Comments on: Populism And Policy http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:22:40 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Blame Populism! « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15202 Blame Populism! « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:33:37 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15202 [...] But there is something odd about Brooks’s column, and my discomfort with it goes beyond the sorts of (quite important) criticisms that Daniel Larison has raised about the ease with which Brooks conflates a merely rhetorical “populism” with support for policy measures that are actually populist in the truer sense of the word. As Matt Welch pointed out in response to the infamous “revolt of the nihilists” column of a couple of weeks ago, it is arguably David Brooks’s ideas - the very ideas that he promised in 2002 could make Bush “one of the great transformational presidents of the age” - that have been hard at work over the past seven-plus years, and the present mess is arguably their very direct consequence. Compassionate conservatism? Check. An aggressive foreign policy? Doublecheck. “National greatness”? Well, at least we tried. And yet - or, one might insist, and so - here we are, with the economy collapsing, our troops stuck in a pair of nasty quagmires abroad, and David Brooks’s party facing a 1980-like scenario come this November 4. [...] [...] But there is something odd about Brooks’s column, and my discomfort with it goes beyond the sorts of (quite important) criticisms that Daniel Larison has raised about the ease with which Brooks conflates a merely rhetorical “populism” with support for policy measures that are actually populist in the truer sense of the word. As Matt Welch pointed out in response to the infamous “revolt of the nihilists” column of a couple of weeks ago, it is arguably David Brooks’s ideas – the very ideas that he promised in 2002 could make Bush “one of the great transformational presidents of the age” – that have been hard at work over the past seven-plus years, and the present mess is arguably their very direct consequence. Compassionate conservatism? Check. An aggressive foreign policy? Doublecheck. “National greatness”? Well, at least we tried. And yet – or, one might insist, and so – here we are, with the economy collapsing, our troops stuck in a pair of nasty quagmires abroad, and David Brooks’s party facing a 1980-like scenario come this November 4. [...]

]]> By: Michael D. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15201 Michael D. Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:24 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15201 So then Sarah Palin is actually a cancer on right-wing populism, no? So then Sarah Palin is actually a cancer on right-wing populism, no?

]]> By: Indya http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15193 Indya Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:45:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15193 Jingoism is still very much alive. Just look at The Corner! All this McCarthyistic crypto-Marxist, neo-Marxist, Socialist smearing is ridiculous. Americans by and large enjoy the fact that there is a safety net for the elderly in Social Security, Medicare, etc. because it has helped people that they know. It's not even a philosophical question anymore except for the conservative purist. You have several generations that have grown up with it. Most people want it to stay. Until the last couple of weeks, I would not have considered us a socialist state, and even now I still do not. But you would think that the world was ending the way some people see the coming Obama presidency. I swear, it feels like we are in the 1950s. Jingoism is still very much alive. Just look at The Corner! All this McCarthyistic crypto-Marxist, neo-Marxist, Socialist smearing is ridiculous. Americans by and large enjoy the fact that there is a safety net for the elderly in Social Security, Medicare, etc. because it has helped people that they know. It’s not even a philosophical question anymore except for the conservative purist. You have several generations that have grown up with it. Most people want it to stay. Until the last couple of weeks, I would not have considered us a socialist state, and even now I still do not. But you would think that the world was ending the way some people see the coming Obama presidency. I swear, it feels like we are in the 1950s.

]]> By: tenaciousd http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15191 tenaciousd Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:16:01 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15191 Populism and cosmopolitanism were united only briefly during the eras of W.J. Bryan (NE) and FDR (NY). Bryan's populism was forged by the robber barons and FDR's by the Depression. Those were distinctly economic issues that demanded economic responses because America had a consensus on social issues. However, Sen. McCarthy (WI) introduced modern populist demogoguery during the Red Scare and Gov. Wallace (AL) warmed the nation up to Southern style populist demogoguery during the Civil Rights movement. To this day, all liberals are smeared as some form of communist (now "terrorist" sypathizer) and n****r lovers. Bill Ayers represents a nice merger of the two memes in Obama's case. The themes that were promulgated by McCarthy and Wallace were distinctly non-economic because they emerged during an era of economic prosperity (but social turmoil) for dominant white middle class men. So, the "pilot light" for the economic component of populism was extinguished. When economic decline set in for the white middle class male in the 70s, many saw it as vindication of McCarthy and Wallace who had warned us that pinkos, coloreds, and feminists were going to bring us down. Culture was the cause of the economic decline for the white man--not big business or globalization or a lack of regulation. Only now are people beginning to scratch their heads and wonder. Everyone has become quite comfortable with all of the old cultural bugaboos, so it can't be that--and no one seriously believes there is any "going back." Hell, the governor of Alaska's daughter got knocked up and turned into a prop at the GOP convention. All we have left is to defend the Stone Henge-like ruins of the "institution of marriage" from gays. Populism and cosmopolitanism were united only briefly during the eras of W.J. Bryan (NE) and FDR (NY). Bryan’s populism was forged by the robber barons and FDR’s by the Depression. Those were distinctly economic issues that demanded economic responses because America had a consensus on social issues. However, Sen. McCarthy (WI) introduced modern populist demogoguery during the Red Scare and Gov. Wallace (AL) warmed the nation up to Southern style populist demogoguery during the Civil Rights movement. To this day, all liberals are smeared as some form of communist (now “terrorist” sypathizer) and n****r lovers. Bill Ayers represents a nice merger of the two memes in Obama’s case. The themes that were promulgated by McCarthy and Wallace were distinctly non-economic because they emerged during an era of economic prosperity (but social turmoil) for dominant white middle class men. So, the “pilot light” for the economic component of populism was extinguished. When economic decline set in for the white middle class male in the 70s, many saw it as vindication of McCarthy and Wallace who had warned us that pinkos, coloreds, and feminists were going to bring us down. Culture was the cause of the economic decline for the white man–not big business or globalization or a lack of regulation. Only now are people beginning to scratch their heads and wonder. Everyone has become quite comfortable with all of the old cultural bugaboos, so it can’t be that–and no one seriously believes there is any “going back.” Hell, the governor of Alaska’s daughter got knocked up and turned into a prop at the GOP convention. All we have left is to defend the Stone Henge-like ruins of the “institution of marriage” from gays.

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15189 Daniel Larison Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:52:08 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15189 " "Sakartvelian solidarity” means … ?" Well, what is Georgia's actual name in Georgian, and of which nation did McCain declare us all to be members? Rawshark, your assessment is probably right, at least as far as the prospects of real action are concerned. Besides the interests that demand cheap labor, there is an advantage in keeping restrictionists on the hook just enough to retain their support. It's the same way with pro-life activists--throw them a little something, maybe even a judicial appointment they'll like, and they'll keep coming back. Why deliver on larger promises when constituencies seem to be happy just to have a seat at the table? ” “Sakartvelian solidarity” means … ?”

Well, what is Georgia’s actual name in Georgian, and of which nation did McCain declare us all to be members?

Rawshark, your assessment is probably right, at least as far as the prospects of real action are concerned. Besides the interests that demand cheap labor, there is an advantage in keeping restrictionists on the hook just enough to retain their support. It’s the same way with pro-life activists–throw them a little something, maybe even a judicial appointment they’ll like, and they’ll keep coming back. Why deliver on larger promises when constituencies seem to be happy just to have a seat at the table?

]]> By: rawshark http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15187 rawshark Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:15:59 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15187 'It is also remarkable that Brooks complains in the same column that the GOP does nothing for working-class Americans and nonetheless attacks the “populist excess” of opposition to mass immigration, when the failure of immigration enforcement and border security and the travesty of immigration “reform” championed by the Bush administration and columnists such as Brooks are directly antithetical to the interests of working-class Americans. ' IMO the GOP is never going to do anything to slow illegal immigration. Not as long as they represent business interests which want to control salaries. They'll side with the anti-immigration people in order to appear populist and to stay on the side of the people who believe the real America has lost it's way but they love the cheap labor. If they really wanted to stop it they would have taken steps by now. Real steps. Not lip service about building walls. They got the tax cuts they wanted, they got their wars, they got Bush to fly to DC to sign the Schiavo law, what they really want they get. And in the case of illegal immigration, what they've got is a wedge issue that sends the base and a lot of 'the biggest idiots in the world' (undecideds - Brian Griffin, Family Guy) into a lather. Trust me it's bad. We have a sheriff here in AZ who does nothing but have weekly immigrant roundups and this allows him to coast to relection everytime. The right has lots of little two minute hate items it can use to fire up the bitters. Why campaign on issues and make promises you'll have to blame the media for not keeping? Just dredge up some hate. ‘It is also remarkable that Brooks complains in the same column that the GOP does nothing for working-class Americans and nonetheless attacks the “populist excess” of opposition to mass immigration, when the failure of immigration enforcement and border security and the travesty of immigration “reform” championed by the Bush administration and columnists such as Brooks are directly antithetical to the interests of working-class Americans. ‘

IMO the GOP is never going to do anything to slow illegal immigration. Not as long as they represent business interests which want to control salaries. They’ll side with the anti-immigration people in order to appear populist and to stay on the side of the people who believe the real America has lost it’s way but they love the cheap labor.
If they really wanted to stop it they would have taken steps by now. Real steps. Not lip service about building walls. They got the tax cuts they wanted, they got their wars, they got Bush to fly to DC to sign the Schiavo law, what they really want they get. And in the case of illegal immigration, what they’ve got is a wedge issue that sends the base and a lot of ‘the biggest idiots in the world’ (undecideds – Brian Griffin, Family Guy) into a lather. Trust me it’s bad. We have a sheriff here in AZ who does nothing but have weekly immigrant roundups and this allows him to coast to relection everytime. The right has lots of little two minute hate items it can use to fire up the bitters. Why campaign on issues and make promises you’ll have to blame the media for not keeping? Just dredge up some hate.

]]> By: djtuchler http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15186 djtuchler Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:10:37 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15186 "Sakartvelian solidarity" means ... ? “Sakartvelian solidarity” means … ?

]]> By: LMaggitti http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-15182 LMaggitti Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:57:13 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/10/populism-and-policy/#comment-15182 Thoughtful stuff, Daniel. Speaking as someone who, at the same, agrees with you with regard to the problems with relying upon the "experts", but also is ambivalent, to say the least, with regard to populism (that's why I'm a libertarian, I guess), I think that populism inherently has a ... difficult relationship with policy substance. I guess what I'm saying is that given the inherent nature of populism, where is the policy substance supposed to come from? When populism does have policy substance (and sometimes it does), it's when a charismatic leader channels the inchoate concerns of the masses into a coherent policy program. However, more often than not, the policy platforms of these charismatic leaders are problematic, to say the least. See, e.g., Huey Long, though I could name more than a few other examples. I'd be curious to hear what your thoughts are regarding this. Do you think that there are alternate sources of policy substance available to populist movements? If so, what are they? If not, do you think I'm being unfair regarding the type of leader that often emerges to harness populist movements? To ask the last question a little differently, let's imagine a Sarah Palin with the instincts and rhetoric of the real Sarah Palin, but with some policy substance behind her populist rhetoric. Wouldn't that, in some ways, be worse (as you could imagine such a creature actually gaining power)? Thoughtful stuff, Daniel. Speaking as someone who, at the same, agrees with you with regard to the problems with relying upon the “experts”, but also is ambivalent, to say the least, with regard to populism (that’s why I’m a libertarian, I guess), I think that populism inherently has a … difficult relationship with policy substance. I guess what I’m saying is that given the inherent nature of populism, where is the policy substance supposed to come from? When populism does have policy substance (and sometimes it does), it’s when a charismatic leader channels the inchoate concerns of the masses into a coherent policy program. However, more often than not, the policy platforms of these charismatic leaders are problematic, to say the least. See, e.g., Huey Long, though I could name more than a few other examples.

I’d be curious to hear what your thoughts are regarding this. Do you think that there are alternate sources of policy substance available to populist movements? If so, what are they? If not, do you think I’m being unfair regarding the type of leader that often emerges to harness populist movements?

To ask the last question a little differently, let’s imagine a Sarah Palin with the instincts and rhetoric of the real Sarah Palin, but with some policy substance behind her populist rhetoric. Wouldn’t that, in some ways, be worse (as you could imagine such a creature actually gaining power)?

]]>