Politics, Populism And Policy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:43:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Paul Starr writes:

[T]here are good reasons why Obama cannot and should not indulge in a full-bore populism that, in practice, would yield nothing but deadlock and disaster. The Democrats are the party of responsible government, and America needs at least one of those. Rather than play to the crowds and have their programs go down in flames, Democrats need to make progress on the central problems facing the country, and the only way to do that is to make difficult choices that upset some of their own supporters.

This is ahistorical and illogical. Obama has gotten no cooperation whatsoever from Republicans, has faced demagogic attacks from the Right for everything he does and the Dems now face a bleak November, with control of the Congress in jeopardy. And the price of this "non-populism" has been sub-optimal policy.

The strange thing is the Democratic Party has been a populist party in terms of politics throughout its history (sometimes for the worse.) Where does Starr come up with this stuff? Anyway, back in 2006, I argued the inverse of Starr's prescriptions:

FDR governed as a liberal but politicked like a populist. When LBJ rightly and to his everlasting credit removed one of the Dem pillars of paranoia - racism, the GOP co-opted populist racism, added the Jeffersonian notion of government and institutional hatred, throw in a dash of paranoid Red scare, now terrorism scare, and you get political victories.

The lesson of Hofstadter is to embrace liberal governance and understand populist politics. It may sound cynical, but you must get through the door to govern. Lincoln knew this. FDR knew this. Hofstadter knew this. I hope Obama can learn this.

Transformational change requires transformational persuasion. For Dems, this has always meant populism. The moment in time was ripe for someone with the political talents of Obama. But it is just not in him. He is who he is. A Clintonian triangulating "consensus builder." Populism is not something he is inclined to do.

As a result, we have a Presidency of incrementalism. It is ironic that during the 2008 campaign, Obama (for political reasons surely) unfavorably compared Bill Clinton to Ronald Reagan in terms of being a "transformational President."

In fact, Obama has presided over the third term of the Bill Clinton Presidency. He could have been so much more.

Speaking for me only

< Tin Soldiers and Nixon Coming, Four Dead in Ohio | Calculations >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Politics, Populism And Policy | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Third Clinton term (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Emma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:16:29 AM EST

except for the backward incrementalism on women's rights. Bill at least held steady on choice and women's reproductive rights. Obama is going backwards, using women's rights as the expendable bargaining chip.

Nor is Obama any kind of leader -- even incrementally -- in civil rights or constitutional liberties. As with Ledbetter, if Congress doesn't hand it to him on a silver platter, he ain't doing sh*t.

I wish (4.66 / 6) (#1)
by jbindc on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:55:18 AM EST

Obama was governing over BC's third term. Then we'd have near full emoyment, a buzzing economy, and relative peace. Obama is taking the not-so-good aspects and yet we aren't getting the good results.

Well (none / 0) (#2)
by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:59:00 AM EST

he could've at least continued to ride the "change" message. That was vaguely populist.

Obama on bipartisanship (none / 0) (#4)
by MO Blue on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:42:29 AM EST

'It wasn't that I thought that my political outreach and charm would immediately end partisan politics. I just thought that there would be enough of a sense of urgency that at least for the first year there would be an interest in governing. And you just didn't see that."
-- President Obama, quoted in The Promise: President Obama, Year One by Jonathan Alter, on Republican obstruction being his biggest surprise since taking office. link

Oy (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by sj on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:19:43 AM EST

The difference between experience and theory. Apparently he wasn't paying much attention to the previous 20 years.

Republican obstruction. Surprise. Those two words shouldn't be in same sentence unless there's a "no" between them.


Then there (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Emma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:05:05 PM EST

are those of us who are still gobsmacked by Obama's lack of any "sense of urgency", such that he felt it was perfectly great to play pals with Republicans for over a year -- including dead ones like Reagan.

Obama's paying attention to the dice game, they're picking his pocket. It's an 11-dimensional scam.


: It's all at arm's distance from him: (none / 0) (#8)
by observed on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:26:12 PM EST

global warming, joblessness, the environment.
I've said for a long time that the only policy area Obama cares about is foreign policy, where he is doing a good job according to many people.

We are a two party system (none / 0) (#7)
by mmc9431 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:48:13 PM EST

If Obama was truly surprised by the obstruction of the Republican, he deserves to be a one term president.

All of the people that raved about his political intelligence should be scratching their heads now and wondering where they went wrong!

The Republican party was shown to be totally incompetent during the eight years of GWB. They have no platform to stand on. The only option they have is to obstruct.

Obama needs to realize that it's totally against the Republicans interest for him to succeed. An Obama success equates to a Republican failure.