NYT: For Incoming Freshman Class of Democrats, Populism Trumps Ideology

[DeepModem Mom]

For Incoming Democrats, Populism Trumps Ideology
By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE
Published: November 12, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 — The newly elected Democratic class of 2006, which is set to descend on the Capitol next week, will hardly be the first freshmen to arrive in Washington promising to make a difference.

The last time Congress changed hands, the Republican freshman class of 1994 roared into town under the leadership of Newt Gingrich as speaker and quickly advanced a conservative agenda of exceptional ambition.

Many in the class of 2006, especially those who delivered the new Democratic majorities by winning Republican seats, show little appetite for that kind of ideological crusade. But in interviews with nearly half of them this week, the freshmen conveyed a keen sense of their own moment in history, and a distinct world view: they say they were given a rare opportunity by voters, many of them independents and Republicans, who were tired of the partisanship and gridlock in Washington.

Now, they say, they have to produce — to deal with long-festering problems like access to affordable health care and the loss of manufacturing jobs, and to find a bipartisan consensus for an exit strategy in Iraq, a source of continuing division not only between but also within the parties.

Many of them say they must also, somehow, find a way to address the growing anxiety among voters about a global economy that no longer seems to work for them. There is a strong populist tinge to this class....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/politics/12class.html?hp&ex=1163307600&en=c28b82096a3935d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[kenny blankenship]

1. Fucking High earnin' NYTimes writers ! Populism IS AN IDEOLOGY

it's an anti-elitist ideology. It may not be systemic in thought like Marxism, but not all ideologies aspire to be fully worked out philosophies without blind spots, without responses to previous philosophies, without obvious self-contradictions, or weak links bridging their policy programs to "first principles".
The ideology of Populism insists on putting the interests of common people AS THEY DEFINE THOSE INTERESTS (not as elites and hired media experts define them) first, and it assumes the opposition of an power wielding economic elite--which in today's scene is a thoroughly warranted assumption. This article itself is an example of the attempt by elites to sap and undermine the power of the current populist revolt. They're trying to define and contain what this moment of revolt is. It's really funny: the scholarly experts and high paid pundits didn't see this one coming; the mandate-bearing 2006 class hasn't even been sworn in yet; and they're already being told by the media what they mustn't do or think.

[kenny blankenship]

4. ( to hopefully clarify my outburst a bit )

The assumed opposition of an unscrupulous powerful economic elite is what qualifies Populism an ideology--it makes it distinct from mere grumblings. Populism sets itself on a mission to wrest power from this elite with the intent of flipping the order of priorities--economic priorities-- being addressed/served by political power. It is therefore a movement seeking a transformation of society, and thus classified correctly as an ideology.

Sorry to threadjack this posting, DeepModem Mom, but when I see a headline from an elite rag which belittles the "thumping" of Nov. 7th by saying Oh it's nothing really serious, it's just POPULISM, not something IDEOLOGICAL... it kinda gets under my skin. I see it as not just a journalist's slack vocabulary on parade, but I begin to suspect an media hireling's attempt to diminish the seriousness of the voters' expression, and an attempt to patiently guide things back to the status quo ante Nov.7 by circumscribing in advance what the voter revolt just heard round the world might mean.

[sweetheart]

2. its the star trek generation

everybody knows how to land on planet populist hollywood.

[Demit]

3. So nice to see the words in print again: affordable healthcare, jobs, populism...

wonder if the NYT had to run a spell check on these unfamiliar terms.

[alarimer]

5. It's nice to see this instead of the meme that the new Dems

are conservative. I know that populists are necessarily liberal but it sure sounds better than the other spin we've been hearing.

[0rganism]

6. In what way could one call the last 6 years "gridlocked"?

"tired of the partisanship and gridlock in Washington"

Excuse me? Hello? Overturning Habeas Corpus, institutionalizing torture, rubber-stamping warrantless domestic wiretaps, passing huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich, appointing good ol' boys and wingnuts to every level of the judicial hierarchy, dismissing outright huge bodies of scientific research in favor of corporate-friendly deregulation, looting the treasury on behalf of the GOP's largest campaign donors, defunding benefits for veterans and the families of deployed soldiers, and rubber-stamping the invasion and occupation of Iraq, just to name a few, are not gridlock. There is no way any self-respecting political analyst could describe the partisan activities of the last 6 years as "gridlock".

I wish they had been gridlocked. I wish every damn bit of their nutty agenda had been gridlocked to all hell. The damage these greedy asshat politicos have caused by NOT being gridlocked will take responsible people DECADES to repair, under the BEST possible conditions (which are seldom available).

Some dillweed on the NYT editorial staff needs to get a new thesaurus.