1/8/2008
What in heck is a populist?
Lee Dreyfus has been deservedly and appropriately eulogized over the last several days as an honest, forthright man, a tremendous campaigner, a commoner who earned the populist moniker.
So, what is it that made Lee Sherman Dreyfus a “populist?” - His “trademark” red vest (the populace can identify with him?)
- His campaign bus-that-looked-like-a-train – to speak to people’s concerns?
- His straight talk – known as a straight shooter?
- His being a relative unknown?
And what does Webster say? 1. a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies.
2. a believer in the rights, wisdom or virtues of the common people.
These days we hear over and over that Huckabee and Edwards are the populist candidates. And not just populists – but “anti-Wall Street populists.” Oooh. Sounds pretty special. (Check out Politico’s comparison of the campaign’s alleged interchangeable populists.)
Ok, so the populists try to identify with the common man (aren’t most of us “the common man?”) over the corporate bad guys. And I thought all those bad-guy-fighters were called Progressives….
Talk about Progressives, how can we neglect Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette? According to Ed Garvey, Mr. Progressive himself, La Follette is “the populist governor, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate from Wisconsin who founded the Progressive Party and spent his career battling the corrupting, impoverishing and anti-democratic influence of big moneyed interests over government and public policy.”
And then there’s President Andrew Jackson – a man who, back in the day when a swashbuckler could be a true hero, built his reputation as a defender of the common man over the political elite - the people against the powerful. Indeed, the swashbuckling populist.
Andrew Jackson, La Follette, Lee Dreyfus, Huckabee and Edwards. Populists? What does it mean? These days, the press assigns the label and the candidate gets a free ride. You know – motherhood, apple pie, cotton balls for baby – and screw Wall Street.
It’s a dangerous label that seems a clarion call for class warfare. Why aren’t all the candidates seen as sincerely interested in individuals and their families? Does it mean if I support economic policies that support shareholders and corporations that create and maintain jobs for “the common people” – that I can be a populist too?
COMMENTS
You bring up a good point which, if logically extended, means that we must all resist labels. Yes, they are convenient and easy to use in describing others BUT they are potentially very dangerous. They can act as real roadblocks to understanding the costs and benefits of policies and actions.It's good to hear from you Clif; wise words as always. JE
Clif Morton (Tue Jan 08 07:01:59 2008)
Well Jo,
If Wall Street and the corporations traded there actually DID create AND MAINTAIN jobs here in the US, perhaps more 'common' people would buy in to the argument that mainstream candidates could possibly be populist.
Unfortunately, most of the companies traded on Wall Street are International in nature ... and at one time or another most common people (like myself) have been a 'line item' - losing our jobs as a budget choice. Many of those jobs are NOT maintained here in the U.S., and that's why we are looking for other options.
Populist candidates just may be a refuge for those who are dissatisfied with the status quo and those who are looking down their upward pointed noses would be well served to learn from the success of the populist candidates.
Jeff Riedl (Tue Jan 08 07:55:43 2008)
What we fail to recognize is the genuine interdependence between corporations and their workers.It is not "either or", it is both. Workers need jobs and corporations need consumer/workers. Each would fail to exist without the other. The requirement of modern existence is that neither be elevated above the other. True populism demands a recognition of the obvious. Without people, corporations are simply machines, real estate and building materials. True populism recognizes the interdependence between workers and corporations, and works not to pit one against the other, but rather to harmonize them for the greater good. Lee Dreyfus recognized the interdependence. Interdependence. Good insight. Thanks Bob. JE
bob (Tue Jan 08 07:56:39 2008)
I attended a speech Dreyfus gave to a group of Insurance Agents after he left office. At the time he lived in Stevens Point and near a horse farm. He made the comment that he never knew there was more to a horse's ---, after dealing with politicians most of his life! He had a great sense of humor.
Dennis J. Braun (Tue Jan 08 08:29:25 2008)
Jo, you do have a point in that the moneyed interests provide the funds that create jobs that also provide themselves with profits. However, in recent years, wouldn't you argree that corporate lobbyists with millions of dollars to spend influencing our congressmen have gotten to the point where corporate America is writing much of the legislation coming out of Congress?
A good example of this is the Prescription Drug Bill, which was written by the insurance and drug companies. This has resulted in billions of dollars being funneled to insurance and drug companies, while there is little benefit to the seniors. In addition, the drug companies were able to legislate restriction of free trade by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating for fair prices. Since the drug bill took effect, drug costs have increased three times as fast as inflation.
The method in which the drug bill was passed is a disgrace to out nation. The Republicans twisted arms and abused the House rules by keeping the vote open until they got the vote that they wanted.
Other examples of legislation favoring corporations are the tort reform bill, the energy bill and the bankruptcy bill.
There has to be a reason why poverty in our country is increasing while one percent of American families own ninety percent of the nation's wealth.
Jim Smith (Tue Jan 08 09:39:28 2008)
Since we are (along with Mr. Peabody) setting the Wayback Machine to 1891, I'll just offer this about what a Populist is to go with Jo's dictionary note.
The Populist movement was a reaction to the Robber Barons of industry in that period. It was fostered in places like Kansas (as in Tom Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas?") and here in the Upper Midwest. It's a forgotten part of American history which revolted (with I beleive armed revolt and strikes} against that generation of Plutocrats (government based on the rights of property owners... see George Washington for more info.)
There's no reason for an individual *not* to call himself a Progressive Populist. There's even a by-weekly newspaper with that moniker readily available at the library.
The Progressive Populist seeks not only the redistribution of power (as opposed to wealth which is another issue) but to reform corrupt institutions.
Robber Barons were what was part of the Gilded Age; a term which has been used to describe the current decay of institutions there to protect the public. In the Gilded Age the wealth went one way-- Up. Today the wealth goes not only Up but Out to places like Abu Dhabi when the heat gets turned on outfits like Haliburton. This has been called The Tapeworm Effect where wealth is siphoned off for no good purpose but to support the tapeworm itself.
Lastly, what's wrong with some good old-fashioned Class Warfare anyway? Raise your hand if you will be retiring to the Cayman Islands rather than scuffling by on Social Security.
Maybe there should be a new book called "What's The Matter With Wisconsin?"
Lon Ponschock (Tue Jan 08 13:51:59 2008)
|
