Sirota - The Myth That Populism & Anger Lose Elections

[realFedUp]

(you too can receive his blog opinions in your e-mail)

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/myth-that-populism-anger-lose.html

The Myth That Populism & Anger Lose Elections

One of the big arguments by the Beltway elite against Democrats embracing a new economic populism says a political party must always be FOR something, not just against things - and always avoid any tinge of populist anger. Joe Klein's column this week railing against populism epitomized this argument perfectly. As he wrote, "pessimism, anger and unsubtle divisiveness tend to be total nonstarters in American politics" (this line of reasoning, by the way, is not limited to Klein - it is conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C.'s elite media/political circles). Now, I'm not saying Democrats need to fully embrace a politics of "pessimism, anger and divisiveness" - but the idea that they should be so afraid of that kind of populist politics because it doesn't work just doesn't pass history's smell test.

Does anyone really believe that the modern Republican Party - which now controls all three branches of government - hasn't ascended to power on "pessimism, anger and divisiveness" and on being against things? Think about it. Their party is based on these tenets: government is bad (pessimism/against government), you are being ripped off by taxes (anger against taxes), those evil "others" - minorities, gays, immigrants, liberals, etc. - don't share your values (divisiveness/against the "other"). Similarly, Newt Gingrich's Contact With America was all about pessimism, anger and divisiveness. Hell, Tom Frank's book is ALL ABOUT the success of what he calls "backlash" conservatism. That term is another way to describe transforming people's pessimism about their situation into a populist anger against the system, and using it for the GOP's divisive purposes.

To be sure, the GOP has expertly crafted its populism in a way that allows them to raise huge amounts of corporate cash. And the new form of Democratic populism that is bubbling up will never be able to thread that kind of needle - which is why so many of the party's insiders in Washington are nervous about it, and why, in order for it to succeed, the grassroots must continue re-emerging as a significant force in Democratic politics.

But the idea that voters are inherently turned off by any form of populism because it might be construed as angry is a very, very poor argument from very, very out-of-touch people who either haven't talked to average working stiffs at the local diner, or haven't spent much time thinking about what's really happened over the last 20 to 30 years in this country.

Contemporary American political history is a history OF populism and OF the Republican Party becoming a channel for average people's (albeit often misdirected) anger. The sooner Democrats face that reality and start to become comfortable being a conduit for at least some of the anger that average Americans rightly feel at being ripped off by health care companies, high energy prices, "free" trade deals, corrupt government and corporate greed, the sooner the party will be on its way to being a more relevant force in our country's politics.


Sources:
Joe Klein on "pessimism, anger and divisiveness":
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/06/klein.tm/
Tom Frank's book:
http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthematter.htm
New Democratic populism is bubbling:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8917

[Inland]

1. You know, I'll buy that....

I have no problem with realizing that the vast majority are being screwed and getting pissed about it, and no problem with righteous anger over injustice.

The danger of populism is that it often includes an xenophobia and an anti-intellectualism. Being angry in itself is not a justification or a sanctification. You have to know what to be pissed at and to actually fix rather than break in a rage. You have to keep from descending into an us vs them in which the us is always good and the them always bad.

Clearly, I see Dean as the positive side of a populist rant and the GOP as the negative side.

[realFedUp]

2. Clearly you have to have facts to back up the anger

and we at DU could no doubt provide a case
against every rightwingnut statement and policy
thus far.