Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against Corporate Power

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 10:04 AM
Original message
Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against Corporate Power

by Jim Hightower

When I lived in Washington, DC, in the 1970s, I got a call from a friend of mine who worked for the Congressional Research Service--a legislative agency that digs up facts, prepares briefing papers, and otherwise does research on any topic requested by members of Congress.

My friend could barely speak, because he was hooting, howling, and guffawing over a research question he'd just received. It was from the office of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, the aloof and patrician Texas Democrat who was known on Capitol Hill primarily as a faithful emissary for Wall Street interests. At the time, Bentsen was contemplating a run for the presidency, and apparently he was searching for a suitable political identity. "What is a populist?" read the research query. "The senator thinks he might be one."

Uh...no sir, you are not.

Bentsen was closer to being "The Man in the Moon" than he was to being a populist. Yet, he was hardly alone in trying to cloak himself as "The People's Champion" while remaining faithful to the plutocratic powers. These days, there's a whole flock of politicos and pundits doing this--from Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck.

They are abetted by a media establishment that carelessly (and lazily) misapplies the populist label to anyone who claims to be a maverick and tends to bark a lot. Although the targets they're usually barking at are poor people, teachers, minorities, unions, liberals, protestors, environmentalists, gays, immigrants, or other demonized groups that generally reside far outside the center of the power structure--the barkers are indiscriminately tagged as populist voices.

First of all, populism is not a style, nor is it a synonym for "popular outrage." It is a historically grounded political doctrine (and movement) that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the moneyed elites.

The very essence of populism is its unrelenting focus on breaking the iron grip that big corporations have on our country--including on our economy, government, media, and environment. It is unabashedly a class movement. Try to squeeze Lord Limbaugh into that philosophical suit of clothes! He's just another right-wing, corporate-hugging, silk-tie elitist--an apologist for plutocracy, not a populist.

Fully embracing the egalitarian ideals and rebellious spirit of the American Revolution, populists have always been out to challenge the orthodoxy of the corporate order and to empower workaday Americans so they can control their own economic and political destinies. This approach distinguishes the movement from classic liberalism, which seeks to live in harmony with concentrated corporate power by trying to regulate its excesses.

We're seeing liberalism at work today in Washington's Wall Street bailout. Both parties tell us that AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and the rest are "too big to fail," so taxpayers simply "must" rescue the management, stockholders, and bondholders of the financial giants in order to save the system. Populists, on the other hand, note that it is this very system that has caused the failure-so structural reform is required. Let's reorganize the clumsy, inept, ungovernable, and corrupt financial system by ousting those who wrecked it, splitting up its component parts (banking, investment, and insurance), and establishing decentralized, manageable-sized financial institutions operating on the locallycontrolled models of credit unions, co-ops, and community banks.

A movement
Not only is American populism a powerful and vibrant idea, but it also has a phenomenal history that has largely been hidden from our people. The Powers That Be are not keen to promote the story of a mass movement that did--and still could--challenge the corporate structure. Thus, the rich history of this grassroots force, which first arose in the late 1870s, tends to be ignored entirely or trivialized as a quirky pitchfork rebellion by rubes and racists who had some arcane quibble involving the free coinage of silver.

The true portrait of populism is rarely on public display. History teachers usually hustle students right past this unique moment in the evolution of our democracy. You never see a movie or a television presentation about the movement's innovative thinkers, powerful orators, and dramatic events. National museums offer no exhibits of its stunning inventions and accomplishments. And there is no "populist trail of history" winding through the various states in which farmers and workers created the People's Party (also known as the Populist Party), reshaped the national political debate, forced progressive reforms, delivered a million votes (and four states) to the party's 1892 presidential candidate, and elected 10 populist governors, six U.S. senators, and three dozen House members.

This was a serious, thoughtful, determined effort by hundreds of thousands of common folks to do something uncommon: organize themselves so--collectively and cooperatively--they could remake both commerce and government to serve the common good rather than the selfish interests of the barons of industry and finance.

While the big media of that day portrayed the movement as an incoherent bunch of conspiracy-minded bumpkins, the populists were in fact guided by a sophisticated network of big thinkers, organizers, and communicators who had a thorough grasp of exactly how the system worked and why. Most significantly, they were problem solvers--their aim was not protest, but to provide real mechanisms that could decentralize and democratize power in our country. The movement was able to rally a huge following of hard-scrabble farmers and put-upon workers because it did not pussyfoot around. Its leaders dared to go right at the core problem of an overreaching corporate state controlled by robber barons. Populist organizers spoke bluntly about the need to restructure the corporate system that was undermining America's democratic promise.

"Wall Street owns the country," declared Mary Ellen Lease at an 1890 populist convention in Topeka, Kansas. A powerhouse orator who took to the stump and wowed crowds at a time women were not even allowed to vote, Lease laid out a message her audiences knew to be true, for they were living what she was so colorfully describing. "It's no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street," she roared. "Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags....The people are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us beware."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/09-0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. populism is a failed ideology
Edited on Sat May-09-09 10:24 AM by tocqueville
"an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice"

(wikipedia)

this leads inevitably to mob rule

all "populist revolutions" have ended in some kind of more or less benevolent dictatorship by a charismatic leader

it's based on a failed assumption that the people is "virtuous" and "homogenous" and "knows best", which is of course utter bull.

that's why representative democracy was invented.

luckily in Europe we are relatively free from that. Populist parties that have managed to gather enough votes to be represented in parliaments have more or less collapsed within 10 years due to internal strife, sending often it's own elite to the extreme right.

The alternative to the current two party system in the US, is a mighty social-democracy, that is to say placing the idea of "common good" above republican or libertarian egoism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Europe?
The land of Monarchs, Hitler, Mussolini and the Vatican?

In America we reject the European process, except those populist movements which overhtrew their Monarchs. And we had to come over there and save Europe's ass twice already.

In America populist movements have given us much while costing little. And while our people have been living with their heads in the sand for some time now, there is a chance they will pull it together long enough to save our own sorry asses. You Europeons better hope we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. that's exactly why
we are so aware of them

no populist movements in Europe overthrew Monarchs. Where did you get that from ?

US Populist movements :

George Wallace, Willis Carto, Duke, Perot, etc...

The nicest one maybe being Huey Long but accused in his lifetime of dictatorial tendencies

WTF has the Vatican to do with that ?

you are ignoring history and falling for cheap demagogery
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Really?
How were the Monarchs overthrown? Who did them in if it wasn't populists?

The most recent populist movement here is Obama. Yeah, he drew more folks out of the woodwork than even the machines could count!!

Vatican: they used to friggin rule Europe. Its history. And they still keep control over a whole bunch of folks. Of course, if you say Jesus was a populist and the Vatican is just downstream of his leadership, I couldn't argue that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. they were overthrown by the bourgeoisie like in the US
smart guys (very elitist by the way), they armed the peasants. Nothing to do with

the Vatican has never "ruled Europa". The Vatican has been used by Monarchs to justify their power by "sanctifying" it as the will of God. Very useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. A rather thin argument.
Edited on Sat May-09-09 11:48 AM by Zodiak
Instead of using the description of the movement by the author of the OP, you go to Wikipedia to get your definition, and then focus only on a couple of words of said definition and pull out populist movements on foreign soils for your classification of "failed". That is misdirection and the moving of the goalposts.

One does not have to go to Europe or anywhere else to see the effects of populism. Since populism in the OP refers only to the Unites States (and doesn't even mention homogeneity or virtuosity), we can look to our own history to see how populism works, thank you very much.

And our history says that populist movements have broken the backs of robber Barons before without leading to charismatic dictators and mob rules scenarios. The New Deal was ushered in by populism, as was the rash of anti-trust legislation that followed the robber Baron period.

We are not going to get to social Democracy by denying the political power of regular working people...therein lies our strength. We should not be relying on intellectual, well-to-do liberals with an aversion to political wrangling get us to social democracy....it is simply not going to happen. The present day political calculus has failed, not populism. The evidence is all around you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. what's new in the OP ? nothing
Edited on Sat May-09-09 01:29 PM by tocqueville
quoting

"It is a historically grounded political doctrine (and movement) that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the moneyed elites."

I don't need to replace it with wiki

the problem is that people like Hightower which are "progressives" can't keep that stuff at bay. If you don't mark your ideological difference, you'll be eaten by others.


populist movements "against the elites" have always been recuperated by people with a personal agenda, when not created by them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Again with the absolutes
I find the use of "always" and "never" to be rather useless when discussing human events. I quoted two populist movements in the United States as examples of success, and you chose not to address either of them and revert back to using absolutes.

Ideological boundaries haven't meant much in some time in this country. It has become the haves versus the have-nots with both sides of the ideological boundaries favoring the haves. If such a impending conflict makes you uncomfortable, then you can state so without all of the hyperbole, fear, and misdirection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. "against the moneyed elites" etc...
then the description of Limbaugh

notice :

"silktie"
"plutocracy"

this is only pure demagogery, because the problem with Limbaugh is not his silkties and wealthy friends, but the shit he spews.

Obama and Biden have probably silkties and wealthy friends too. So did Kennedy. And Clinton. Kerry is married to a "plutocrat" (luckily into Ketchup and not Grey Poupon) and was attacked for being an elitist and "French".

If you don't make a difference between the attributes of wealth and education, and the ideas represented, you are on very dangerous slope.

And obviously Hightower falls for the cheap trick, look at me no tie, but cow-boy hat. But the masses when it comes to the "revolution" will hang people in their silkties, because they cannot make the difference. Even the people that are on their side. The Terror in the French revolution is a perfect example. Plenty of innocent people had their head chopped off because their adressed somebody as "Monsieur" and not "Citizen".

Peoples with glasses are suspect to.

If Obama fails, populism is the worse that can happen America. In the following mayhem, you'll have a military coup. Hope that the next dictator will be benevolent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. "all 'populist revolutions'" ended in...benevolent dictatorship"? Not true.
To name just a few populist revolutions that ended in solid advances for the majority poor and working class, and NOT in any kind of dictatorship...

...the movement for universal franchise (first for unpropertied white men, then for women, blacks and other minorities)

...the labor movement (forty hour work week, decent wages and working conditions, no child labor, right to organize and strike)

...the civil rights movement (end of legal segregation, right to integration, right to equal treatment under the law in employment, contracts, business, home/land ownership and other matters, right to vote)

...the women's movement (right to equal treatment under the law, end of open discrimination in employment and advancement, right to divorce, right to inherit, right to birth control and on and on).

Many of these and other such movements had leaders. None of them were dictators, and no dictators seized power to impose these progressive advances. So I don't know what you are talking about, with such a sweeping statement, that "all populist movements" resulted in "benevolent dictators." Who or what are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Mussolini, Chavez, Peron, Kemal, Bhutto etc...
all the movements you name are not populist by definition

they have nothing to do with the definition of "populism"

they are either socialist or plain "civil rights movements"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. It's based on the assumption people given access to full (best possible) information "know best"
Not a failed assumption at all when you (or whoever edited the wiki) don't leave out key elements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. of course people when given information "know"
brilliant

but the essence of populism is that by some mystical form, people "knows best". Already.

in Europe those people always want referendums. Or the experience shows that in most cases people vote against their own interests, sometimes in a blatant way (in Sweden people voted against maybe the best social security program in the world in the fifties, praised it 5 years after), due to fears mongered by activists ("they gonna take your money"). But it's the "will of people". Like in Switzerland where referendums after referendums exclude the country out of Europe, the UN, when not deprieving women the right to vote or segregating immigrants. Very democratic. No Diebold machines there. Only a bunch of ignoramuses in lederhosen. And a paper ballot.

I didn' edit the wiki (that's a serious accusation) and the points that are there can be read in any language in any serious publication.

nothing new, don't assassinate the messenger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. You didn't read Hightower's essay....
right?

Because if you did, your post wouldn't be a non sequitur.

In many ways, the American Revolution can be considered a Populist Revolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. yes I did
already answered

he uses the same definition than wikipedia. As soon you define the others as "elites" you are on teh wrong track. It appeals to mob rule. Look how teh right wingers attack Obama for "elitism".

the American Revolution was BOURGEOIS revolution, very common at that time. The leading bourgeoisie needs the masses (no taxes, vote for me) to take power and dodge the bullets. The French revolution was also a bourgeois revolution but fell into dictatorship, anarchy, than populism (Napoleon) to only stabilize to decent democracy 100 years later.

I don't mean that Hightower is a "bad guy", he is probably sincere. But he should clean up his ideological approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Hope Mobile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. BINGO! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. "this leads inevitably to mob rule". Utter nonsense. The people of the UK and Australia -
Edited on Sat May-09-09 02:07 PM by Joe Chi Minh
I expect almost certainly Canada - too, simply REFUSE to yield to the clamorous, insistent campaign of the sinister and maleficent media oligarchy for their countries to become Republics, with heads of state imposed by their own good selves. We want to retain the monarchy as a nominal, but in terms of prestige, sovereign, head of state, because we are all too well aware of the alternatives: generally, although with rare exceptions, the most ruthless and duplicitous politicians. We see such desperados already in place throughout much of the globe, so we don't need to look in the crystal ball.

Well, there's a surprise..... Surely, we'd prefer a President, such as Anthony Blair, for example, anointed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, Conrad Black, the list is a positive rogues' gallery.

You should re-institute the monarchy and promote as many "old money" types, such as Kerry and well, if he was younger, Gore Vidal, to replace the "bootstrap go-getters", who can never pillage the people enough, to aggrandise their own "royal house", as they see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. historical evidence talks for itse'lf n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Precisely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. as soon as the enemy becomes "the unspecified elite"...
you are bedding for "street rule" (of cloourse canalized by the new elite, who petends that they are "men of the people")

the enemy is an ideology, a system, not rich or/and educated people as long they are honest. Washington, Jefferson, Lafayette, Roosevelt, Churchill were the elite of their time.

Populists want "a president they can have a beer with". Last known best example was Dubya.

This has nothing to do with reinstauring absolute monarchy.

As Jon Stewart said once : "I want Brainiac to be elected President".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. You have a very narrow conception of the meaning of the word, "populist". One that I don't
recognise. Characters who liked Bush becase they thought they "could have a beer with him", tend not to even vote, they are so unworldly.

Roosevelt, the Kennedy brothers and M L King were populists. Archbishop Romero, too, but like Roosevelt, he didn't start out that way. Churchill was not a populist, though he thought he was by the end of the war. He had a pre-war history the people were all too well aware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. The poster get's hisher facts from Wiki and never read Hightower's article.
Instead keeps putting up strawmen...etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-10-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Sure. And incidentally, our friend who was supposed to have liked Bush because
Edited on Sun May-10-09 08:47 AM by Joe Chi Minh
he felt he could have a drink with him, would already have had his drinking buddies! So no score there either!

Surely, one of the most fatuous lines peddled by the anarcho-Republicans, ever. Can you imagine the guy lining up for hours to vote for a potential drinking buddy?

What does "populist" mean, but "demotic" (antonym: "elitist"), and in the context of government, "democratic" (in Chambers: "democracy": "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them or by officers appointed by them.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe it's time to revive the movement.
I'm leaning toward a populist, socialist, democratic party. Kinda the best of all worlds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. If the "Centrist Democrats" are successful in derailing Health Care Reform,
I will be looking for a New Political Party.
A Populist/Socialist Party sounds good.
But for viability in an age of Low Information voters, it would be best to drop the word "Socialist" from the party description.


"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."
--Jim Hightower
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. You can always count on Hightower! He's great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. And... Off to the Greatest Page.
Let the People decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. You don't understand, Joanne. The population are just a flaky kind of fringe group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
26. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-09-09 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
29. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC