Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE TWO SIDES OF AMERICAN POPULISM. I think Yuval Levin is mostly correct when he writes, "Populism for most of American history has tended to be very culturally conservative, and indeed the poor (or 'the common folks' to whom populism is generally directed) have tended to be cultural conservatives." This is an interesting starting point for a discussion of contemporary Democratic populism.
"Popular struggles," David Peal aptly wrote, "can only be created out of existing cultural materials." Populism's power is derived from the fact that it can be used to challenge dominant social structures by using already-present beliefs and sentiments. Hence, economic populism is a powerful way to address social inequality because it amplifies a preexisting "us" and "them" dichotomy, pushing it to the forefront. Poor workers might already resent their bosses, for example, but are not normally pushed far enough to do anything about it. Minds don't have to be radically changed for populist protest. They just have to be slightly shifted.
But the reach of populism is necessarily limited, because populism, by this very nature, serves to reinforce social norms. This is why it tends to be socially conservative. By focusing so much on existing cultural materials, it doesn't allow for a complete reevaluation of these materials. But sometimes, of course, such a complete reevaluation is necessary. Thus, the danger of populism, lurking beneath its allure.
Collective bargaining and worker strikes are both populist in nature. But so, too, were lynchings in the Jim Crow South. The same is true of popular backlashes against gay rights and reproductive rights. Just because the little guy is getting screwed by the corporations doesn't mean the little guy wouldn't gladly want to screw over some other stigmatized group if he had the chance. This isn't phony populism. It's just its bad side.
Selective populism has its place in contemporary politics. The Senate is no doubt a better institution with the additions of Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Jim Webb. But populism, like most things, has two sides. Progressives need to keep that in mind.
--Steven White
COMMENTS (11)
Populism can be good and populism can be bad--not exactly a penetrating insight, Steven.
The beauty and bravery of the new populism fashioned by John Edwards is that unlike, say, Pat Buchanan--or, for that matter, Bill Clinton circa 1991--Edwards refuses to exploit cultural wedge issues to play to the white working and middle class. He takes the good parts of populism and discards the bad.
Posted by: david mizner | August 8, 2007 11:38 AM
nice post
Posted by: g | August 8, 2007 11:40 AM
This is very important. See also this and this, both published by this magazine, and both completely correct. Stop listening to Sirota.
Posted by: jj | August 8, 2007 11:43 AM
"Collective bargaining and worker strikes are both populist in nature. But so, too, were lynchings in the Jim Crow South."
I do agree that people's ignorance knows no bounds.
I am not a populist, either. Consequently, I am not in favor of universal healthcare, public welfare, high taxes, or opportunities for the young.
It's straight meritocracy from here on out.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 12:08 PM
This may be true, Steven, but Sherrod Brown only has one side - awesome.
Posted by: Steve W. | August 8, 2007 1:57 PM
Populism has two sides just like elitism does. Sure, a politics focused on appealing to the elite will likely be marginally more willing to accept differences in their society, but it will also ignore those massive economic issues that undercut people's quality of life regardless of those issues.
Republican politics marries elite economic opinions to "populist" positions on social issues (ranging from race to abortion to gay marriage). They offer "laissez-faire" (of a uniquely corrupt kind) for the elites, and "traditional values" for everyone else. Why is it so hard to believe the Democratic party could achieve the inverse? Social tolerance for the elites and a muscular government for everyone else?
I suspect the real problem here is that elites' regressive social attitudes are often just as ingrained and abhorrent as the rest of "The People"'s. How racially integrated is your local urban area's wealthiest suburb right now? You're more likely to find policies excluding black people, women, gays, Jews, etc... at country clubs than bowling alleys and dive bars. Jim Crow was enforced as much by Northern white suburbanites concerned about their home values as Southern good ole boys. Yet we're encouraged to link it wholly with "populism". This strikes me as odd.
Posted by: ChicagoDem | August 8, 2007 2:03 PM
ChicagoDem & david mizner are co-rrect and Mr. White is wrong.
Posted by: Thogs Neckface | August 8, 2007 3:23 PM
"Yet we're encouraged to link it wholly with "populism". This strikes me as odd."
Yeah, me too. Our local private academy is quite integrated-- with the children of ambassadors and financiers. I'd link a picture, but I'm certain they'd sue you.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 3:43 PM
The hate-spewing immigrant-bashing haters on talk radio are definitely appealing to “populist” sentiments.
Posted by: fredo bush | August 8, 2007 3:45 PM
"The hate-spewing immigrant-bashing haters on talk radio are definitely appealing to “populist” sentiments."
They are. They are appealing to job and economic insecurity and it is going to be a HUGE winner for the Republican Party unless someone on this side WAKES THE FUCK UP and addresses the issue properly.
Also, not for nothing, if national identity meaning "citizenship" is in the process of coming undone, then that is something else that needs to be addressed, properly.
People aren't as stupid as you hope.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2007 4:08 PM
Populism, as a political tool, will only get a candidate so far because it appeals to emotion rather than logic. People use it to rally the masses to their cause, but that doesn't make the masses right, it just makes them mighty.
That's why I generally don't like populists.
Posted by: Owen Meany | August 10, 2007 12:21 PM