- ‹ previous
- 7641 of 8922
- next ›
Can Economic Populism -- or "Authenticity" -- Save the Democrats?
Last week, some of the Democrats' most engaged proponents of pushing the Democrats leftwards -- including Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana and author Thomas Franks -- gathered to promote economic populism at a panel discussion (scroll down to see video excerpts) about David Sirota's new book, Hostile Takeover.
The book is a useful compendium of the way big-money interests have corrupted our political process, leading to the screwing of the public through such legislation as our energy policy and Medicare Part D.
But Sirota and other progressives are spending too much of their ire targeting the Democratic Leadership Council as corporate sell-outs. In fact, the DLC, even if there's a reasonable critique to be made of their free-trade policy, offers a range of sensible ideas on security, health and the economy that may have a better shot at Congressional passage and public support than some of the ideas pushed by Sirota. Remember, only two centrist Southern Democrats, such as Clinton and Carter, have been elected to the presidency since 1964. (Full disclosure: I'm a freelance policy analyst for the DLC-affiliated Progressive Policy Institute, and did a scathing critique of the Bush administration's mental health policy last year -- hardly a flack for "Republican lite" policies.)
When I asked Sirota and the other panelists about previous Democratic presidential successes and past failures of populist messages nationally, he contended, "Any candidate who makes it clear that he will stand against big-money interests will inspire people on [their] authenticity beyond economic issues." Will that be enough? Walter Mondale and George McGovern believed what they said on issues, too, and that didn't seem to inspire people to vote for them. (The American Prospect's Harold Meyerson, pointed out, rightly, that Clinton, especially, campaigned to the left of where he actually governed, thus raising his hopes that a full-fledged populist could win the presidency.)
Yet Governor Schweitzer, a straight-talking Democrat who has won in a red state, contended it was the weakness of our candidates in articulating populist messages that doomed them. "A lot of candidates do the focus groups and pick the top five issues that test well," he noted. "They have to believe the stuff. Leaders don't lead by polling you. This is why we have to have issues presented in a way that validates character -- and explain it in a way that they're sure about me as a person." In other words, authentic candidates who strongly present their case can win election support, even if people don't agree with every position they take -- as long as they trust you as a person. That's the approach Bush used in his first election campaign, no matter how much we may have disliked his phony down-home act.
Schweitzer argued, "Our candidates haven't touched our heart -- and we haven't done that since Bill Clinton. The last two candidates for president just recited the polling. Until we find a candiate who can touch hears, we'll lose elections, one after another."
But even writers for The American Prospect, which co-sponsored the discussion, have raised questions about the new quest for authenticity among progressives. Under a posting called "Authenticity is Stupdi," Sam Rosenfeld
argues, "Authenticity is a pointless thing to care about in politics. Obsessing over the personal motivations and supposed core beings of individual political actors is, in fact, close to the opposite of what politics is actually all about. Institutional arrangements and historical contingencies largely determine political (and thus policy) outcomes, and outcomes are what matter."
But it wouldn't hurt if the Democrats offered stronger, more personable and more courageous candidates. And why does it take political losses for Al Gore and John Kerry to finally find their voices? After insisting throughout his election campaign that he didn't regret his vote to give the President the authority to go to war against Iraq, he finally conceded casually last month on "Meet the Press" that it was a mistake to vote for the war. Here's the exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back to October of 2002, when you stood up on the floor of the Senate and said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, the means to deliver them perhaps to the U.S., potentially nuclear weapons, and then voted to authorize the president to go to war. Your running mate, the man you selected to be the next president of the United States, John Edwards, was on this program. He wrote an op-ed piece first in The Washington Post, and he wrote this: "I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told - and what many of us believed and argued - was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake." Was it a mistake for you to vote for the war in 2002?
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. I've said so many times, many times since then. [Note: except when it counted, during the Presidential primaries and national campaign, when you might have inspired the Democratic base to turn out in larger numbers for you. But I'll let that pass].
MR. RUSSERT: And you take responsibility for it?
SEN. KERRY: You better believe I take responsibility for it. And that's one of the reasons why I'm here today, Tim. You know, last night, late at night, I went down to the Wall, the Vietnam Wall. I was amazed by the numbers of people there, 10:30, 11:00 at night, it's incredible. You walk down that ramp, and as you go down it gets deeper and deeper, and the wall gets higher and higher, and you see these names after names after names; thousands, tens of thousands. They were added to that wall. They died after our leaders knew the policy wasn't working. And I believe I have a moral responsibility, as we all do in America, to get this right for our soldiers.
Of all the losing candidates we've fielded -- Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry -- which one was the worst? That's not an easy call, but as comedian Lewis Black said about Kerry, in a mean-spirit, politically-incorrect comment, "What's wrong with you Democrats? Having John Kerry lose to George Bush was like having a normal person lose in the Special Olympics."
Kerry talked up populism, but not in an effective way that anybody noticed. Can we find an effective candidate out there who is a)charismatic and telegenic b)courageous and c) can effectively articulate a populist message?
I'm willing to give it a chance, even if it hasn't worked on the national level before. (Sirota has made a compelling case that it can work at the local and state level.) . But with campaign fund-raising laws rigged to favor corporate interests -- even with public financing of presidential elections -- it's going to be hard finding such a bold candidate who can summon the resources to prevail. Any suggestions?
There was a pretty good analysis of poll data by Ruy Tuxiera in the American Prospect a couple of weeks ago arguing that what is hurting Democrats the most is that voters don't know what they stand for...or don't believe they stand for anything. That is what is meant by authenticity. The conclusion was that the Democrats need to clarify who they are and what they stand for and present a compelling alternative to the Republicans based on positioning themselves as the party that is working to uphold the common good. In essence this is a communitarian narrative based on appealing to a shared national interest that all Americans can support like, for example, the emerging national consensus around the need for energy independence. I think this is good as far as it goes, but a Populist attack on Republican pandering to the rich and special interests has to precede this communitarian coda. Political discourse is always about dividing the political landscape into "us and them" prior to offering a vision of unity which can make the country better and potentially heal the divisions.
Actually, what the DLC is for ISN'T "free trade." It's corporate mercantilism--i.e., massive state intervention on a global scale to benefit TNCs. Any bunch that's in cahoots with Jack Valenti and Dan Glickman doesn't have much use for free markets.
A REAL free trade policy would require only eliminating trade barriers and allowing Americans to do business with anyone, anywhere they wanted, on whatever terms they could negotiate on their own--in return for which, American business would fully all the costs and risks of its own overseas trade, instead of relying on corporate welfare and gunboat diplomacy.
And I was thinking there's a big, ol' conspiracy at work here..., one involving both Gore and Kerry.
Let's get this straight: Gore (the Great White Hope environmentalist) loses to Bush, though he actually won! Now, Bush (the Devil's Good Buddy anti-environmentalist) won the day through the most blatant crime imaginable, but Gore, the Great White Hope, turns his back on the environment at the same time he's turning a blind eye to the fact that he, himself, with his legal education, can actually give that dreadful, bad boy Bush the Big Boot...
And, of course, the 20001 election fraud, was the big reason for the mass introduction of electronic voting machines..., which are easily beat...
So..., Bush beats Kerry, or does he...
Then, along comes the Great White Hope, who maybe isn't...
Doesn't it behoove us to remember here that, "It isn't who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." (Stalin)
Personally, I think that campaign advertising ought to be banned. Such advertising campaigns don't serve any proper purpose (truely informing people of anything).
Instead, a candiate, or proposition, should be "exposed" to the public in a "sterile" atmosphere, free of all artificial hype." In such an atmosphere, people could actually make an informed decision.
All to often, Big Money is able to win the day, not because the people have chosen wisely but rather because the loser never had a chance to truely compete against Big Money...
We should step back from the question of whether the Democratic party should move to the left or continue trailing behind the Republicans as they continue to drift further and further to the right. We need to think about why candidates are making the decisions they do.
A big reason Democratic candidates have neglected their base is that they have been told that this is what they need to do to win elections. Why do Democratic politicians continue to put faith in what the consultants say even after they are so often wrong? Can't our leaders think for themselves?
The party at large is as gullible as its leaders. Why do we continue to put faith in what the media says. Who made these dim-wit talking heads the arbiters of what is true? Why do we continue to credit these self-appointed know-it-alls with having so much insight when they so consistently mislead us?
We let these talking heads decide for us who may be a viable candidate. They tell us who is likeable and who fibs. They tell us who is stiff and who we would want to share a beer with. Do we have to depend on them because we are incapable of making these kinds of judgements on our own?
Two great slogans for Democratic candidates, the first suggested by Newt Gingrich, the second by Jim Hightower:
"Had Enough?"
"We're on Your Side"
TV has been damaging to real, sincere, thoughtful candidates. To get enough of the votes of the people who get all their information from TV you need a candidate that looks very American, (with a quiet wife with an adoring gaze at the candidate). Nobody could have won over Eisenhower. Kennedy fits the new model.Carter sort of fits the model, but Nixon's mistakes elected Carter. Nobody can beat a professional actor whose specialty was being the nice guy. Gore really won. Kerry was hurt by his wife and the Catholic Church's need to punish him. The republican party is historically the patriotic party - they won the Civil War. Even with the solid south the democratic party (since the Civil War) has only won when the republican party really messed up. Clinton looked more human on TV than the elder Bush, who messed up on taxes. Until campaigning on TV is forbidden we will keep getting a stupider government than in the past.
Why all this diversion crap? Face the real issue. You do not have a democracy.The election is just another big endian/little endian "battle". The do nothing dems are just the little endian wing of the United Corporations of Jesusland. Like the man said" If u think these politicians are bad u should see their constituents" Get back to whatching tv or get out on the street.
Actually it was Pierre Salinger whom I first heard "Had Enough?" from, and that was way back when. Dwight Eisenhower won the presidency, and the little banner went up in the back window of Pierre's car the next day. Newt did not say it first, and it WOULD be a good slogan again. So would "we're on your side."
The problem with the Dems is that they are the party of the people but they have forgotten/lost sight of that fact. Repubs are the party of the wealthy and the businesses. The one unequivocal fact is that there are more of us(the average, everyday, ordinary people; the citizens) 'we the people actually outnumber them(wealthy and businesses) and we can win even though it is they who have the money.
As long as we have the votes (until Alito,Supreme Court and Diebold's electronic voting machines take our votes away) we can/should win elections every time. So, why don't we... I say 'WE' meaning the American people.
We don't because too many Dems are just too busy being politicians and committing the one cardinal sin, the worst political sin of all which is lying to the American people, the voters. That is without a doubt the worst political strategy of all.
Yes Bush,Rove,Repubs,Cheney,Rice,Rumsfeld are the biggest liars of all, but they also very successfully conceal that fact via spin/rhetoric. Most Americans cannot see through their lies,spin and rhetoric.
To see through the Rovian/Bush/Repub bullshit one must take some college coursework in Linguistics,Psychology and Sociology. For those who do not have the time, money or desire they can read the writings of Noam Chompsky, Finkelstein, Lakoff et.al. The aforementioned and many others can cut right through the Repub bullshit/ spin/ rhetoric. The Bushie/Rovies are the most corrupt form of salesman on the planet, even worse than used car salesman, insurance agents and lawyers(Gonzales,Yoo and Ashcroft ad infinitum).
If the Dems would do the same and were as good at it they too would win in politics; but at the same time destroying our beloved America just as Bush and the Repubs are doing. Do I recommend that the Dems do the same, absolutely NOT, NOT, NOT. America and the world cannot survive many more years(JEB BUSH et.al.) of this. Our beloved America is falling apart on an almost daily basis.
The neocons who are really nazis want 'A New World Order' just as the nazis did and since they have no morals like the nazis, they will do absolutely anything and everything, whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. But their idea of 'A New World Order' includes you and me only in so far as we become the workers and taxpayers who provide the labor and money to make the world their way. We will have no vote, no representation but lots of taxation and only the freedoms they choose to give/ allow us to have. 'We the people', serve no other purpose in the eyes of the neocon/ fascists, The Council On Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Instead of trying so hard to get elected the Dems have to learn to do the exact opposite as the Repubs. The Dems must learn to, above all else, SPEAK THE TRUTH. That is the single most important aspect of good politics namely, don't politic, just SPEAK THE TRUTH to the American people.
The second thing is to learn to be for the people, stand up for America, do what is right for America, just do the right thing. The Dems must learn to NOT engage in political strategy/ strategizing. Political strategists are death to the Democratic party unless they can find paranoid sociopaths like Karl Rove and George Bush. And even if they could find such people who can sell total bullshit to the American people do they really want to go there just to get elected. That is and those are the question(s) the Dems must ask/decide for themselves.
For the sake of full disclosure, I am a conservative, independant, swing voter, humanist, Catholic(but not a Catholic fundamentalist like Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas).
When they(Dems) answer that/those questions in there own minds then they will be able to formulate a party platform that the American people will accept.
Let's face it the Repubs are just great liars, that is the plain and simple truth.
The third thing the Dems must do is to educate Americans on what is and what is not the truth/facts so 'we the people' can see through/ beyond the Repub lies. Again, for those who can't wait for the Dems to educate them they must educate themselves by reading those who can cut right through lies/spin and rhetoric; people like Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales, Chompsky, Finkelstein, Lakoff, Pres. Carter, Amb. Edward L. Peck, Eduardo Galeano etc. etc. Anyone the Repubs/Bush demonize is often the person one should pay attention to.
The fourth and final thing the Dems must learn is to communicate all of the above to the American people.
The Dems must show the American people they are about the business of the American people rather than the business of maintaining their own political fiefdom.
America has it's first monarch, George Bush, King of the Repubs. America does not need any more(Jeb Bush) monarchs from the Repub creator of monarchies and antichrists.
If the Dems are the party of the people they must be exactly that. Let the Repubs be the party of the white southern Baptists and the Catholic Church, my church I am sad to say. Let the Repubs be the party of the special interest groups,Big oil (in the USA, Britain and the Netherlands) Big Business, Big Pharma, health care, insurance and banking etc. ad nauseam and etc.
The Dems are so busy trying to straddle the left and the right, the liberal and the conservative, the loud mouthed vocal religious and their positions of hate that they(Dems) have lost their way. The Dems must clearly become the party of the 'people' as they once were. They must return to being the party of tolerance, the party of inclusiveness, the party of 'the great society', civil rights, voter rights, education, health care, the party of unity not hate and divisiveness, not politicization and polarization. The Repubs are the party of the aforementioned and they are really good at winning elections using those Rovian strategies.
The Repugs claim to be the party that protects the life of the unborn fetus but they care not one damn once that child is born. They care not one damn for that childs welfare, family fair wages, education, health care etc.etc.etc. They care not one damn for families or family values despite all their phony rhetoric from people like Dobson,Reed,Falwell or Robertson. If they did they would fight and demand that the Bushie Repubs provide the things every child needs to be a productive citizen including a free education for every child through college.
The Dems must become 'America's Party'. Once America loses the one man one vote privilege via Alito and the radical right wing neocons then the Dems will have to adopt Rovian tactics. But that time is not quite here, yet.
Come on Dems get it together and stand up for America.
I am sorry to be so long winded.
HEAR!HEAR!