2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Question at the Heart of the Democratic Schism
Throughout the summer and fall, a group of writers (including me) began documenting the growing appeal of economic populism and the rising influence of its practitioners. We populist-boosters mostly had the field to ourselves for several months. But in the last few weeks, the skeptics have gotten vocal, culminating with a Wall Street Journal op-ed two weeks ago by the centrist group Third Way. The Third Way piece decried the economic populism of New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, which it labeled a dead end for Democrats.
Lost in the back and forth has been a precise definition of what populism actually is. In some tellings its a rhetorical posturesay, denouncing inequality or Wall Street banks. In others, it refers to specific policy ideas, like raising the minimum wage or boosting Social Security benefits. Sometimes its been nothing more than a thinly-veiled cultural attacka contempt for people who live on the Upper East Side and rent summer houses in Long Island.
Whatever the case, this vagueness does no favors for anyone trying to advance genuinely populist ideas. The lack of precision lets critics define populism in ways that are most convenientcoopting certain elements and distorting or trivializing others until the term gets drained of meaning. At that point, you no longer have a clash of worldviews, just what Slates Dave Weigel recently called a game between rival political mau-mau-ers.
Weigels piece on the flare-up between Third Way and the partys populist wing was a useful case study in the dangers of defining our terms too loosely. Several times in the piece Weigel quotes Third Ways co-founder and communications chief, Matt Bennett, who suggests everyone has gotten hung up over a mangy little label (never mind that his group wielded it like an epithet). If you set aide the loaded lingo, Bennett insists, we Democrats are mostly on the same side, with the exception of a few policy quibbles. The idea of the op-ed was
[d]o we grapple with the entitlement crisis or not? Bennett said. [W]eve taken very progressive views on financial reform. Weve featured lectures by people like Paul Volcker and Sheila Bair who are not, shall we say, running dogs for the banks. Hey, some of my best friends are populists!
These characterizations are highly misleading. Populism cant be ghettoized in a single issue like entitlements or financial reform. It touches pretty much every economic issue that divides Democrats.
. . .
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115942/democratic-schism-over-bankers-vs-reformers-real
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)
`between people who use phrases like "the entitlement crisis" or "The Debt Crisis", and those who realize that neither crisis exists.
I say this as someone how has paid into SS to fund my own retirement as well as my parents.
(As I was told was necessary because we Baby Boomers were the exception and after us they would return to each generation paying for the prior ones' benefits.)
I also realize that we have the lowest effective tax rate on corporations and the upper segments in history. Speaking as a populist it is time we put revenues front and center every time the supposed "Debt Crisis" is mentioned.
It is not a shame that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary it is a CRIME that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary pays in Social Security alone.
R. P. McMurphy
(834 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)I would only quibble with the fact that many/most/all of those who use the two crisis terms also understand that they don't really exist.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)so called "progressives" who buy into the alleged crisis and refuse to consider raising TAXES.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)The debt crisis was manufactured by the plutocrats that pull the strings of the Republican Party and much of the Democratic Party as a new wedge issue to keep the voters angry and upset, and to blur any focus on income inequality and economic decline. It is a totally manufactured and bogus crisis. The debt crisis is however, an excellent bogeyman to use in plutocracy's campaign to diminish and eventually abolish earned benefits.
Divide and conquer, that's how the rich won the class war.
ancianita
(36,041 posts)"Everyone" is anyone who's got something to lose politically and economically, so "hung up" is just more dismissive lingo to minimize the importance of progressive platform and candidate pledging in this Democratic Party. You're right to say that the language here fails to advance progressive interests. We progressives remember how we "are mostly on the same side with the exception of...quibbles" UNTIL we're not.
Schism has too much religious connotation when the issues are more secular. For now, let's just call it a rift.