the people. You're right - that's a liberal concept!

[Uncle Joe]

10. I believe overall this is a good article but it misses a major connection

between environmentalism, green technology and the creation of new jobs/wages.

The global wide effort to avert catastrophic global warming climate change isn't just about the challenges, it's about the opportunities as well and if the Democrats focus on the silver lining around those ominous clouds, liberalism and populism will strengthen one another.

[polichick]

13. Very true - right now it's all about what people don't want to give up...

Much smarter to emphasize what they will get ~ in addition to a cleaner, more liveable planet.

[therealbarack]

16. Populism was liberal

in the 1890s

[anonymous171]

17. Ditch the Nanny staters (anti-gun crusaders, everyone who agrees with Feinstein, etc)

and institute a New New Deal that guarantees EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN HEALTHCARE (this would not be extended to illegals.)Implement reasonable amounts of protectionism, raise the minimum wage, increase taxes on the rich, lower tax burden for everyone else, minimum sentencing for corporate crimes (death penalty in some cases) and so on. It would be pretty easy. Democrats would just need to stop sucking corporate cock and start fighting for the constituents against the financial elites. Another point on that: We need to frame the fight as one against the economic elites, not just the GOP. Americans hate elitism. It's time we started fighting the real elites instead of the imagined "cultural elites."

[anonymous171]

18. dupe. nt

[burning rain]

19. Populism is about supporting "the little guy" against "the big interests."

A left populist mostly defines the latter as corporate interests, while right populists rail about "big gummint." Unfortunately, the Democratic Party on balance has mostly given up on populism, and thinks it can keep winning as the pro-choice wing of the Republican Party.