On populism

Populism is an odd thing that that can be defined in many ways. In it's most evil sense, it can lead to the demagoguery of a leader of Adolf Hitler or in the more mundane sense of Lou Dobbs seeming disgust with everything that comes from the American elite, left or right. The irony of course of this post is in fact by my very nature, I'm a populist. We may all be populists.

Populism has reared it's head many times in America from early agrarian movements, the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays Rebellion to more recently Huey Long, the Progressive party of the turn of the 20th century, the Civil Rights Movement (to an extent),the Massive Resistance of the south, George Wallace, to the more mainstream and contemporary presidential run of Ross Perot. It can manifest itself in a fear of immigration, scapegoating of racial/ethnic groups or in a more positive way lead to the growth of groups that "brought us the weekend" and advocated for clean food, clean air and clean water.

Perhaps the definition that I would use outside of the ivory tower, smoke filled dorm room or lonely Idaho shack is that populism is really is a real or perceived collective movement of people who feel they are getting screwed (real or perceived). The irony being that many people think they can only make it if they screw someone else.

This movement can come from anywhere on the political spectrum. And every presidential candidate will claim some kind of populist credentials. Generally defined as protecting the little guy against some kind of elite, foreign or domestic. Their access to Ivy League education or the equivalent, they'll say is just a tribute to American meritocracy and the triumph of the individual spirit.

Hell, even George W. Bush (to paraphrase the Daily Show's seminal work, America) the son of a President, grandson of a senator, graduate of Andover, Yale and Harvard, erstwhile oilman, somehow passed himself off as anti-elite and a man of the people with an adopted Texan twang and shucks I don't know nothing attitude. John Forbes Kerry, of the brahmin Forbes, windsurfing off Nantucket, multizillionaire wife, swiss cheese and steak quickly built his populist cred while polling in the single figures and about ready to run off the radar screen by pulling in his friends from the fatigue wearing brown water navy, which ironically would later come back to destroy him at the end with the Swiftboating populist surge from the right wing.

Now I'm saving my campaign 2008 candidates' post for after the fourth of July (my prediction is Hagel announces at a 4th of July picnic in the heartland, to you guessed it, harness a potential populist surge) but suffice to say, the new leader of the free world will have to make great hay in the populist arena. That e being said, look for the reason that I don't think Giuliani should even be considered, check out Jonathan Alter's Newsweek article .

It would be hypocritical to attack this populist bent. For someone who is a great admirer of the man who, "felt our pain" and may sometimes struggle with the ivory tower it would be insane. Also the very nature of democracy revolves around populism, that is those who can get the most votes usually makes the rules.

There is however a fear I have, this fear of elitism can become a commitment to mediocrity. If we do not attend intellectual movies, watch well acted and written television and read books that are intellectually challenging, do we become implicit with a series of inane romantic and teenage comedies, more reality shows and American Idol and the literary stylings of US magazine?

Modern politics in a way have used populism as a weapon. The commodification of fear in the war on terror is a prime example. One might think if we spent a fraction as much on the "war on asthma" or "war on diabetes" or "war on illiteracy" we may be far better off. The idea that if you question the war, you question the mission, and may even question those brave men and women themselves. Patriotism and it's evil older brother extreme nationalism and ethnocentrism are closely related to populism, and somewhere in this spectrum fell the election of GW Bush in 2004. (not to excuse the poor campaign of one J.F. Kerry) The left wing of the Democratic Party pushes it's activists to "attack the corporatists" including those of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) who helped to draw up the diagram that elected the only Democratic president elected in my lifetime. (To me, James Earl Carter was an anomaly, elected by folks who were only searching for an honest man, whose hands were clean of Vietnam and Watergate, so I'm not counting the '76 election)

President Bush managed to take feigned (I hope) disengagement to a whole new level. Not knowing nothing about nothing and seeming to be proud of it. When one visits the G.W. Bush library in Midland, Texas someday, I wonder if it will be considered the "national magazine rack" His level of disengagement may have worked in the time where the world moved slow and multitasking may have been dinner with the owner of US Steel and the owner of Standard Oil, but today, where the world in twenty years is a world we can't imagine, this disengagement and apparent lack of understanding is criminal. (but not impeachable)

I wonder what will happen in the election of 2008. The election that may echo the election of 1860 or 1932 in importance, an election which will have the potential of drawing us back from economic and international relations brink. This brinkmanship is negotiated by those with great minds and communication skills. "A Team of Rivals", A Brain Trust"

Is an electable candidate, who can negotiate the various surges of populism on different issues, also going to have the intelligence and fortitude to select those minds that can help him or her to make the critical decisions? Will the American people have the intelligence to weigh the issues and vote on the candidates' critical thinking skills, intelligence and decision making rather than on a few selected code words or support for particular pet issues? The world is at a crossroads and I believe it is not arrogant to say that the future of the nation and perhaps even the world will be thrown into the hands of the American voter in some 20 months.