Real populism---and it isn't the tea party

[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]

[OHdem10]

1. If the President continues his newly found position as Working

Class Warrior, I am willing to give him and the party
a chance to turn things around.

The Democrats on the Hill need a few spinal transplants
and get in there and slug it out as Working Class Warriors.

[DJ13]

3. A "few"?!

Almost all of them could use a transplant.

[BobbyBoring]

4. I'm afraid that Obamas newly found position

is for campaign purposes only. He had plenty of time before hand to adopt that position and actually campaigned on it in 2008.

[Ship of Fools]

2. I hope he HAS a newly-found backbone ...

If you really want to kick Repub ass, tell them what I told my Repub congresscritter: I told him, truthfully, that my life-long Repub husband just re-registered as a Dem. They wanted to know EVERYTHING about us -- address, phone numbers, etc. I politely declined to tell them anything of the sort. The sooner the Repub jokers understand that the T-Party is nothing but a crock of shit, and a tiny minority to boot, the sooner the saner ones will abandon the treasonous ship ... imo.

Thanks for destroying the country, TPers.

[pnorman]

5. K&R

n/t

[TygrBright]

6. I applaud your premise, but you don't include some important facts.

Populism has NOT "always" been embodied in Progressive groups. The Ku Klux Klan was an enormously effective populist movement at its beginning. Google "the Know-Nothing Party." Xenophobes, racists, and reactionaries can bring plenty of street cred to the "populist" table.

Huey Long--in no way a Progressive--was perhaps THE quintessentially successful populist of the 20th Century more than a decade after Teddy's death. Of course, "Fighting Bob" LaFollette from our side of the aisle could make something of a claim on the title as well.

Populism is a strategy rooted in an emotion-based appeal to those who consider themselves "the people." Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes it's not.

The fact that our Beloved Oligarchs have applied populism as a strategy to bamboozle, hoodwink, bribe and incite "the people" to act in the interests of our Beloved Oligarchs under the delusion that they are acting in their own interests does not mean that the strategy was other than populist in essence. It was "populist" in the pre-Civil Rights south to defend segregation-- at least for the segment of "the people" who happened to be melanin-deficient. "The people" knew that segregation was best for them and their children, it was the elitist Northern eggheads and the pointy-headed intellectuals who were forcing them to act against the interests of "the people."

Populism has always been a cruelly effective tool for our Beloved Oligarchs to split us up and set us at each others' throats.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a populist strategy of our own. But progressive principles have been the victim of "counter-populism" for too long to be effective on their own. We are unlikely to succeed in making them the centerpiece of a progressive populist appeal. Rather, I think we should look at the places where we have common ground with the Baggers (and we DO have common ground with them-- they are pissed off about bailing out the Banksters, known to us as our Beloved Oligarchs. We're pissed off about that too. Among other things.) We should build our own populist appeal on a more coherent, consistent re-iteration of the basic principles we agree on. Here are three areas we have substantial agreement with the Baggers on:

1. No more outsourcing American jobs
2. Take back the bonuses from executives of bailed-out corporations, and make the corporations pay back the bailouts
3. Cut payroll taxes and pay for it by eliminating the cap

In truth, however, I am wary of populism as a strategy, even on our side of the aisle. It lends itself too easily to demagoguery. And it is demagoguery that is in the process of destroying our government, our communities, our Constitution, and our children's future.

thoughtfully,
Bright

[Thats my opinion]

7. Real populism---and it isn't the tea party (sorry hit the wrong button)

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]

[patrice]

8. Populism IS a crossroads for a variety of issues.

The questions are about how people learn to be respectful of one another enough to work on what they share and value their differences at the same time. Personally, I think these are emotional:cognitive issues, because those two traits shape one another.