Posted on 03/03/2010 5:02:54 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
I noticed in the last few days that Mitt Romney has warned ominously about "the temptations of populism." In an interview with the Boston Globe, Romney says:
“The populism I’m referring to is, if you will, demonizing certain members of society: going after businesspeople, going after Wall Street, going after people who are highly educated, people who are CEOs,’’ Romney said in an interview. “That kind of ‘All of our problems are due to that group’ is something that is unproductive.’’…
“Populism sometimes takes the form of being anti-immigrant, and appearing anti-immigrant, and that likewise is destructive to a nation which has built its economy through the innovation and hard work and creativity of people who have come here from foreign shores,’’ Romney said.
I believe this is a preemptive attack on conservative populism, and its most visible spokesman, Sarah Palin, by trying to characterize the philosophy as bigoted, benighted and destructive to the capitalist system. Conservative Populism is none of the above.
In his excellent article in the Weekly Standard, The Palin Persuasion, A Case for the New Populism, Matthew Continetti argues persuasively that there are four separate iterations of populism in American political history represented by Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Ronald Reagan and, currently, Sarah Palin. All three share the common thread of "rule by the people, of competitive commercial markets and of individuals lighting out to the territories."
Continetti observes that populism has assumed a distinctly conservative orientation as the government has both grown rapidly and has become both a tool of the elites, as well as an elite unto itself:
Over the last century, the popular energies that fueled Jackson and Bryan shifted to the right side of the political spectrum. Increasingly, the public directed its animosity at the bureaucratic and governmental elites who robbed ordinary folk of liberties in the pursuit of "social justice." At the judges who designed busing schemes that disrupted neighborhood schools. At government-induced inflation and high marginal tax rates that destroyed savings and prevented the taxpayer from spending his earned income as he saw fit. At regulatory agencies that micromanaged the trucking, airline, power, and telecommunications sectors to the detriment of competition, innovation, and affordability...
When the average American looks at the headlines, he sees the government bailing out large, failed, politically connected enterprises even as the unemployment rate rises to 10 percent... He sees the president and Congress eager to pass a costly health care bill against the public's wishes; businesses funding Democratic campaigns so as not to be punished; the rich increasingly voting Democratic. In short, he sees a river of power and wealth flowing inexorably to Washington, D.C.
Continetti perceives that the current climate creates an opportunity for the right candidate:
All of which creates a gigantic opening for a politician to display imagination and leadership. An opportunity for a figure who will separate the good populism (championing free-enterprising individuals) from the bad (concocting loony theories and vilifying "enemies of the people"). Someone who will give voice to the millions who don't want government aggrandizing the powerful; who don't want government risking dangerous fiscal imbalances; who do want public policies that create the conditions for a general prosperity. Someone, in other words, who can play the same role in contemporary politics that Jackson, Bryan, and Reagan did in the past.
She lives in Alaska.
Comparing the four, he acknowledges the differences not the least of which is Palin's only very recent appearance on the national stage, but goes on to note:
But it's nonetheless true that a couple of traits span the centuries and unify these four political figures. The first is the reaction they provoke among the elites of their age--what one might call the "Coonskin Cap Critique." The second is their advocacy of dispersed power, open markets, and American individualism.
The "Coonskin Cap Critique" is the condescension and contempt in which all four were held by the elites of their day.( He observes that a good sign of condescension is when someone tell you that things are more complicated than you think. Recall Jeb Bush's warning to Sarah Palin just last week in the Newsmax Interview) All four were underestimated by their opponents. In all four cases, their supporters were referred to as "an ill-kempt and dangerous mob." He provides many examples of the Coonskin Cap Critique for all four of them , which I will not repeat here.
Second, the four share in common their advocacy of dispersed power, open markets and American individualism:
Because Andrew Jackson was the founder of the modern Democratic party, we have a tendency to look at him through big-government eyes. We draw a line that starts with Jackson, runs through Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, and ends up at Barack Obama. But the facts are more complicated than that. Jackson and Bryan were representatives of an American system where self-made men reaped the fruits of their labor without government meddling.
Reagan (a former Democrat) had a similar distrust for the Government, which Palin shares with him. The prescription for action among the four is simple and straightforward as well (not complicated as the elites always maintain):
Identify the obstacles impeding the American spirit and eliminate them.
Is tight money dampening economic growth? Kill the national bank. Are tariffs depressing farm wages? Reduce them. Is inflation robbing the middle class and high taxes limiting investment? Squeeze out inflation and lower the tax rates. The people will take care of the rest.
But, does Palin have a history similar to Jackson, Bryan and Reagan of confronting elites who are manipulating the government to their advantage and to the prejudice of the taxpayer? He answers:
And Palin? Time and again, she has run against elites who, in her view, are ignoring the public interest. She overthrew a three-term incumbent mayor of Wasilla because he wasn't as conservative as the people he represented. She used sales tax revenues and bond issues to help the town grow into a thriving suburb. She knocked off a Republican energy commissioner, a Republican attorney general, and an incumbent Republican governor because she felt that they were helping themselves and their friends and not the Alaskan people. As governor, she passed a sweeping ethics reform, changed the tax code so Alaskans got their fair share of oil revenues, and introduced competition and transparency into the construction of a natural gas pipeline.
The next time Mitt Romney or one of his minions tries to smear Palin as a populist and tries to misdefine American populism as some European socialism, don't let him get away with it. Mitt is the elitist, who is perfectly comfortable with the government subsidizing the largesse of he and his friends. Sarah Palin is the CONSERVATIVE populist, who is going to peel the greasy fingers of the elite off the levers of governmental power and disperse power to the people and to the states, as that great populist conservative document, the United States Constitution, rightly requires.
The link to Continetti's entire, and excellent, article is below.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/12/opinion/main5630041.shtml
Next up, “Profiles in Commonsense Conservatism”:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2010-03-03-palin-book_N.htm
Ping!
He'll have to take that issue up with the democrats...that's their shtick.
Now if he's suggesting that conservatives should embrace non-conservatives as their representatives then he fails to grasp the point of elections and trying to choose someone to represent you.
Why don’t you read the article, Mittster..er, I mean Mister.
“LOL. “Conservative populist.” There’s an oxymoron for you!”
You are confusing William Jennings Bryan’s definition of “populism” with Webster’s. Bryan has been dead for 85 years.
Romney versus Palin (Elitist versus Conservative Populist
Well, we had Romney vs. Palin last night.
Sarah Palin was on with Jay Leno
Romney was on with David Letterboy
The ratings were overwhelming for Sarah.
“The ratings were overwhelming for Sarah.”
I am thinking the election returns may be similar.
You got that right
After the new law Palin, pushed through, even the oil exec's admitted that it was a good deal for them and their going to develop the resources, build the natural gas pipeline and pay directly to Alaskans through the Alaskan Trust program.
The national GOP ought to look at this success, which put Palin up to 80%+ approval ratings.
I've thought for 20 years, that the number one target for the GOP ought to be special deals for big business. They ought to declare war on special deals, simplify the tax code, ie cut taxes in return for removing all of the subsidies. Attack Obama and the Democrats for being in bed with the BIG guys; Big Business, Big Labor, Big Lawyer and Big Bureaucracy. Root out the special deals...
Why do many working class people vote Democrat? I'd say, number one, they hate their bosses (at least resent them). They've identified the GOP with their bosses, therefore vote for wacko, anti-capitalist, environmentalist Democrats, who destroy their jobs. In 2000, I was in line waiting to vote, and two mechanic types from the nearby factory, talked about voting for Gore for this reason. They didn't know that Gore wrote the the internal combustion engine was going to destroy civilization. These guys worked in a business based on the internal combustion engine.
GOP FAIL. Why didn't they know about algore's views? Why? Bush was sympathetic to those views and didn't attack Gore for those views.
When I think of Romney I think back to the GOP debate in Iowa. The famous “Show of Hands” question. What an embarrassment.
Moderator Question, “Show of hands if you think Climate Change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?”
Watch Romney, McCain, Rudy, and it looks like Huckabee all raise their hands before Fred Thompson saves their butts wit the we are playing hands here, response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAYtC_jcK1U
I tried to like Romney, I really did, but if you closed your eyes during those debates and just listened to the answers he gave , they were just awful. He was not winning me over, or anyone else.
That “hand show” told me one thing. Romney,whatever else her is, is NO LEADER. If he took every position I take, I would still oppose him because he is completely spineless.
Our Sarah America has the natural presence, charm, sunny disposition, respect for our Constitution and love of country that President Reagan had and personified, and like President Reagan was disliked in his day by the nedia elites, Sarah is distained for many of the same reasons. She’s too western, too plain spoken, too unpolished, but (media muttering dammit), she connects with ordinary Americans and (dammit), she sure attracts crowds!
Meanwhile, media muttering dammit, does all it can to promote others and to criticize Sarah America and what does Sarah do?
She keeps smiling and making headlines where ever she goes!
I certainly see the parallels between SP and the Gipper but have been blasted occasionally for pointing them out. nonetheless, you are quite correct and the media hates her for it as they hated Reagan.
They thought they were finished with Reagan in 1988. And it is driving them nuts that they have to confront someone with similar skills.
Ah yes, but I didn’t compare their experience, because his trumps hers, but they share enough qualities that I’m more than willing to defend.
:)
I have noticed that the democrats are in the cat birds seat in this regard. They are riding on their undeserved reputation as being the party of the working man while they are actually in the pockets of big business. So they have the best of both worlds (ethics aside...which is typical for dems) to have the perception they are for the working man while actually being for, and getting the financial boost from, big business.
So I agree with you, the republicans need to "re-brand" so to speak and make it clear they are for the working man. Simplified tax reform that is transparent with no loopholes would be brilliant start.
Simple answer: the left (and MSM) has successfully portrayed Republicans as 'the boss man', who makes them suffer and holds them back- both financially and racially.
“it is driving them nuts that they have to confront someone with similar skills.”
Exactly, and they used the same tactics with Reagan they are using now against SP: Clark Clifford called him an “amiable dunce” and all their propaganda assets belittled him every chance they got.
They know she’s the real deal and they hate it. Now, if she’ll only keep McCain (D, AZ) at an arms length.
Sarah Palin registered as Republican because of President Reagan and Mitt Romney left the Republican party because of President Reagan.
Mitt Romney: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Mitt Romney: "I'm not a partisan politician. My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses."
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.