Populism: the unmentioned meme from this election.

[Zodiak]

It is clear from this election that voters had definitive motives for voting Democratic. From a quick glance at the results of individual state issues as well as the reasons given for voting in the exit polls, three or four voter positions can ge gleaned.

1. Americans have had enough of Bush and his scorched Earth, crony-driven political philosophy (corruption and the war being BIG issues).
2. Americans are tired of getting the short end of the economic stick (minimum wage laws as well as pro-worker reforms were voted in a number of states).
3. Americans are not quite ready for a more liberal social agenda, but opposition to that agenda is softer, now.

What kind of candidate would be a good fit for this wave of political opinion, Populists. The Populist philosophy, as outlined in What's the Matter With Kansas? entails a strong pro-worker philosophy of helping the little guy against corporations while coupling that philosophy on strong religious beliefs. A populist will be first in line to tax a wealthy business and regulate it into serving the public good, but will still be against gay marriage and abortion (as examples).

For some of my liberal brethren, a populist is a bane and a boon. I do not recommend populists in areas that are bastions of liberal philosophy, but these kinds of Democrats can really resonate in the South. Liberals can also always count on the populists to level the playing field between rich and poor. In fact, some would argue that once these issues are levelled, people will have more time and money to actually THINK about their positions on social issues, helping liberals further (albeit slowly).

Is a Populist a DLCer? Not really. Populists run as far from free trade policies as possible, and they are not very kind to those that would help the rich and middle class at the expense of the poor. What's more, a populist would be against a DLCer on a lot of social issues (the issues that DLCers use to get Dems to vote for them).

If we were to have any kind of "centrist" or "conservative" Democrats, it should be populists. The American poeple want it, and I think the Democratic party should give it to them over the next few election cycles.

It will widen up the advantage in Congress and go a long way to pulling the teeth from the corporate beast over the next generation. But we have to start talking about it.

The DLCers are already saying it was THEIR brand of centrism that won the day. The Republicans are saying that even though they lost, conservatism won. Both are wrong, and they are afraid to name the REAL message of the American people in swing districts....populism.

All my opinion, of course. Let's discuss.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. However, when I hear the word populist

Prohibition is always the first thing that comes to my mind. It is still too emotionally driven of a device for my tastes.

[Zodiak]

2. Really? I have never made that association.

And yes, Populists, when given too much power, tend to moralize and overreach like prohibition. All do.

I think I can fogive populists for overreaching 80 years ago, and I am willing to bet that many Americans, especially "red" ones are as well.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. Then let me help you with associating that.

William Jennings Bryan was at the center of the Populist movement. He was by trade a Presbyterian minister and was one of the earlier attempts of the theocrats to co-mingle church and state as at it's essence Populism was a religious movement but unlike today arose out of the Democratic party.

Jennings campaigned long and hard to have prohibition laws enacted as after all alcohol was the work of the devil much like marijuana is the heathen devil weed of today. He also was a star witness in the Scopes Monkey trial as it was his belief that "the possibility that the theory of evolution could undermine the foundations of morality." His movement would be akin to the religious right movement of today except that his party did believe that the teachings of Jesus did imply an obligation to help the poor and needy and so today's conservatives of course brand him as a socialist and\or communist.

For me it still goes back to the idea of the co-mingling of church and state is by definition, and by law although most conservatives don't understand this, a bad idea. That is why the founders placed freedom of religion and no obligations to take oaths into the constitution.

I might suggest that you read Gregory Boyd's new book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation," for an excellent definition and theology on the roll of religion in politics. Unlike Jim Wallis's book, "The Politics of God," in which he basically says he does not have any problem with the commingling of church and state it just needs to be more of a Democratic version of Christianity, Boyd accurately describes and expands on why it is a bad idea, not to mention unconstitutional, to commingle the Christian religion with politics for both the government and the church.

Here is the wikpedia article on Jennings which talks extensively about his career and the populist movement. Which, incidentally many people have thought and written about that the movie, The Wizard of Oz, was a statement of Populist principles, but no one really knows that for certain. But it is fun to play around with.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan

[Zodiak]

12. thanks for the info

Interesting stuff. I agree that an overt attempt at mingling church and state would be a bad thing, but then again, I also suspect there are plenty of secular Democrats who would be an excellent check for that.

But there is a place in politics for religious people, and I belive that the Democratic party would be an excellent home for the populists.

Your misgivngs are legitimate and worth exploring. I'm just reading the tea leaves and have a lot of experience with the rural South. Populism could shave some more representatives from the R column.

[paparush]

3. Yes baby!! Screw the Rich. Feed the Poor

[Peace Patriot]

4. I think we're still in a very artificial, illusionary political world manipulated by:

I think we're still in a very artificial, illusionary political world manipulated by: 1) Diebold/ES&S, and 2) massive corporate money/power.

1. During the 2002-2004 period, electronic voting corporations with close ties to the Bush Junta and far rightwing causes completely took over our election system and are "counting" all the votes (including the votes in the primary elections) with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it. This DIRECT control over election results adds to the enormous corporate power over our representatives via their need for campaign money/TV ads. Until we restore transparent vote counting, we can have no confidence that our representatives were freely chosen by the people. For instance, EVEN WITH a 30-some Dem majority in the House, and a 50/50 split in the Senate, the new Congress doesn't even come close to representing the SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people who oppose the Iraq War and other Bush policies. I think we have to figure that our Corporate Rulers had their own reasons for somewhat curtailing Bush fascism (possibly the Iraq War has become "bad for business"?, or, South America needs some attention--too much democracy happening there?), and for creating a secondary illusion of a Democratic "win," but a very carefully crafted one, determined way back in the primaries, in which a group of "Bushite Democrats"--like the ones who voted for torture and suspension of habeas corpus a few weeks ago--hold a powerful "swing vote" position. I think some of the politicians in the new Congress would have been elected anyway, but by no means all. The PEOPLES' view of the government was only PARTIALLY reflected in these elections. And the PEOPLES' distrust of the election system was reflected in the massive Absentee Ballot voting in these elections--a big voters' REVOLT against the machines--but no one is talking about THAT. (The Corporate news monopolies "spun" it, about ten days ago, as voters choosing "convenience." They didn't mention voter distrust of the machines, not even as a possibility!)

2. These elections cost THREE BILLION DOLLARS. $40 per vote. Most of that money got poured right into the pockets of the very war profiteering corporate news monopolies who have been spewing 24/7 rightwing propaganda at us for 6 years (and more)--for extremely expensive TV commercials. We cannot expect a political system that is so awash in dirty money to yield results that are representative of the majority of Americans.

These two grave structural problems with our political system are what I mean by an "artificial, illusionary political world." The first--direct secret corporate control over vote counting--is the most outrageous and blatantly UN-democratic. The second--corruption by money--we have become inured to, but we also need to fight and undo. But we can't fight the money corruption without the power of the vote. And the power of the vote rests upon TRANSPARENCY, which has been lost.

I think the huge Absentee Ballot rebellion is the key to getting it back. It got up to 50% and 60% in some places--of people BOYCOTTING the machines. We need to mobilize this huge block of distrustful and discontented voters to put pressure on LOCAL election officials, to, a) HAND COUNT Absentee Ballot votes, and b) POST the results BEFORE any electronics are used. Thus, we begin creating a paper ballot system BY DEFAULT. These simple, common sense demands are clearly the wish of the AB voters, and are doable at the LOCAL level. We might then try to extend them to the Optiscan ballots (hand count them and post the results immediately, before the machines start "counting").

Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are merely talking about a "paper trail," with the corporations still having TRADE SECRET programming in the electronic voting machines and central tabulators. A "paper trail" is useless without adequate AUDITING, which we have nowhere, even in the best states. (Recounts are too expensive and difficult to obtain--and are thus very rare.) ALL votes--even AB votes--are entered into this rigged system. And if there is no auditing (some states) or very inadequate auditing (all states), these extremely insecure and insider hackable machines can EASILY fiddle ANY AND ALL election results. One insider hacker, a couple of minutes, leaving no trace--that's all it takes, and millions of votes can be undetectably changed. Why is the Dem establishment blockading real reform? Because the billions of dollars in e-voting contracts--engineered by Tom Delay and Bob Ney back in the Anthrax Congress (abetted by corporatist 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd)--has corrupted so many election officials and legislators, both Dem and Repub. This is one of the main reasons for the MIND-BOGGLING silence of the Dem Party leadership as these outrageously non-transparent, corporate-run vote "counting" systems were installed.

So, We, the People, need to find a way to circumvent all this corruption--and I believe the AB voters have pointed the way to a PRACTICAL STRATEGY of achieving transparent vote counts. We election reform activists just need to focus this huge movement of individual citizens who are trying to get around the rigged system by voting with an Absentee Ballot, and provide some leadership. Many election reformers will be playing the DC game, trying to get a mostly corporatist (albeit Dem) Congress to reform the election system. Good luck to 'em! But we must not forget the people and what THEY want: A TRANSPARENTLY COUNTED PAPER BALLOT! Nor should we forget what they have done: a massive BOYCOTT of the machines. Nor should we forget where it occurred: at the LOCAL level, in the hearts and minds of the People, who have figured out what's what, and are trying to get around the rigged electronics.

We can't choose liberalism or conservatism, or Bushism or leftism, or "centrism," or "populism," or anything else, until we restore TRANSPARENT vote counting. And there is little sense in even discussing these trends, in such a skewed political environment. We need to get our BASIC RIGHTS back first. THEN, with all votes counted, and some curtailment of the campaign contribution filth, we can have a decent, open national discussion of what is truly in the interests of the people of this country.

------------------------------

Journal readers, this entry is in response to Zodiak Ironfist's "Populism: the unmentioned meme from this election":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2950044

[Zodiak]

5. You get no argument from me regarding the voting machines

They do make public opinion a rather sketchy thing these days.

I am, of course, operating on the assumption that the Repukes gamed the system for their 3-5% of votes, but tis time it was not enough to overwhelm the turnout or the Republican defectors. We won this one despite the other side not playing fair.

And our elections should be fixed.

The good thing about having a Populist for a political ally, they will suredly vote for transparent elections because it maximizes the power of the individual voter. I cannot say that you would get the same support from a corporate or conservative Democrat; both tend to be elitists when it comes to transparency and the power of the people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. I'd add a #4

Hypocrisy: If you're going to rant about the threat to american families by the prospect of gay marriage, then you ought not to actively ignore pedophiles in congress.

If you're going to actively pander to people's xenophobic nature, you ought not to simultaneously pursue amnesty.

If you're going to assume the mantle of protector, you ought not to publish nuke bomb plans - in arabic - on government websites.

[Zodiak]

7. no argument from me there: hypocrisy sticks in everyone's craw

The repukes really did create a "perfect storm" for themselves.

We will not always enjoy that kind of climate so we had better work fast to define ourselves and put forth squeeky-clean legislation.

I wager the pukes won't be so stupid in 2008.

[Cafe Americano]

8. Religious right

Republicans have grown closer and closer to the fundamentalist Christians, which makes them look farther and farther from the middle.

[Zodiak]

9. Yes, they have. But good old old christian values....

of love thy neighbor, honor your mother and father, and alms to the poor transcend fundamentalism.

It is not Christianity that is fringe, it is freako right-wing christianity that is fringe. We do not need that group, but we can get some to vote with us if we run a populist (as well as the majority of mainstream Christians). After all, conservative social values coupled with liberal economic ones does not need any rhetorical gymastics to explain. Christianity is built upon those principles, which are self-explanatory to anyone who actually reads the Bible.

This would bring the public perception of the Democratic party to the center in the eyes of Southerners without compromising economic principles that make the tide raise all boats.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi Cafe Americano!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SOS]

13. Populism mentioned as factor in The Nation:

"McCaskill, a hard-nosed former prosecutor, and Webb, a tough-as-beef-jerky former Republican cabinet officer, are nobody's idea of wild-eyed liberals. But they both ran campaigns that stubbornly bucked conventional wisdom for Southern Democrats running statewide in the last two decades. Running against hardcore Christian conservative incumbents, neither of them triangulated. They were unwaveringly pro-choice; they called for sharp changes in Iraq policy; McCaskill opposed anti-gay marriage hoo-ha; and they ran as old-fashioned, blue-collar, labor-embracing economic populists. As what used to be called Democrats, that is.
"It's back to the traditional Democratic Party, which was founded on the health of the working person," Webb told me earlier this fall."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=138042