Someone make me feel better about this Kerry article in The Nation

[mrgorth]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040426&s=greider

<snip>
So far, the team appears to be following the same playbook--center-right and investor-friendly--that turned Al Gore into a formless pudding during the 2000 campaign. "This group is consulting literally daily with Bob Rubin," Altman gushed. Former Treasury Secretary Rubin gave us NAFTA and other free-trade milestones that led to the jobs hemorrhage.
<snip>

To me, it is so PAINFULLY obvious that populism is the winning card, and maybe the only winning card, vs. Bush this year, it's rediculous. Everyone seemed to get this when they were trying to sound like Dean. Now, Dean's out of the way and it's back to mush. There is so much info out there now. I really think that if Kerry would just come out and tell people about the way taxes really work, how they're getting taken, if he'd just FIGHT we'd have a winner and winner that mattered. Please tell me this article is overreacting.

[latebloomer]

1. can't read it because I'm not a subscriber

but I have no illusions about Kerry. He may be somewhat better on domestic issues, but he is in the pocket of the powers that really control things. Hearing about his PNAC advisor really made my blood run cold.

[papau]

2. Rubin and 23 million jobs is indeed "in" - but all would now hold out

for trade deals that are more protective of min wage/environment/ worker safety.

Times change - and I think everyone is on board the WHO free trade is bull bandwagon - while still saying they are in favor of free trade - if properly run.

Indeed a lot of World Bank studies suggest the need for trade treaty level restrictions on social conditions.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. I generally support is moderate-pro market views.

I too would like to be very wealthy someday.
I support NAFTA though we should amend it to deal with enviromental protections and workers right (wages, NO OUTSOURCING).
We should have "Fair Trade", not "Free Trade" because Americans need to make a living too.

I am concerned about connections with members of PNAC.
They are our enemy!!! John Kerry will hear from us if he gets any ideas.

:dem:

[sangh0]

4. Two things

1) How many populists have been elected to the Presidency? Can you name even one? How long ago?

2) Do you really base your opinion on one article? I would explain some things to you, but why should I when all my efforts would only be wasted when you read another whore's article?

[mrgorth]

5. No need to get nasty

The Nation is my main source of lefty news. If you want to debunk it I'd appreciate it.

Populists? FDR? Truman? RFK was killed so he wouldn't get elected. The Clinton years didn't demand a populist. These do.

[sangh0]

6. What's nasty?

You said that Kerry should go populist because you thought that was the way to win the election. In light of that, I see nothing inappropriate or nasty about asking you for some historical evidence to back your position.

As far as your reading material, you can read whatever you like. However, if your opinion can be changed by one article, and what you posted strongly suggests that it could, then why shouldn't I question the value explaining something to you?

Populists? FDR? Truman? RFK was killed so he wouldn't get elected.

None of them were populists, and their campaigns were not populist either. One of the identifying characteristics of populism is a strong distaste for a strong central govt because populists believe that a strong central govt is inherently opposed to the people's interests. FDR and Truman did not campaign against a strong central govt. If anything, they campaigned on making central govt stronger so it could better help the people.

And I have absolutely no idea why you would consider RFK a populist.

[no name no slogan]

9. Not inherently true

One of the identifying characteristics of populism is a strong distaste for a strong central govt because populists believe that a strong central govt is inherently opposed to the people's interests.

Back in the days of William Jennings Bryan this may have been true, but it's not necessarily a trait of modern populism (or populists, either).

Modern populists are not so much concerned about the concentration of governmental power, but of corporate power. They (rightfully) see the corporate elite as having a stranglehold on not only the economy but also the culture and government of this country.

That is why both Jim Hightower and Pat Robertson (circa '88) could both be labelled populusts. Hightower rails against the economic/government power of monied interests and corporateions, while Pat Robertson attacked the cultural and economic dominance by the corporate/Hollywood elite.

IOW, the government itself is not always the evil one, but the corporations who control it are.

[sangh0]

11. I don't see it

Modern populists are not so much concerned about the concentration of governmental power, but of corporate power. They (rightfully) see the corporate elite as having a stranglehold on not only the economy but also the culture and government of this country.

Populists understand the overlap of governmental power and corporate power, which is why they oppose a strong central govt. That's why you can't name any successful modern populists. Hightower and Buchanan don't count as "successful". If they're the best you can do, I don't see why you would say that populism would win an election when the two you mention haven't won any elections lately.

And please, don't misunderstand me. I do believe that a tougher line on corporate power, phrased right, could have a beneficial effect for the Kerry campaign. But populism is a little more than just opposing corporate power.

[mobuto]

7. There are many winning cards

populism being one of them - but not one that's especially easy for John Kerry to use. Most of the time, when Kerry tries to act like a populist, he just winds up looking silly. I think the facts are clear: John Kerry's economic plans will help the overwhelming majority of Americans, especially poor and working class folks. That he isn't a "man of the people" and cavorts with Clinton-era economic wizzes (Rubin was a brilliant Secretary of the Treasury) doesn't change the inescapable fact that Kerry is Kerry, not John Edwards, not Rosa Luxemburg, and not Howard Dean.

[rinsd]

8. Well said (nt)

[no name no slogan]

10. Good point. Kerry playing populist would look ridiculous

It's very hard to feel akin to a multi-millionaire lawyer who lives in an exclusive neighborhood in Boston. It would be pretty hard for him to pull off the "fighting populist" image with any credibility.

As Popeye the Sailor would say, "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam".

[Cocoa]

12. he'll move to the left after he's elected

whatever he does in the general election is positioning, with the obvious goal of winning the election. When he's president, I'm confident he will be more liberal than his election rhetoric and his senate record.

[AntiCoup2K4]

21. He didn't move to the right just FOR the election, that's the problem.

He's moved there consistently since the Coup in 2000, at precisely the time when Democratic leadership was most needed in Congress to oppose this sickening fascism. And instead of opposing it, Kerry chose his foreign policy team from within their own ranks.

Now which of those actions suggest Kerry will "move to the left"?? Anybody care to explain exactly how that can happen when he's already endorsed the "kinder, gentler PNAC" called PPI?

[blm]

25. Care to describe how Dean's foreign policy positions were different than

PPI?

Dean's advisors were AIPAC and Iraq war profiteers and you exalt him.

Every occur to you that ONE centrist advisor does NOT a foreign policy make? There are plenty of lefties who advise Kerry, too. You ignore them because you don't WANT people to understand the whole picture, so you pretend they don't exist.

[JI7]

13. John Kerry is more liberal than Dean

i don't know where the dean populism stuff comes from. he needs to unseal his records so we can judge him as people do kerry from his years in public service. john kerry's national service plan is a big example of supporting government backed programs to help all people.you see people on here call it slavery as republicans do though. his health care is better than the other candidates also. the other candidates never called kerry on the high cost of his programs because it would show kerry's programs were better. kerry has a good record when it comes to labor and the environment. his record on the environment is the best out there. and robert rubin should be used in this campaign. he understands the issues, he knows the lies concerning the "new" jobs created recently which are mostly those grocery workers on strike who went back to work and people taking part time jobs because they really need the money.

[mrgorth]

14. This isn't a "whose more liberal" thread

Dean isn't running anymore. My fear is that Kerry is going to run a milquetoast campaign like Gore did.

[Bombtrack]

15. Dean was a false populist, pro-free trader, pro-tax shelter

silver spoon fed phony. Solidly to the right of Kerry.

The Kerry amendment to Nafta was a hell of alot more of an effort for populism than Dean's prominent support of Nafta period

[JNelson6563]

17. The Dean Fear Factor

My look at all the attacks on a guy who's been out of the races for ages!

That was some deep-as-rooted fear. ;-)

Julie

[maxanne]

18. good point Julie

If Kerry loses, it's gonna be Dean's fault.

Nothing much has changed around here, I see.

[sangh0]

19. Huh?

I've only noticed this one anti-Dean post, and I don't see anyone blaming Dean for Kerry's success or his problems.

Are you sure you're not hallucinating?

on edit: I noticed another with a barely detectable Dean critique. So that make two. Someone's alittle hyper-sensitive

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. Is this where you tell us how you "love Dean", Sangh* ?

;)

[maxanne]

23. yep

always a fountain of wisdom, sangvowel.

[OneBlueSky]

16. btw, the column's by William Greider . . .

which makes me, at least, sit up and take notice . . . I think he makes some good points . . .

[eridani]

20. From a Christian conservative

Kucinich is, of course, the real populist on this issue. Worden didn't even know Dean's position.

http://sierratimes.com/03/12/29/ar_carlworden.htm

I am a Christian conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, and I write for a largely conservative and excellent Internet news and opinion publication called The Sierra Times. Remarkably, the positive responses I received from that article ran 8 to 2, 2 being those who said I was dead, absolutely DEAD wrong. The fact that largely conservative readers responded as positively as they did, means I am not wrong, and I am sticking to my prediction that Howard Dean will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

The issue that I believe will put Dean right over the top will be his condemnation of NAFTA/GATT, free trade, and his pledge to end our participation in the World Trade Organization. If Dean wants to win by a comfortable margin, all he has to do is THAT. The massive number of red states that voted for Bush last election will turn to blue, and Dean will waltz into the White House like a halfback who strolls untouched into the end zone. End of game.

Of course, I have no idea what Dean’s position is on free trade, NAFTA/GATT or the WTO. As far as I know, he hasn’t said. Maybe he’s saving that for the finishing shot. I’m speculating of course, but Mr. Dean, if you are reading this, I just gave you the keys to the White House.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

26. Mondale and Dukakis populists?

You're kidding, right?

[Bill Todd]

27. You might enjoy this article from the Progressive Review

(though it may not make you feel any better about Kerry):

http://prorev.com/rockwell.htm

- bill