December 28, 2007
Column: America in 2008: Populism calls the shots
The US is bracing itself for another year – can it really be another year? – of electioneering. The prospect would be impossible to endure were it not for the fact that so much seems at stake. Democrats are enraged by the Bush administration’s record and by the ability of a weakened president and the Republican minority in Congress to shut the legislative system down and block their every initiative. They are straining to take over and tear up the Bush legacy, such as it is, by the roots. If the elections give Democrats the presidency and increased majorities in both houses, as seems likely, the US is going to see one of the most radical alterations in its political outlook for decades.
As things stand right now, the politics is all good for the Democrats and all bad for the Republicans. The time-series of national opinion-poll ratings for the Republican presidential candidates looks like the read-out of a patient having a stroke. The lines jerk up and down, as party supporters search desperately, and so far in vain, for a candidate they like. The surge from nowhere of Mike Huckabee – to join a three-way tie with Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney – is partly a sign of this desperation. It threatens to split and even destroy the Republican coalition, by dividing social conservatives from economic conservatives.
Mainly, though, it underlines something even more significant than that: the growing appeal of economic populism among supporters of both parties.
You can read the rest of this new column for the FT here.
Hi Clive, an interesting column. My own take is a bit different. I think that, on the Republican side, there will ultimately be a veering from ideology, experiment and sloganeering — in other words the qualities that have gotten them into trouble until now — and toward proven gravitas and real experience. In other words, I think that Huckabee and Romney will fade, and McCain will return to his leading status and clinch the nomination. For similar reasons, he will run against Hillary.
Advancing your scenario, if the Democrats do boost their House and Senate majorities, and capture the White House, the question in my opinion is how much gumption will they really have to fundamentally puncture the Bush legacy — to reverse major parts of the tax cuts, to enact an early schedule for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, to overturn the various surveillance and habeas corpus provisions?
If I understand correctly, you expect the Democrats to execute in these respects. I have serious doubts about the populist thrust you predict. However, we shall see.
Steve LeVine, author
Posted by: Steve LeVine | December 30th, 2007 at 5:50 am | Report this commentThe Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com
“Party supporters search desperately, and so far in vain, for a candidate they like”. What about Ron Paul? Come Iowa and New Hampshire, the MSM will look foolish, don’t you think?
Posted by: Thia | January 1st, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Report this commentWhat Clive Crook calls “economic populism” is something that many middle class, not to mention struggling less advantaged Americans, would call a movement for economic justice. The Bush tax cuts for the rich, Iraq war profiteering, gutting of environmental regulations, neglect in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, veto of of the bill extending health care for low income children, failed attempt to privatise Social Security and turning the government over to the K street lobbyists who are raiding the treasury in order to promote corporate welfare, all raise legitimate questions about for whose benefit the government is being run. Pinning the label of “economic populism” on these concerns, while millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance, millions more are at risk of losing their homes in the subprime mortgage lending scandal, and many more millions are either out of work due to outsourcing or are forced to take two low-paying jobs to make ends meet, does not make them any less legitimate.
It is also curious that there is so little mention of the right wing brand of populism that seeks to scapegoat immigrants who have darker snins and/or speak foreign languages for all of America’s problems. This is a much more dangerous form of populism, as the experience of Europe in the first half of the 20th century attests. Nevertheless, all of the Republican presidential candidates (except for McCain, whose chances of being nominated are close to zero largely for this reason) are engaging in the most shameless demagoguery on this issue, and the Democrats lack the courage to stand up against the racist assault on Latino immigrants as “invaders”, who are allegedly destroying American “culture”.
The ongoing right-wing jingoism about “victory” in Iraq (or will it be Iran next time?) and the attempt to extinguish the civil liberties (including religious freedom) for the sake of which this country was founded in the name of the “war on terror” and “social conservatism” are also examples of right wing populism that threatens to destroy everything America stands for.
Posted by: algasema | January 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 am | Report this commentDear blog readers
First of all, happy new year to you all.
Following the holiday season, comments are now back to being post-moderated, as before.
I look forward to reading your valued contributions in 2008.
Posted by: Damian Carrington, Interactive Editor, FT.com | January 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 am | Report this commentOne should question whether it is appropriate or accurate to label opposition to Bush economic policies that have so obviously favored the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else as “economic populism”. The millions of people who cannot afford health care, the mainly African-American poor who were devastated by the federal government’s neglect and indifference in the wake of Katrina, the educated professionals who have lost jobs to outsourcing, the homeowners and investors alike who have lost out in the Ponzi scheme known as subprime lending securitization while some of the CEO’s involved have walked away with hundred million dollar bonuses, the Iraq war profiteering, corruption of our democracy by the K Street lobbyists and the gutting of environmental regulations - these are just a few of the issues in which the middle class, the disadvantaged, and the general public all have a legitimate stake in protecting their economic interests.
Unfortunately, these genuine economic issues are being obscured by the right wing populism that stokes up fear in the name of the “war on terror” and racial hatred in the guise of opposing illegal immigration. However, even the immigration issue is related to an important economic question which deserves more attention than it has received, namely whether NAFTA has contributed to the widespread unemployment and growth of poverty in Mexico that are the main reasons behind the flow of immigrants into the US. I do not presume to know the answers or have solutions to any of the issues I have mentioned above. But trying to cut off discussion by throwing around labels such as “economic populism”, or another right wing favorite (fortunately, not used by Mr. Crook), namely “class warfare”, will only make these problems worse.
Posted by: Roger Algase | January 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Report this commentClive,
Your post brought to mind Louis Menand’s July 9/16 review of Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics.
Quoting from that review: “Caplan suspects that voters cherish irrational views on many issues, but he discusses only views relevant to economic policy. The average person, he says, has four biases about economics, four main areas in which he or she differs from the economic expert. The typical non-economist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulations and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy). Economists know that these positions are irrational…”
Hope this doesn’t find you in Tanzania.
Posted by: Bruce Ross-Larson | January 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 pm | Report this commentAt the Acropolis Review site, there’s an interesting article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that suggests Obama would be the strongest Democratic candidate against the Republican nominee in November. It will be interesting to see the final fundraising results for 2007 when they’re announced.
http://acropolisreview.com/2007/11/republican-congressional-delegation-on.html
Posted by: Jake | January 5th, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Report this commentJohn Edwards and Ron Paul ,with Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee next to them , are the only ones with a real new message and intent to get the USA out of the Neocon-Oil Lobby disaster we are in ,the rest and specially McCain and Clinton are more of the same: these 2 voted for the Iraq war with conviction, voted for every stupid Legislation in the US Senate that got this great country into the 9 trillion dollar mess we are in today, these 2 voted for Chertoff of Hurricane Katrine disaster effect, voted for Porter Goss who presided over the CIA tapes fiasco and later resigned for “other” reasons, it’s people like McCain and Clinton that got us were we are , shame ! so only with Edwards and Paul,and with Obama and Huckabee in their team we can hope to get out of this hole,but 35 % of the voters in the USA are busy just watching the players at the games,while eating junk foods , sugary sodas and reading gossip tabloids, so it’s very difficult to make sense! and to think that McCain would choose Lieberman, the architect of the Iraq War, as his buddy, that’s insulting ! what a criminal shame !…..but the media,controlled by the neocons will push only McCain nonstop,and against Clinton and with a FABRICATED IRAN MILITARY CONFLICT, McCain and Lieberman will win, then McCain will have and accident ,scandal or his HGH will wear off,and Lieberman and his neocons will take over the Oval Office,its a done deal ! and it means going to war with Iran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba…..you name it !,military and security contracts galore ! a feast for the Hedge-Funds and the warmongers, the bankruptcy of the USA, but hey! the USA taxpayers will never say a word , too busy watching the players and eating hot dogs, what a shame !
Posted by: blogger | January 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm | Report this comment