The Rising Of A New Populist Coalition

by: Mike Lux

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 14:30


I have been in the battling-the-rich-and-powerful-on-behalf-of-the-poor-and-middle- income business for a very long time now (almost 30 years), and it can get pretty discouraging at times. For one thing, in some news that I am sure will be shattering to you, the rich and powerful have a lot more money. And they have seemed to have a lot more political friends over that era than do the poor and the middle income folks combined.

But hope rises anew from time to time, and there are encouraging signs. The most obvious one, of course, is that we have a President and both houses of Congress led by center-left politicians who will be with the poor and middle income quite a bit more than their predecessors in the Bush White House and the Republican led Congress - not always, of course, but more than the last set of politicians. But my hopes are rising for a lot less visible reasons than that.

More on what those reasons on in the extended entry.

Mike Lux :: The Rising Of A New Populist Coalition
The first is a palpable new anger at the injustices done by the unrestrained powerful and greedy in these last few years. Elites are dismissive and disdainful of this anger, but when the wealthy and powerful trample everyone else, righteous anger is a very good thing. It is a really positive thing that politicians are looking over their shoulder at an electorate that is upset about what has gone down, are anxious for real change.

Second, and just as important, there is a new leadership rising out of this economic crisis that is emerging as a counterforce to the pro-big corporation establishment. It's a diverse crew of economists, business leaders, bloggers, organizations, and grassroots activists, but they are starting to add up to something bigger than the sum of their parts. They include:

  • Economists like former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors and World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz, and former Senate Banking Committee Chief of Staff Rob Johnson. Along with higher profile economic writers like Paul Krugman, they have spoken truth to power, sharply questioned the establishment conventional wisdom, and given us clear guidance on what we need to be doing to take on Wall Street.

  • Business leaders like George Soros and Leo Hindery who have fearlessly waded in where others fear to tread, and challenged the orthodoxy on issues like financial regulation and trade and especially the jobless recovery which is confronting us. Soros is better known to the general public, but Leo's been doing some great writing in The Nation and other places, and was recently talked about at length in Les Leopold's post on AlterNet

  • New coalitions like the new Americans for Financial Reform Coalition just announced last week, and the Health Care for American Now coalition that has been driving the health care reform debate.

  • Bloggers like Arianna Huffington and Jane Hamsher (and of course the folks here at OpenLeft and so many others), who have kept banging away on financial issues, health care, and other economic issues, and have kept those issues in the spotlight. New media models and new political organizing strategies are being literally invented in front of our eyes by the leadership of the netroots.

  • The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which in the past has never flexed much of a muscle, is starting to take steps (still small, admittedly), toward toughening up their negotiating stance on key issues. Most encouraging example so far: demanding a public option on health care reform.

And you know what's really exciting? As soon as this post goes up, I will be getting emails from people about all the new leaders and organizing efforts I missed mentioning in this article, because I know I am barely scratching the surface.

I have written repeatedly about the power of the big/corporate interests - Wall Street, the insurance industry, big oil - and this emerging movement has a long ways to go before we catch up to them in power. But a counterforce is coming together, and showing more signs of strength, depth, and leadership than I've seen in my time in politics. Put that movement together with the righteous anger of the people at what Wall Street, the insurance industry, and big oil have done to them, and we might yet make the mighty tremble.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Examples Please! (4.00 / 3)
You wrote above:

we have a President and both houses of Congress led by center-left politicians who will be with the poor and middle income quite a bit more than their predecessors in the Bush White House and the Republican led Congress

Please give specific examples of policies they have supported and enacted that support this assertion.

By way of objectivity, I urge you to also list policies they have supported and enacted that contradict your assertion.

I very much doubt that the examples you give in support of your contention will outnumber the examples that contradict your assertion.



I assume you didnt read the entire article. (0.00 / 0)
The article is about the not so prominent or spoken about signs.
The first is a palpable new anger at the injustices done by the unrestrained powerful

and of course:

Second, and just as important, there is a new leadership rising out of this economic crisis that is emerging as a counterforce to the pro-big corporation establishment.
Which he then goes on to delineate.

And not really about the admin. or congress who will be allies:

not always, of course, but more than the last set of politicians...

Of course you may reiterate his point if you must, but make sure the anger is directed accurately, and usefully.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 5)
I agree with the general thrust of Mike's post, with the exception of his assertion that

we have a President and both houses of Congress led by center-left politicians who will be with the poor and middle income quite a bit more than their predecessors in the Bush White House and the Republican led Congress

Yes, you and he are correct in pointing out that

there is a new leadership rising out of this economic crisis that is emerging as a counterforce to the pro-big corporation establishment
.

Unfortunately, this new leadership is largely outside Congress, the White House and the federal agencies controlled by White House appointees.

My point, which I maintain, is that the large majority of our elected representatives in Congress and the White House DO NOT REFLECT OR SUPPORT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE if you compare public opinion polls to the legislation that is in the works or has been rejected.

It is fine to form coalitions, indeed they indispensable, to getting a progressive agenda enacted. But as long as our lawmakers are in the pocket of their campaign financiers from the corporate sector and put their interests ahead of the American people, we will continue to see the economic and financial well-being of ordinary people erode while the rich get richer.

Coalitions, petitions, demonstrations, phone calls and emails to elected representatives who have sold their votes to their campaign financiers will change very little in the near term, except in rare instances where an elected representative is in a competitive re-election race.

Unfortunately, due to extensive gerrymandering, only 15% of Congressional districts have competitive races in them. That's why we continue to see the same old faces in Congress refusing to implement the will of the people.


[ Parent ]
Doesn't extensive gerrymandering virtually DICTATE a trans-partisan approach, for fast results? (4.00 / 1)
It certainly suggests that a trans-partisan approach to "throwing the bums out" is optimal. If only 15% of districts are competitive between parties, that means that 85% are safe for the incumbents' party.

I outlined a trans-partisan approach to at least getting some populist agendas pushed through here at openleft. (Originally at docudharma.) The rules I specified allowed partisan voters in the non-dominant major party to help "throw the bum out", during primaries, since their vote in the general election (if they stick with their own party), will likely be wasted, anyway. Hence, losing their ability to help determine their own party's challenger  will not be a loss.

Are you familiar with Industrial Areas Foundation? They are " non-ideological and strictly non-partisan, but proudly, publicly, and persistently political." My guess is that they could be an excellent source for digging up scores (maybe hundreds?) of candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, who will help us dump tin-ear members of Congress, whether they are in gerrymandered districts, or not.

Perhaps one of the front pagers will analyze this strategy in terms of resistance by Republican elites vs. Republican rank-and-file, as well as resistance by Democratic elites vs. Democratic rank-and-file. I frankly get the idea that both Democrats and Republicans rank-and-file fail to see what is right before their eyes because they consistently conflate the their ideological opponents' rank-and-file with their ideological opponents' elites.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
This is Excellent (0.00 / 0)
I will study it in detail shortly.

Thanks so much.


[ Parent ]
Thank-you! (0.00 / 0)
I haven't had the time to take a close look at your invention, but assuming it's workable now, or in the near future, and that it supports a fine-enough granularity, you might consider offering it to a trans-partisan bloc of candidates, to see if they can agree on both details of a generally acceptable policy, as well as additional policies besides the three I suggested. E.g., it'd be far more impressive and confidence-inspiring if there was a bloc of populist Democrat and Republican candidates who had agreed on not just having a "strong" public option for healthcare, but also defined exactly what "strong" means.

We should be able to expect good candidates to invest more time digging down into details, anyway. So, a populist bloc of candidates should be capable (in theory) of making a more enlightened use of your invention.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
I'll post a diary, shortly, with some more trans-partisan references (0.00 / 0)
These will be from the book Voice of the People - The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life by A. Lawrence Chickering and James S. Turner

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
Low income programs (0.00 / 0)
You asked for one example: there were tons of great spending increases for low income programs that benefit the poor in both the stimulus and the budget.

[ Parent ]
And in Dollars and Cents (4.00 / 1)

I would also argue that if you look at the evidence for and against your assertion in dollars and cents, the new Congress and president have authorized the expenditure of far more money that favors the rich and increases wealth inequality than the meager sums they have put up to support the middle and working classes.

Just compare the $12.8 trillion they authorized to bail out corrupt bankers and insolvent banks, versus the puny $787 billion they voted for the stimulus to create real jobs in the real economy.

If you add to that the trillion they have authorized to expand U.S. military operations abroad, which actually make Americans less secure and enriches defense contractors, you begin to see that your assertion is more than questionable.


meanwhile (4.00 / 2)
I keep waiting for Bruce Braley's Populist Caucus to weigh in on health care. When this caucus was created, they promised to influence the health care debate, but I haven't heard anything about the members' stand on a real public option. I assume this is because the members don't agree on the need for a public option, but that's just my guess.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

If the Populist Caucus won't get behind a (4.00 / 9)
strong Public Option for health care, they should really take the "populist" out of their name.

[ Parent ]
On what planet is this occuring? (4.00 / 4)
is that we have a President and both houses of Congress led by center-left politicians who will be with the poor and middle income quite a bit more than their predecessors in the Bush White House and the Republican led Congress

news to me


really? even with the failures, which are a disappointment, (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
I can't. All I see is Obama and the Democrats (4.00 / 6)
selling everyone out.  Deficits, healthcare, war, trade, climate change, torture, gays, bank bailouts, CEO bonuses, et al.  Coalitions are forming?  They don't care.   If you see something different, please share it with me.   I wouldn't mind a little good news in my day.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
There are eighty single payer Dem ocrats in congress. (4.00 / 2)
That is a huge bloc. Thats the beginning of a real progressive bloc. I'd like to hear them say, "You wanna negotiate? negotiate with us."

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


Yeah, but. . . (4.00 / 3)
There are 500+ elected representatives in Congress.

Upwards of 80% of the American people favor a single payer health care system.

The 80 single payer Democrats are less than 20% of the 500+.

Doesn't this discrepancy tells us that the vast majority of our elected representatives in Congress do not respect the will of the people?

Doesn't this discrepancy tell us that our elected representatives, who have received nearly $40 million in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry since 1989, represent their campaign financiers rather than the American people?

Doesn't it tell us that the entire electoral and legislative system is corrupted and needs to be changed so that voters can get control of government and create an authentic democracy to enact the popular will into law?


[ Parent ]
I was underestimating. Co-sponsors for the single payer bill, HR676, is not merely "more than 80" - it's now 93. (0.00 / 0)
And There are actually 435 members of the house. The now 93 i spoke of are cosponsors of House Bill HR676, and all sit in the house. This makes Single Payer Democrats bigger than ANY OTHER block in congress. Just a few votes shy of 25% (109)

If someone knows where to find some oats, this would be the one block worth courting in congress.

Like I said before, Leadership is what is needed now.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Explain the democratic principle where a few thousand men from (4.00 / 4)
Ask your congressional representatives to

Explain the democratic principle where a few thousand men from insurance companies, drug companies and hospital companies have more say about universal healthcare in our Congress than we (hundreds of millions of citizens) have.

Poll: 72% of Americans back Creation of Public Healthcare Plan
A new poll by the New York Times and CBS News has found that 72 percent of Americans support the government creating a public healthcare plan, similar to Medicare, which would compete with private insurance plans. The poll also found the majority of Americans now believe the government would do a better job than private insurance companies in providing medical coverage.


This has been the case for the past 40 years (4.00 / 2)
It is why the U.S. is a socially backward nation compared to its post-industrialzed peers.

In no other post-industrialed country can a citizen be ruined financially because of catastrophic illness.

Only in America where corporate special interests run the government do 20,000 people die needlessly every year because they do not have access to health care.

BTW, access to a hospital emergency room is not a substitute for a universal health care system. People who have no choice but to go to an emergency room usually do so because they have not had access to routine preventive medical treatments and have no physician to go to when they fall ill. Once discharged from an emergency room, they are again on their own, lacking the means to fill prescriptions and get follow up care from licensed physicians.

The American health care system is simply barbaric, and our elected representatives in Congress, the White House, and federal agencies who have chosen to give $12.8 trillion to corrupt bankers and insolvent banks instead of using a small portion of it to fund a single payer system to provide health care to ALL AMERICANS are wholly responsible for the 20,000 deaths that occur here every year.


[ Parent ]
I suppose - I'm ONLY seeing the sell outs (0.00 / 0)
with their 1989 fear of losing like dukakis and mondale ...

oh ... wait ... OOOPS

fuck! it is 2009!

and we got the DiFi - Lieberman kind of pond scum, OR, the marginally worthless floaters like my 2 U.S. Senators, Murray and Cantwell

...

myabe I shoudl just vote fascist, at least I'll KNOW why I'm getting lied to and sold out.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search