populism . . .

[OneBlueSky]

"A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite." (dictionary.com)

shouldn't populism be the Democrats' organizing philosophy at this time in history? . . .

couldn't campaigns based on populism appeal to true conservatives, independents, libertarians, greens, etc., as well as to Democrats?

isn't populism the political philosophy we need to combat the core problem facing our country (i.e. government by the "privileged elite")?

anyone care to discuss? . . .

[Mythsaje]

1. As a self-proclaimed populist I have to say

not only yeah, but hell, yeah!

[Che_Nuevara]

2. Populism doesn't have such a good name in politics.

Politicians use it -- see Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura -- but they don't really use the word, mostly because of its ties with NS.

[Wetzelbill]

3. yes, but look at the Senate for example

it looks like a millionaire's club. Or look at the media. How many of the network and cable regulars went to Ivy League schools? How many like rubbing elbows at cocktail parties in DC with elite politicians? They're so insulated. Dems are not much better in this regard. They are too comfortable, that's how we get NAFTA, CAFTA, the Bankruptcy bill etc. Dems should be organizing around this philosophy but most of them fall into the priveleged elite, tough to struggle against what you are and/or what you've become.

[AndyTiedye]

4. The Word "Populism" Means More Than That, Unfortunately

"A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite."

Historically, Populism was economically progressive, but it was also racist and fundamentalist to the core,
as was the man most identified with Populism, William Jennings Bryan.
His greatest passion was directed towards getting the teaching of evolution banned from public schools.

There are those today who want to sell out to the Fundies and the racists
in exchange for the hope they will be able to pass some social programs some day.
They call themselves populists.

I think it behooves those of us who DO NOT want to give up on civil rights and religious freedom
to come up with a better name for what we are.

"Progressive" works for me.

[sandnsea]

5. Equality and justice

doesn't have to include a wholesale attack on the wealthy and elite. We ought to be able to present policies that gain the support of the privileged because of their intrinsic sense and value, not by riling up hatred among the masses. That's the general Democratic Party theory, as I understand it.

[neoblues]

6. A Populist Labor Pro American Pro Constitutional

movement in support of the Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Rule of Law and the Middle Class (with emphasis on reducing poverty through education and opportunity thereby expanding the Middle Class). Such a movement would have many issues and goals including several that have been ignored... those include efforts to reduce the growth/creation of the Aristocracy and restoration of real Free Speech with emphasis on stimulating citizen involvement in public/political debate.

Otherwise, take your pick, literally every action, decision, policy choice, legislation and executive directive taken by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership over the last six years (and most of the same set of actions, decisions, policies, legislation and the like as enacted by Republicans in Congress and the Presidencies of Herbert Walker and his President, Ronald Reagan (who, more than Nixon, was responsible for the changes that let the Rethugs move inexorably towards power through media domination and paralysis of congress and the govenrment as a whole on account of oppressive national debt).

Do we not stand for what Republicans ought to? Fiscal responsibilty? Only enabled through fair taxation of the wealthy (who really owe this country a debt greater in direct proportion to how much more they have/own than the average citizen) while acting to ensure fair access to education and employment to all and also providing a "safety net" to all citizens (since it's plainly apparent that our society refuses to provide such assurance of the basic needs of all citizens except by government edict). Human rights, fair treatement of all citizens and regulation of business to prevent corporate excesses and to ensure they take responsibilty when they carelessly harm consumers and the environment.

It's deplorable, the state of the union under this government. The Republican "majority" is bad enough, but when that whole political party has been hijacked and led to cast off the few tolerable qualities it once had, and particularly how it completely divested itself (surprisingly easily) of all vestiges of honor, honesty and ethical behavior, it's simply intolerable. Whatever the cost, whatever the course of action required, in order that we may save and restore our nation to the true path, we must pay that cost, take that action. For ourselves, for our children and their children--for the rest of the world (since we've proven how dangerous we can be), we must find our conscience and listen to it. No true American can watch the current political debacle and not be distressed. The time has all but arrived in which we must begin to stop playing politics as usual, in fact, we need to start thinking in terms of taking actions we never would have considered in less threatening times. If it's "radical" we must be; so be it... whatever it is, we have to immediately step up, focus on politics to the exclusion of those things we've given our attention to when times weren't critical, and do something different! No more "Mr. Nice Guy" concerned with achieving a collegial atmosphere of negotiation and seeking consensus as a primary goal. We've been ignored and marginalized to the grave detriment of our country and it's future. This cannot be allowed to continue.

We've tried everything we can from the traditional, normal approach. Different... why, even "Progressive" action is called for. Are we up to the challenge? Are we willing to take the risks, accept the responsibility, pay the costs and do what's necessary? I surely hope so--but it has to be done now! It cannot wait; we have precious few months and face almost insurmountable obstacles--almost insurmountable short of truly radical and aggressive action.

Yes, Populism is a fine message and one that befits our party's goals--or should, if it doesn't. It has on the plus side that it's both easily understood and attractive; it's also something of a "new" approach to expressing our message (albeit just a different way of saying what we have already been saying). It's worthy of a try; if it works, if anything works, though, we have to achieve a real grass-roots activist movement... a critical mass of people spreading our message, this message or whatever, taking the idea directly to the public (since we truly have no real or friendly access to the media). With religious fervor, we need an immediate "evangelical" movement--with every Democrat accepting his or her duty to spread the word and convert the great uninformed masses as well as the sinners themselves (Rethugs). It may not be their eternal lives that are at stake, but it's certainly true that we're all doomed to a sort of Hell on Earth if we don't succeed. So, Populism as a Religion. Works for me...