Populism--the Democrats's New Red Meat:.....will it fly?

[cryofan]

Newsweek media whore Jonathon Alter pontificates on the use of populism by the Democrats:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Even before Howard Dean began his stump speech, before he thrashed President Bush for giving tax cuts to "Ken Lay and the boys at Enron" (a jab he repeated three times), Dave Pitz, a retired teacher sitting in the audience in Newton, Iowa, had the message down cold. "Bush has become the CEO of corporate America," Pitz told me matter-of-factly. A central question of the 2004 campaign is whether enough voters agree with Pitz that Bush is a fiscally reckless president devoted not to them but to wealthy special interests. If the issue is framed that way and the frame sticks, a responsible populist message could work, though it would be the first time in modern political history that it did so. The Democratic candidates differ little on domestic issues. Theirs is essentially a contest to see which one has the best variation on that theme.

....
In 2000, Al Gore ran under the slogan "The people versus the powerful." But the Democrats held power, so the argument didn't resonate. This time the corporatist GOP runs Washington and the M.B.A. president seems to make every decision—from the environment to prescription drugs to immigration—according to the specifications of industry. The Teddy Roosevelt idea, accepted by both parties for a century, was that government should provide a check on big-business interests. Now, says John Edwards, the White House is "married" to those interests. The "creed of greed," says John Kerry, lets the lobbyists actually write the bills. Dick Gephardt says Bush is such a sellout he "makes me nostalgic for Ronald Reagan." Forget mad cow. Democrats have found a new kind of red meat that their audiences devour.


There's a scene in Ron Suskind's new book, "The Price of Loyalty," that illuminates the point in another context. In a 2002 White House meeting, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is arguing strongly against a second round of tax cuts for the wealthy. At first, the president seems to agree. "Didn't we already give them a break at the top?" he asks. Karl Rove reminds Bush that he must "stick to principle," and he does. The "principle" to which they have devoted their presidency is that the "top"—not the middle class or the uninsured or the grandchildren who will shoulder the cost—go to the front of the line every time.

....

And in part because it rarely works. On one level, populism is doomed: half the population own stocks and the market is back up. Unemployment isn't rampant. Those without a college degree who suffer most don't vote and getting them to the polls has proved futile for Democrats in recent elections. Organized labor is shrinking fast. Everyone wants to be rich.


Of course, this last paragraph is just a perfect example of the corporatist capitalism lottery culture that has run amok in America.

So, will economic populism work? Is it a form of class war?

The media is leaking that during the SOTU speech, Bush will propose a new healthcare initiative. It may well be another tiresome tax credit, but if it is more, it may, in turn, precipitate more extensive healthcare proposals from the Democratic candidates. And how would they propose we pay for it? Increased taxes on the wealthy? SOunds good to me!
More of the article here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3989850/

[Disandra]

1. Yes it will.

I have met many people who feel this way, who are sick of being treated by the "coporaltist capitalism lottery culture."

What is most striking to me is the fact that this attitude is not prevalent among just my generation (mid-to late twenties). My father, a life long Conservative (big difference between a neoCON and a conservative, I may disagree with him on certain issues, but he is a reasonable, intelligent person) has been sounding more and more like me. He has worked hard all of his life, and just recently got "layed off because of the economy" (fired and at the age of 52) because someone was doing something immoral and illegal, that could cost the company millions in lawsuits and he reported it to upper-management. He did the right thing, has been an excellent employee, and was fired for it.

Many of his friends are being "layed off" after (in some cases) decades of hard work. They have lost pension plans due to "corporate fraud" and no one is doing a damned thing about it. Many of them (including my father) are veterans who are (yet again) getting screwed when it comes to medical benefits, etc.

For the first time in his voting life (and in many of his friend's voting lives), they will be voting for the Democratic ticket. Bush, to them, represents this immoral coporalitst culture, and they are sick and tired of getting screwed. They may not be out on the streets marching, writing to newspapers, or otherwise making their voices heard, but I have a sneaking suspicion on Election Day, Dubya and his criminal co-horts are going to be in for a nasty surprise when millions of people like my father, traditional conservatives, are voting for the Democratic candidate.

[cryofan]

3. I also expect a Dem landslide

THere is a LOT of interest in this election, it seems.

Then again, I also thought Kucinich would be in this race by now.....

[Eloriel]

2. ABSOLUTELY! In spades

IMO it's where the Democratic should be now, and always. IMO, that is their FUNCTION and entire PURPOSE.

It's the DLC, btw, which disses populism, altho it's my understanding (tho a vague one) that there is a historical populism (late 1800s? early 1900s?) which was somehow discredited.

Here's the way I see it: The Repugs are always and ever representing wealthy and corporate interests. The Dems are SUPPOSED TO represent people's interests against (where necessary and appropriate) these wealthy and corporate interests -- and thus we have a balance of power with government the arbiter or tool used by each party (in the process of governance) to effect the balance.

The Democratic Party has for too long now have completely forgotten their roots, their purpose, their entire reason for being.

Class warfare? That's a term the repugs trot out (and the DLC too, of course) when the people begin to get a whiff of how unfair things are getting and say something about it. They're the ones always engaged in it, but when we dare to join the battle, they object!! Oh, my, can't have that nasty ole class warfare now, can we? IOW, we certainly can have class warfare just as long as the lower classes don't notice or mind all that much.