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

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'm not sure if the complaint is that I'm too academic ("ivory tower") or not 
academic enough.

The tea party rallies occurred across the country, not just in West Side Park, 
and they were pretty well reported and described by people who took various 
views of them.  Academic polls and analyses of American political opinions and 
voting behavior are legion -- e.g., we've discussed Domhoff, Bartels, Frank and 
others recently on this list.  One of the most consistent results is that about 
80% of the U.S. population believes that the country is, in their words, run by 
“a few big interests looking out for themselves” (longitudinal polls from 
Project Censored).

On Frontline in 2001 the following question was put to Noam Chomsky: "The video 
('Manufacturing Consent') mentions that 20 per cent of the population that goes 
to college and holds important positions within the capitalist democracy - these 
are the sections of the population that need to be brainwashed under freedom. Do 
your books address this 20 per cent of the population, trying to strip them of 
their illusions, or whom are you addressing?"

Chomsky: "The 20 per cent figure is not mine. It is a standard notion in 
political science called the 'political class', the class that is actually 
active in public and economic affairs. This roughly constitutes about 20 per 
cent of the population. From the point of view of the propaganda or the 
doctrinal system they are a different kind of target than the rest of the 
population..."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--.htm

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> We find ideological propaganda from all over.
> 
> Perhaps if Carl clambered down from his ivory tower, and had appeared at 
> the local Tea Party event, he could have better assessed what it was all 
> about, how anti-government /anti-tax anger (except for militarism and 
> flying the flag) was harnessed and displayed. It was not so noble an 
> event as he thinks.
> 
>  Again, I don''t recognize the "liberal rage" he rants about. Are there 
> facts to back it up? How about some good references, if that is not too 
> "academic" to ask.  Also, where does the 20% (or is it 40% or 10%) come 
> from? The word demagoguery is not inapplicable here.
> 
> But I'm glad to see the blog article from Paul Street.
> 
> --mkb
> 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2009, at 3:02 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> The omitted part of Sirota's piece contains the important line,
>>
>> "...today's political class portrays the public's outrage as the 
>> nation's biggest problem, rather than what the public is justifiably 
>> outraged at."
>>
>> That's the heart of the matter, as the liberal outrage over the 
>> tea-party protests shows.  The "political class" is roughly the 
>> richest 20% of the US population, with good college educations (we use 
>> degrees as status markers in America) and an educated contempt for the 
>> stupid 80%.  Sometimes elite factions try to mobilize some of that 80% 
>> to use against their elite rivals (e.g., the "Reagan Democrats"; the 
>> Republican encouragement of the tea-party events -- too big across the 
>> country to regard as simply Astroturf) but they know that's dangerous.
>>
>> That political class has to be distinguished from the real economic 
>> elite in America -- a fraction of 1%, whose wealth has grown rapidly 
>> and at an accelerating pace in 30 years of neoliberalism, and now is 
>> equal to that of the bottom 90%.
>>
>> They won't stop at much to keep it.  And the key is to maintain the 
>> loyalty of the misled 20%.  They're the crucial recipients of 
>> political propaganda in America.  If they realize that their interests 
>> lie with the 80%, they will "fight the rich, not their wars," as 
>> Street says.
>>
>> That's what Obama meant when he said that his job was to "restore the 
>> bond of trust" between the government and the people in America: fight 
>> the wars, not the rich...  --CGE
>>
>>
>> Stuart Levy wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss