It is a blissful yet bewildering feeling. You fight so long, endure so much establishment belittlement, and suddenly you win. That’s what happened on Nov. 7: We the populists won. After our fully warranted victory laps and back patting, we must review Nov. 7’s lessons. If Democrats want to hold a governing majority, they must see the election for what… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (5)Page 1 of 1 pagesI am a little less optimistic. I think the DLC still has a lot of power within the DNC on South Capitol Street.
It is astounding to watch these re-elected Dems in interviews state the Democratic talking points where they list their top three agenda items: Minimum Wage increase, affordable prescription drugs (not overall healthcare) and improving security. They fail to mention the number one issue in almost all exit polls—Iraq.
We the progressives need to pressure the Dems to use the power of the purse and cut off continued funding. I have written about these topics on my blog: www.beltwaybeast.blogspot.com
Posted by peteindc on Nov 28, 2006 at 5:21 AM David is right. We need to be forceful and fight to win. The one down mentality among the left has to go. We can always be sure there will
be a Marc Cooper or Larry Bensky or John Judis or Paul Berman to
tell us how badly we are going to lose. Ignore them. They are never
going to change. Under Clinton he never got pressure from the left.
Thus he only responded to the Right. We know the Washington Post-
Cokie Roberts-Jim Lehrer line. It’s a waste of time to spend much time
on those folks. Just starting to read Hostile Takeover.
Pelosi is going to need a lot of pressure on her, she is atrocious on
Israel/Palestine which is not helpful in getting us out of Iraq.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM Populism, no matter if you are left or right, is pure poison to a democracy. It is the Achilles heel of a system that otherwise works remarkably well and provides the most for the many. It is nothing more than a political tool that ambitious and dishonest people of all stripes use to gain temporary power. There is no truth, justice, or beauty in it at all. It plays on the worst instincts of the mob. It is the enemy of all liberalism, and liberal forms of government. It is the disease that rotted the roots of all great Western civilizations that went before us.
I find your embrace of it for some temporary victories very sad, totally illiberal and regressive, and evidence that we are at a very late stage in our democracy. Disregard for the long term health of the republic for a few victories will only please the party cheerleaders who believe in little more than slogans and have no ideas. It will leave the rest of us to clean up a huge mess.
You can embrace populism all you want, you just can’t square it with being a liberal, or that self government means anything more to you than manipulating a mob that must be considered ignorant and cynical at once in order for it to work (which it often does throughout history).
Populism is the reason that dictatorships and authoritarian governments can endure for centuries, but the average life of a democracy is about 200 years. No defense has been found to inoculate free people against its deprivations except the same virtues that exist in the founding documents of this nation. Never have those virtues succeeded in arresting populism once it firmly takes hold of a people. It is nothing more than bribing people with their own money, and attempting to instill the most baser forms of jealousy within a people for the political power of the very few.
It has always been that they promise all things to all people, and only end up delivering all things to themselves, and their tiny elite who manipulate the people.
That you could see populism as being a positive development is totally beyond me. Sorry to rain on your parade, but if you think that America’s future lies in the embrace of populism by the Democratic Party, you can count this liberal out, because I would rather still believe in freedom, our country, and our system of government than any political party that maintains power by manipulating us and catering to the worst impulses of our people.
Posted by ERWC on Nov 28, 2006 at 12:16 PM EWRC,
I understand your Hobbesian fear of the mob. All the dangers of popular movement politics that you mention have obviously in many historical times and places been led to cruel destructiveness and empirical negation of their intrinsic idealism by being co-opted either by those with megalomanic ambition or by cynical forces within the status quo. But I think you are being rather one-sidedly negative in your assessment. Popular movements have also been instrumental in bringing about lasting progressive change in societies where the ‘Movement’ has long since withered away.
Things like the establishment of representative democratic government in the first place. There was a populist revolution in this country at the beginning of our history, doncha know. The Federalists, when they got together, in secret, to write the Constitution didn’t really want to put anything like democratic elections in there, (many were intent on creating a new aristocracy with themselves as titled nobility. Yes, it is historical fact.) but were only obliged to create the House of Representative by knowing that if they didn’t, it would set off widespread rebellion among the people, particularily the rank and file veterans of the Revolutionary Army who were camped right outside Independence Hall in Philly where they met (that damn Leveler Mob, the ingrates).
Things like the end of slavery, the regulation of child labor, the eight hour day and the forty hour week, paid vacation, unemployment insurance, workplace health insurance, worker safety, the minimum wage, worker pensions, social security Indeed, without such pressure from the masses there would be no reason for the elites of any society, much less ours, to embrace the kind of ‘noblesse oblige’ liberalism it would appear that you are espousing, and we would still be mired in the depths of feudalism.
To follow your thinking one should never strive for one’s social and political ideals, just because they might not be perfectly realized.
I am fairly optimistic, that as long as the wealthy and powerful are willing and able to use their influence to ensure their self-interests (I might infer that is what you seem to be implying with the term ‘freedom’), then no populist movement will ever over-whelm that rough and never still equilibrium between the needs of the less well compensated wage-earners and the priviledge and power of the salaried and profit-earning elites, as long as there are some few voices of reason and compromise. (Which I have always considered the strengths of liberal philosophy. Do you not?)
Posted by luminous beauty on Nov 28, 2006 at 2:28 PM ERWC, you are rehashing some old myths about populism that have been handed down like family heirlooms by the corporate media for
over a century starting with their smear campaign against Bryan when
he ran against McKinley in 1896. The Populist Party wasthe first to call
for nationalization of utilities, which are government awarded franchise
monopolies, regulation of the railroads, free silver instead of the brutal
gold standard, factory inspection, child labor laws, regulation of food &
drugs, womens suffrage, universal free education, public libraries,
limits on the working day and week, labor’s right to organize and more.
They first called for direct election of US Senators, a progressive income
tax and all the reforms of both the Progressive Era & the New Deal.
I’m just now looking at LB’s rebuttal and see that she covers many of these points. Your comments that the system works remarkably well
is utter horse manuer ! Where have you been the past 50 years or longer ? Our offices go to the highest bidder. Your comments sound
like the John Birch Society “This is a Republic:Not a Democracy.”
Your kind of liberal elitism is what has killed the left for 40 years.
Too many people would like unelected Judges to make the legislative
decisions. Well, if there’s not a societal consensus, that doesn’t work
as Roe v. Wade shows. Before then there was a growing grassroots movement to legalize abortion, since then the Right’s been on the offensive.
I know liberals like you for generations “I’m a liberal but I support Bork”
“I’m a liberal but we’ve got to back Nixon in Vietnam” “I’m a liberal but I
admire Goldwater’s honesty” “I’m a liberal but McCarthy has some good points” “I’m a liberal but Hitler is solving social problems” ad nauseum.
You never mention the dozens of rightwing dictatorships that the US back that are not populist and the good things that populists like Chavez
do in Venezuela. The Founding Fathers were a very mixed bag, neither them nor their documents can endorsed as a whole, it takes critical
thinking, not the mindless parroting of rightist propaganda.
It’s interesting that a class perspective is totally absent from your
comments. Are you one of those Flat Tax liberals too ?
Shame on you.
Posted by blondemike on Nov 28, 2006 at 6:20 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone
- Mandate for Change
Voters' message to Obama: think big - Knowing When To Walk Away
- McCain Banking on a Confederacy of Dunces
- Signs of an Earthquake in Oregon
- Remembering Those Other American Dreams
Democrats struggle to win blue-collar voters
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
