[Peace-discuss] Mean Streets (2) (David Sirota on Populism, too)

[Stuart Levy]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 01:25:17PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> [I'm sure the panel will agree.  --CGE]
>
> 	Get Your Populist Rage On
> 	By Paul Street, Mar 30, 2009
>
> ...We need to situate the new administration in the world of power as it 
> is, not the world of power as so many us wish it to be....
>
> ...A lot of us are starting to figure out that Status QuObama was hired by 
> the corporate and military establishment to (among other things) put us all 
> to sleep on the left. Its about time. Its like this guy Scott Horton said 
> on Antiwar.com a few weeks back: "those who bought into the slogans 
> 'Hope' and 'Change' last fall should have read the fine print. We were 
> warned."
>
> ...The message from the new Washington regime and from the dominant 
> corporate media that sold it to us is very clear. Our instructions are to 
> calm down. Stand down. Chill out. Be cool. We are supposed to understand 
> that our anger is dangerous and dysfunctional. Our "populist rage" is 
> making things worse. If you want decent and democratic policies like single 
> payer national health insurance, union organizing rights, public control of 
> the financial system, the removal of Wall Street perpetrators, the 
> prosecution of war crimes, the slashing of the bloated Pentagon budget, a 
> real peace dividend......if you want all these things and are ready to 
> fight for them beyond the supervision of your corporate and political 
> masters, then you are a suitable case for psychiatric treatment.

[...]

Yes indeed.  Hot words but so is the topic.  "Populism" is a good
word to detoxify these days -- we need it.

(A recent FT column, criticizing some irresponsible aspect of the bank
bailouts, nevertheless warned, without explanation, against the risk
of succumbing to (or maybe it was "descending into") populism.
Eh, why's that?  To whom is it a risk?)


David Sirota wrote Friday 4/24 in Salon.com, and commondreams republished:
   http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/24-2

	    Don't Pooh-Pooh Populism

In 2006, journalist Christopher Hayes wrote a little-noticed article for
In These Times magazine about a proposal in Oregon to crack down on predatory
lending. The initiative had become so popular that conservative legislators
supported it fearing that if it were put on the state's ballot, the resulting
gusher of grass-roots support would not only ratify the measure, but depose the
bank-allied Republican Party, too.

Hayes' piece was titled "Economic Populism Proves Popular," the headline a
sarcastic middle finger flashed at a political and media Establishment that
portrays policies "supporting the rights and power of the people" -- i.e., the
dictionary definition of "populism" -- as somehow anathema to the people.

That depiction, of course, continues today. But now, populism isn't just
popular in America; it is becoming the dominant paradigm, and that has the
Establishment frightened.

For years, the country watched its populist desire for healthcare, tax, trade
and financial reform run into the reality of elite politicians handing out
trillions of dollars' worth of corporate welfare and bank bailouts as the
economy collapsed. Not surprisingly, a new Rasmussen poll on attitudes toward
government and corporations shows 75 percent of the country "can be classified
on the populist or Mainstream side of the divide" while just 14 percent "side
with the political class."

As if to confirm the chasm, this "political class" -- consultants, politicians,
lobbyists and commentators -- has been denigrating populism as too overwrought
to be taken seriously. Listen to a typical pundit defending AIG's bonuses or
criticizing demands for a new trade policy, and you will inevitably hear the
word "populist" accompanied by the word "rage" and/or "dangerous," followed by
tributes to the status quo.

This elite propaganda, says Georgetown University's Michael Kazin, dismissively
implies "that anger from ordinary people is emotional, coming from people who
don't understand how the economy works and are just lashing out at their social
betters."

  [...some omitted...]

America has lately been taught to expect results from democracy. TV viewers get
to decide "American Idol" winners, Facebookers get to change their site's
bylaws, and voters get to autonomously use Obama campaign resources to win
elections -- and we get to do all this from outside the press clubs and
smoke-filled rooms.

This profound rewiring of instincts and expectations is why the vilification of
"populist rage" has failed as a political barbiturate, why the country still
seethes, and why both parties are suddenly listening to "the people" instead of
the Establishment. This is why, for instance, Republicans are staging "Tea
Party" protests against federal spending and why Democrats are pushing bills to
expand healthcare, reregulate Wall Street and cap executive pay -- because they
know the political class, however offended, can no longer stop a voter
backlash.

Admittedly, contradiction is everywhere:  Republican rallies bewail deficits
the GOP manufactured, and Democrats lament deregulatory schemes they originally
crafted.  But no matter how hypocritical the response is, it is a response,
and that represents change from decades of aloof government.  It suggests a
democratic renewal whereby populism -- i.e., advocating what the public wants --
isn't merely one popular brand of politics, but is politics itself.

 ---

Some comments on the commondreams version are worth reading, especially this one:

jp April 24th, 2009 1:21 pm

    I wish Sirota had carried his argument a bit further.  With the
    right essentially coopting populist rage, as in the "tea parties"
    of last week, the country is becoming poised for the kind of fascist
    resurgence that we all glimpsed during the Bush years.  Witness the
    manufactured uproar of Janet Napolitano's warnings of the increased
    risks of a right wing terrorist attack ala Oklahoma City.  Rather than
    facing this real domestic threat and starting to articulate a coherent
    and appealing program that addresses the real concerns of real people,
    many progressives simply pooh pooh the populist anger and fear that
    the tea parties represented.  No wonder liberals are so easily painted
    as elitists while real elites continue to conduct business as usual.

    As long as progressives sneer at the "astroturf" uprising of
    something like the Fox-concocted tea parties, they ignore the clear
    and dangerous fact that the right is coopting mass discontent. By
    offering simple answers aimed at exploiting fear and hatred, and by
    clearly defining enemies such as "Muslims," "illegals" or blacks,
    and by appealing to militant and virulent nationalism, the right
    has the upper hand.  We saw this clearly enough over the last eight
    years.  Now add in the economic crisis and I believe we are looking
    at some very bad times ahead.