You two are on it!
Posted on 11/24/2009 11:30:36 AM PST by Smogger
Is a Jackson revival under way? I'm referring not to the late King of Pop but to the 19th century populist president whom his opponents called "King Andrew." According to Michael Barone, in the 2010 elections Republicans have a chance to knock Democrats out of as many as three dozen insecure congressional seats in "Jacksonian districts."
By itself, this would merely reinforce the identification of the Party Formerly Known as Lincoln's with the white South. But in a time of popular anger over banker bonuses and lobby-hobbled government, the themes of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian populism have appeal far beyond the Scots-Irish enclaves of the Appalachians and Ozarks. Witness the calls from Democrats as well as Republicans for President Obama to oust Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and pay more attention to Main Street than to Wall Street.
In itself, American populism is neither left nor right. Translated into economics, Jacksonian populism spells producerism. For generations, Jacksonian populists have believed that the hardworking majority of small producers is threatened from above and below by two classes of drones: unproductive capitalists and unproductive paupers. While government promotion of public goods like defense, infrastructure and utilities that benefit all citizens is acceptable, Jacksonomics is suspicious of crony capitalists who owe their fortunes to political connections (can you spell B-A-I-L-O-U-T?). And Jacksonian producerism naturally is haunted by the nightmare of a class of the idle poor, who are capable of working but instead live off the labors of others and lack an ownership stake in the community.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
A good read.
Just one point. Liberal progressives in the House opposed TARP1 with conservatives, but the leadership including Maxine Waters pressed them for it. They really saw TARP1 as going to next president Obama to be used for pro-union projects, much like the stimulus. They were not hot on banks getting it, short a total takeover of banks.
Populism is usually a way to get voters to turn off their brains and do what the leaders of the movement want them to do. It is most often statist, and I no longer distinguish left statism from right wing statism. Statism is statism.
There is an element of populism in every ism in modern history, save one - capitalism, the only ism worth doing.
Brilliantly stated.
There seems to be a knee-jerk conservative view that since Liberal elitism = bad, that populism=good. This is recent history, since liberal elites have run America since we've been in the Big Govt era. Populism in the latter 19th century was a way to blame the ills of society on large 'malefactors' whether corporate or governmental or both. that viewpoint leads inevitably to statist 'solutions'. In other words, in US history Populism begats Progressivism begat Big Governmentism. Obama's Liberalism is rooted in old-time Populism (William Jennings Bryan).
Being 'for the People' as self-reliant patriots is good, but if 'populism' means beating up on the 'elites', it's just another 'us vs them' political pander that leads to no good end. It's the stuff of 'windfall profits tax', pointless regs on business, and weath redistribution.
The solution is not to oppose nor favor populism per se, but to see REAL PRINCIPLES of Freedom, Life, Family, Rule of Law, Free Enterprise and Responsibility as the correct basis of political action, whether 'the people' adhere or not.
That's about right. We have one on the 4th. district Rep from Oregon, Defazio. With no basis he frames his talking points in terms the people want to hear. He even votes the way the people want sometimes, but when it is pivotal he is a reliable vote for the CPC cause.
That IS populism in a nutshell, a favorite tool of the left. And you are correct, the authoritarian so-con wing uses it too. Likewise Sarah Palin. It bothers me somewhat that the label is used on her but it is true. Still, it is a tool most often used by the left and if this thread's headline is a reflection of what the writer says (I haven't read it yet) then he is wrong.
They should be "called out" (their favorite term now) on this, and conservative writers certainly should not describe them as such.
The limited government principles and philosophy underlying the United States Constitution are the most revolutionary and progressive ideas ever introduced, for they lead to liberty and prosperity! Clearly, those are not the ideas dominating Washington today under the so-called "progressive" banner.
Rather, the ideology and policies dominating this Congress and Administration are truly regressive, because they expand the coercive power of government over the lives of individuals. Everywhere and any time they have been tried, they have led to loss of individual freedom and bondage to government.
We need a return to the revolutionary ideas embodied in our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States of America. A focus on those ideas will be recognized by youth as progressive, if they are appropriately articulated. See
Is individualism considered “populism”?
By individualism I mean the sovereignty of the individual,
as opposed to turning over the decisions of his life to the elitists / ruling class.
Individualism is inherently anti-statism.
What we’re seeing today could be disparaged as populism,
but in reality it’s individualism and anti-elitism.
IMO, individualism is anti-populism. Populism usually show up as some form of collectivism. Populists may reject an elite, but usually follow another elite.
Uh.. maybe you should read the article. And we are specifically referring to “Jacksonian” populism.
You two are on it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.