This question is coming to frame the political debate as "populist" once again becomes a buzzword in Washington.
An article in The Washington Post this week was headlined "More liberal, populist movement emerging in Democratic Party ahead of 2016 elections," and the word was used 10 times in the story, to describe everything from "tougher financial regulations" to a higher minimum wage.
Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik wrote in Politico of a "populist push" from both the left and the right creating pressure to pull back from global affairs and focus on domestic issues, including the coddling of business and the wealthy.
The dictionary tells us that "populism" can mean "grass-roots democracy" or "working-class activism," but more often than not it carries negative connotations of anti-establishment agitation or demagogic pandering to the great unwashed.
As such, it is a put-down, and use of the word can reflect an elitist bias that implies anything or anyone described as "populist" is on the fringe, unrealistic or downright kooky.
The media watch group FAIR notes that the Post article, like a similar one in The New York Times in July, unfairly contrasts "populist" notions with "centrist" policies.
FAIR cites the Post's own super-blogger Ezra Klein, who pointed out in a blog titled "There's no such thing as 'the center,'" that regulating banks and other policies of this ilk, regardless of where you try to position them on the political spectrum, are "really popular."
At the center of this discussion, inevitably, is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who launched her political career as champion for greater bank regulation and is now seen by many liberal Democrats as an alternative presidential candidate to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Fox News cites a "populist wave" creating a buzz for Warren as president. NBC News talks about Warren's crusade as a "happy w! arrior populist."
Pundits have been quick to pooh-pooh Warren's prospects, saying her "populist message" might win primaries but won't carry a general election or dismissing her as a "novelty candidate" like former Ohio representative Dennis Kucinich or former Texas representative Ron Paul — basically too far out there to attract "moderate voters."
Really? How moderate or immoderate is someone who is included in the 83% of likely American voters who want to see tougher financial regulation?
This is the figure, based on a survey by Americans for Financial Reform, cited by Warren in her speech at the AFL-CIO national convention in September that had delegates standing on their chairs and wildly applauding her call to action.
"Our agenda is America's agenda," Warren thundered, citing the more than 80% of Americans who want financial reform, the 71% of Americans who want a higher minimum wage, and the 87% of Americans who don't want any cuts to Social Security.
Call it populism, call it demagoguery, if you like, but Warren was the only top Democrat to speak at the labor convention, held only every four years, and it's tough for a Democrat to win the White House without union support. (President Obama was scheduled to speak but pleaded the Syria crisis to address the meeting with a three-minute video message instead.)
And besides, Warren, unlike Kucinich or Paul in the House, has quickly become one of the most influential members of the Senate, driving the debate on everything from bank regulation to who is the best person to chair the Federal Reserve.
For some reason, the widespread desire of the American public to rein in the banks is one issue that is invariably branded populist.
In the early weeks of his presidency, still in the full flush of the financial crisis, Obama summoned the chief executives from 13 big banks and cut off their banter with the curt observation, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
Pitchfork, W! ikipedia ! informs us, "because of its association with the peasantry," is often a populist symbol.
Even as he tried to call them to account for their role in causing the financial crisis, Obama was willing to offer his administration as a bulwark against "populist" pressures calling for sanctions against the banks.
And Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did, in fact, protect the banks, with the result that they are bigger and more powerful than ever.
And that brings us to the present and the persistent backlash against a Wall Street that remains largely unbowed and untamed.
The pitchforks are coming out again and the peasants are restless. As Hillary Clinton hobnobs with Wall Streeters, Elizabeth Warren is tapping into this grass-roots resentment.
It may be populism at its finest, but it would be foolish to dismiss it as a passing phenomenon on the fringe.
Darrell Delamaide has reported on business and economics from New York, Paris, Berlin and Washington for Dow Jones news service, Barron's, Institutional Investor and Bloomberg News service, among others. He is the author of four books, including the financial thriller Gold.
No comments:
Post a Comment