Forget the style trappings: The common ground for Democrats should be ECONOMIC Populism

[Armstead]

IMO this whole thing about courting the "white working class" misses the point.

This election should not be about social values, at least not in capital letters. It should not be about the perceived "elitism" of Obama and his supporters. Nor should it be about focusing on racism, homophobia, guns or the religious biases of the so-called white working class.

In reality, liberal and progressive "elitists" and the working class and poor have common interests when it comes to economics. Wealth and Power are the real issues.

It doesn't really matter if you drink Bud or Chablis, if you are concerned about the growing concentration of wealth and power, the erosion of the working middle and class and the specific implications of that.

This slicing and dicing of the electorate plays into the hands of the Real Elites, those who want to perpetuate the Class Warfare of the past 40 years.

Democrats should stop frittering around about style, and go for the substance, which is something that can win over the "white working class" as well as African Americans and upper crust whites who "get it."

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Is that the meaning of "hope & change"? If it is, it's a losing battle.

Everybody thinks that they are potentially a millionaire, populism when out with Woody Guthrie & the Great Depression. Populism is an admission that the American Dream no longer exists.

[Armstead]

4. Nooooo......Populism is about keeping the American Dream alive

[Romulox]

10. It's been over for 30 years. Part of the problem is that the upper crust hasn't realized this yet

[kentuck]

2. IMO, that is why Hillary won WV last night...

They are very concerned about their economic situation, moreso than other parts of the country.

[anonymous171]

5. Did you see what Bill Clinton was saying to W Virginians on the campaign trial?

He certainly being a populist, no doubt there. A conservative populist. "They think they are better than you." Bill went on a wedge driving spree through rural WV.

[QC]

3. k&r

[chill_wind]

6. Amen. It's not about black and white. It's about rich and poor. It's THAT simple. n/t

[Solon]

7. The problem is we would need an economic populist to run...

unfortunately, neither of the remaining candidates are populists.

[Armstead]

8. You're right, which brings up an interesting chicken-and-egg querstion

Candidates generally tell the voters what they think the voters want to hear.

Both Obama and Clinton recognize that voters want to hear some degree of populism -- but it's a trimming aorund the edges kind of populism, thatb dewals only with some specific proposals like tax policy.

But I think a large percentage of the country -- perhaps a majority -- would really support more fundamental reform populism, such as addressing the obscene concentrations of wealth and power that have been occurring over the last 40 years.

The chicken-and-egg question then is would candidates become more populist if the population demands it? But what would prompt the people to really push for economic justice, without leadership?

[Solon]

20. The biggest problem is the media...

They are owned by corporations whose influence extends into the defense industry, manufacturing, etc. in addition to being media companies. As such, its in their best interest to marginalize candidates who take actual populist stands against them, we saw what happened to Dennis Kucinich. We should be cautious of any candidate who is now a "media darling" when all they are doing is shifting from one conservative party to another.

The problem isn't that the media(excepting Fox News, which is a special case), is pro-Republican, but that they are anti-populist. They don't see the Democratic party as a threat, only some of their candidates. The Democratic party was great for the media companies, and those companies are, by and large, non-partisan when it comes to the parties themselves. We have two generally anti-populist and warmongering political parties in the United States, the media has no problem with either of them, what it does have a problem with are populists, of any stripe.

[Romulox]

9. "liberal and progressive "elitists" and the working class and poor have common interests"

I haven't seen any evidence of this whatever, to tell you the truth. The "elitists" seem to fully behind free trade/H1B/outsourcing, etc. As is Barack Obama.

In fact, many of the "progressives" appear openly hostile to the economic interests of the working class.

[Armstead]

11. That's why I put "elitists" in quotation marks -- We need to get our terms straight

I used the word "elitist" there in an ironic sense, reflecting the label used against them by cconservatives and neo-liberals (economic free marketeers).

You are correct that some people who call themselves liberals and progressives are actually elitists in an economic sense. I hate to say it, but underneath her current rhetoric, Hillary Clinton represents that.

But that is not the brand of progressive or liberal that I am referring to.

I would cite people like Paul Wellstone, Bernie Sanders, Sen. Shrerrod Brown etc. as real liberals and progressives who represent the interests of the working classes, in terms of addressing the disparities of wealth and power and advocating for true economic justice.

[Romulox]

12. What about Austan Goolsbee? Surely Barack Obama's chief economic advisor is also an "elitist"

when it comes to economics, and surely he is not a "populist".

Listen, I sympathize greatly with your cause (it is the cause that made me a Democrat so many years ago, and the neglect of which is driving me away today.) But cognitive dissonance is defined by hearing one thing, and imagining what was said was something directly opposed to what was said. When Barack Obama says, "I believe in Capitialism. I believe in Free Trade," he means it.

There is no hidden populist in the Obama campaign--he is almost disinterested in the economy, and he has surrounded himself with the same neoliberals (see Goolsbee) that may only ironically adopt the mantle of "progressive"...;(

[Romulox]

13. Also note how the Obama devotees let this one sink...nt

[Armstead]

14. It's a question of degree -- And my OP also had Obama in mind

I agree that Obama is no progressive populist or liberal in the degree which I am talking about. Edwards came closer (at least in rhetoric) and Kucinich was there. IMO if Obama really wants to coiunter that "elitist" stuff is to become more of a populist.

But I do think Obama is at least more receptive to progressives than Clinton is. I think Obama's positions are formed from a different set of experiences than Hillary, and he seems to have sincerely tried to come up with a synthesis. Hillary has been too locked into the Neoliberal Free Trade Movement for too long, so she thinks progressives are naive fools.

I don't think it is unprogressive to say one is in favor of free trade or capitalism. The devil of such things is always in the details. Today "free trade" is synymous with a conservative philisophy that has more to do with ideology than actual efforts to encourage healthy trade.

Regarding Golsbee, that did make me uncomfortable. But I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and say that he has a spectrul of advisors, and Golsbee got too self-important with that meeting. Dunno though. :shrug:

So I have no illusions about Obama. I do believe the Democratic Party ouoght to get back to being a party in which burly union guys and effete intellectuals share a basic set of assumptions about the need to fight for economic justice.

[Goodnevil]

15. Economic Populism

Is a fine idea and I support it, but we have to get around the fact that our nation's elite and wealthy are investing their wealth in the global market and have no need to make sure the middle class is healthy enough in this country to buy their crap.

As far as our elites are concerned, even if everyone here in the states are poor as church mice, there's always some middle class schmuck in Shanghai who will buy a bottle of coke.

Therein lies the problem...Cyberpunk talks about this...the rise of the corporate elites through globalism. Globalism is the key for corporations to throw off the shackles of national law and any responsibility to the body politic. They are the creators of international law because they are the only true international actors involved all over the world in every country. Rise of the MNC, baby.

There are tons of arguments against this, I realize, but it is a consideration. Whole books could and have been written about it.

How do you reign them in when they can simply shift their HQ's to another country?

The only thing I can think of is to create such a massively destabilized world that the safe borders of the U.S. is the only decent place to run a company. Any other ideas?

[Armstead]

17. 2 points

I agree with your analysis, but that tendency is not something we should -- or have to -- take lying down.

1)In a political sense, government has always been the corrective balance against the natural tendency of corporations to grow too big and abuse their power. The specifics may be different today, but that dynamic has always been one of the basic dynamics in the relationship between politics and economics. Progressive/Liberal Populism has been ideology that represents that counterbalance against corporate power. But in order to at least achieve that balance, there has to be a political force that represents the interests of the majority (workers, consumers). A major reason things have gone too far is that the Democratic Party lost sight of it's role in that. IMO there is a popular will to support that degree of populism -- what it needs is a mainstream representative of that, which for better or worse is the natural role of the Democratic Party.

2)In economic terms, the US is still one of the most powerful markets there is. It's going to be a while before otehr nations truly achieve the level of buying power and intellectual capital of the US, and corporations do know that. SO the US still has a lot of leverage to set the rules for doing business here.

Those aren;t the only answer, but it is a start, IMO.

[Goodnevil]

18. I guess it's our job then

to deal with the corporations now so that later on they don't gain an even larger foothold than they already have.

You raise excellent points, though I do not know if I share your evaluation that the buying power of the EU is less than the U.S. by very much. India and China are rising (and Russia), but are faced with a number of different growth problems.

I'm hoping that the internet and business originated on the internet will play a large part in reducing the power of the megacorps...but Google may prove me wrong.

If the nature of corporations were more democratic and less aristocratic, I would be wholly in favor of letting them run things. That isn't the case, however, as we all know.

It is also very difficult for the Republic in which we live to take any kind of adversarial relationship against corporations since so many of our people work for them. The upside on that is that many Americans have lost faith in the corporation, as an entity, to provide stable jobs, and therefore may contribute to the decline of the popularity of corporate jobs.

If the federal government takes a greater role in providing health care to the U.S. citizenry, we will see a further reduction in the actual need for corporate jobs (group health plans). Universal health care may be one of the pivotal steps in creating real economic populism in the U.S. and loosening the hold of the corps.

[Jamastiene]

16. Nice try, but Obots are stingy, snobby and hate poor people.

My momma didn't raise a fool. I'm not getting in bed with people that hate me. I'd wake up dead with the Obama bunch. They have no compassion or willingness to quit stereotyping those of us in poorer rural areas. No deal.

[Goodnevil]

19. I am poor

and I spent four years in college to be poor. I support Obama.

I do not dislike poor people.

I abhor ignorance, however.

[unlawflcombatnt]

21. Exactly

It should be about serving the interests of the majority of Americans, not just rich campaign contributors.