Taking Right-Wing Economic Populism Seriously

by: David Sirota

Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:16


It's easy to write-off batshit crazy narcissists like Dick Armey and Sarah Palin as what they are: Batshit crazy narcissists. But as Wellstone Action's Jeff Blodgett reminds us in this blog post, Armey/Palin-ism does represent something real and potentially powerful, even if it is insane.

Blodgett is a former aide and campaign manager for Paul Wellstone, so he knows a little bit about progressive movement building and the double-edged sword that is populism. Here's what he sees:

ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES ARE IN ASCENDANCE -- growing in influence and setting strategy for the right. The social religious wing, dominant in the Bush administration, has become less effective and relevant.  Their message is angry, populist, and economic: FreedomWorks' slogan is: Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom.  Government takeover is their bogeyman.  In 2010, they will focus on exploiting the economic pain in the country, railing against spending and taxes, and blaming all government and certain incumbents.

CONSERVATIVES ARE BORROWING FROM THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.  The NYT article quotes FreedomWorks staff saying that they are making close study of Saul Alinsky and other community organizers.  Like progressives, the other side is increasing conservative candidate development (NY-23 and in GOP primaries all over the country), and improving their grassroots advocacy skills (like the impression made at August town halls).

THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT CONTINUES TO BE BETTER FUNDED.  FreedomWorks, just one of many groups, easily raised $7 million from donors in 2008, including single gifts of $1 million and $750,000.   The Leadership Institute, the premier training center for the right, sustains an $8 million dollar annual budget--at least twice the budget of any of comparable groups (like Wellstone Action) on the progressive side.  Americans for Prosperity, another key conservative economic group has 73 staff people nationally and in 20 states.

In the short term, of course, this frothing movement may temporarily self-destruct by virtue of being publicly represented by incoherent and politically unpalatable freaks like Armey and Palin. But in the long term, it's scary stuff, because it represents one expression of authentic anger in the country at large.

As I wrote in my book, The Uprising, populism is value neutral - there's conservative populism and there's progressive populism; there's productive populism and there's destructive populism. And so a battle is on right now between the Right and Left to offer an enraged America a populist way to channel its justifiable anger.

Progressives can win this fight - but we face some disadvantages, not the least of which is that a cautious and sometimes corrupt Democratic Party has become the Washington Establishment via its overwhelming wins in 2006 and 2008. That means it becomes harder to harness anti-establishment fervor in a backlash election climate.

It doesn't, however, mean we cannot defeat the Armey/Palin phenomenon. On almost every issue, the right is way out of step with America. In that sense, our charge is simply delivering on the progressive promises we've been making, while their charge is the much more difficult task of convincing/misleading America into supporting positions the country doesn't already support.

That's why those who berate progressive pressure against Obama and Democrats are so wrong in their outlook. If we don't mount that pressure and Democrats therefore do not deliver, we will help build the Armey/Palin movement into something even more dangerous.

David Sirota :: Taking Right-Wing Economic Populism Seriously

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It is easy (0.00 / 0)
I am continuously amazed at how easy it would be to co-opt and de-fuse the right-wing populists. They have a crazy and impractical program. But, they take it seriously and so does anybody in a GOP primary.

The Democratic party establishment -- pimp-consultants -- have governing majorities in some states and Washington, D.C. But, they are paralyzed by "Hold Harmless" protection of any lobby that hired former Democratic legislator or aide after 2006 or 2008. Is that all we accomplished at the grass-roots?

Our Congressional leaders are still providing "earmarks" for GOP legislators! How dumb is that?

They cannot get things through the Senate because they cannot use the negative power of House to punish their enemies in the Senate -- two-bit Republicans from red states awash in agro-military pork.

We are already a socialist country when it comes to owning banks and industries, but we cannot deliver squat for the worker or the consumer so long as the DSCC/DCCC and Rahm Emanuel are on the phone raising money from the plutocrats.

How about just ending indirect and excise taxes levied through and collected by public utilities and financial institutions. These are not statutory, they are regulatory exemptions to anti-trust laws. Moreover, they discriminate in favor of the least innovative, efficient, and most improvident of our Soviet-style state-capitalist firms. These are conspicuous examples of Stalinist Giantism or Caribbean piracy -- once you look past the little flag-pins.

When do we see simple billing and heads-on-pikes?

John Robert BEHRMAN
Committeeman, SD-13
Texas Democratic Party

Executive Vice-Chairman
Progressive Populist Caucus

::JRBehrman


I'm no economic wonk, so I'd be glad (0.00 / 0)
for you to clarify this please:
We are already a socialist country when it comes to owning banks and industries

My understanding of the bailout is all that happened is that we further socialized risk and privatized profit. And the taxpayer have absolutely no say as stockholders/owners for all the money we gave. Is that not so?


[ Parent ]
How Socialism Worked (0.00 / 0)
Actually, "public" and "state" capitalism "converged" during the Cold War. They came to resemble each other in (a) reliance on government concessions for finance and (b) inter-locking boards drawn from what the Soviets called the nomenklature and we call the Anglo-American overclass. The legal form of enterprise -- stockholders, taxpayers -- became something the managerial elite called "stakeholders" and pandered to rather than let themselves be accountable to.

Today, "socialism" and "capitalism" are meaningless terms -- "memes" in the Punch & Judy debates. The effects of convergence are more than just "socialization of risk" and "privatization of profit". They are profoundly subversive of republican democracy and responsible, two-party government as well as of "competitive markets cleared by uniform prices" and settled in a stable currency.


::JRBehrman


[ Parent ]
It's an exaggeration (0.00 / 0)
Owning GM and AIG doesn't make the US a socialist country. That's really over the top.

[ Parent ]
Don't confuse one thing for another. (4.00 / 4)
We are already a socialist country when it comes to owning banks and industries

If only this were true.  We don't own the banks and industries; they own us.  That's fascism, not socialism, and we should call it what it is.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

[ Parent ]
Not fascism (0.00 / 0)
Fascism gave prominence to an elaborate myth-history and large-scale para-military organization that marginalized both traditional military and police forces.

This was much more compelling, subversive, and, above all, unstable than anything before or since. What the US is going over today are late 18th and early 19th century controversies between "Federalists" or "Whigs" and the Republicans (Jefferson), then Democrats (Jackson). What we risk is "Whig Tyranny" and what we are sacrificing are traditional military-patriotic foundations for a robustly competitive political-economic culture -- what de Tocquevilled called Democracy in America.

This is not to say all is well, just that we will not have fascism in America until there is some sort of catastrophe that (a) de-legitimates the traditional martial and civil order in the public mind and (b) makes mass hysteria seem normal compared to the mass depression and anxiety that it masks.

 

::JRBehrman


[ Parent ]
Yes, fascism. (4.00 / 5)
These are fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.  Read them carefully and then tell me you still think what we're seeing now isn't the epitome of fascism.

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Each and every characteristic has been seen in recent decades in America, and especially in the past ten years.  Fascism is when government becomes merely an extension of corporate power, rather than the check on corporate power.  Benito Mussolini is quoted as saying, "[f]ascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."  That's what has happened to America.  Socialism is when the state, representing the people, takes ownership of vital resources and maintains them on behalf of the people -- usually with vigorous oversight.  If the people are forced to pay taxes to prop up failing banks, and we don't own them, that's fascism.  We don't own the banks.  We're simply footing the bill for their excesses.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.


[ Parent ]
Conservatives don't "borrow" anything. They steal things. (4.00 / 3)
What's more, economic conservatives are not ascendant.  They are and have been for over thirty years the dominant power in America.  Otherwise, your post was spot on.

That being said, there is a pattern we should be learning from.  The far right has gotten what it wants because it actually fights for it no matter how extreme and impractical the goals actually are.  We on the left, however, always seem to settle for much, much less than what we want.  The very notion of fighting like hell against all odds, we are told, is the hallmark of dreamers and ideological "purists," who are looked down upon by appeasers with the excuse being that we are too unyielding.

Well, why shouldn't we on the left be unyielding?  We've been doing nothing but yield for over four decades, and look what it's gotten us: endless war, endless degradation of civil liberties, immense corporate power, a devastated environment and its accompanying apocalyptic consequences, less and less for the vast majority of Americans while more and more goes to the top 1%, and so on.  I'm tired of being talked down to and accused of being a spoiler.  I've read your articles about political parties making movements subservient to them, and you're right; the left has become subservient to the Democratic Party, while the Republicans became subservient to the conservative movement.  We're not going to get anywhere until we reverse this trend.

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.


Adolf Hitler was (4.00 / 3)
an insane, right-wing, political fringe figure, with wild ideas and a miniscule following.  Then...

Don't think it can't happen here.  

We want to ridicule and minimalize these folks.

WE need to take them dead seriously.  

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.


He exploited the Versailles treaty exactly as John J. Pershing and John Maynard Keynes said somebody would -- no surpirse there (0.00 / 0)
Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

Part of building an alternative to degenerate forms of socialism or capitalism as well as strong defenses against something like fascism, is upholding constitutional and building more resilient institutions for "the common defense" where, today, we have a huge agro-military pork barrel. That is a civilan responsibility.

Absent discharging that responsibility we are struggling on the margin with two small, remote but important wars we are ill-prepared to fight. Indeed, our military suicide rate is very nearly our military casualty rate in Iraq.



::JRBehrman


[ Parent ]
They are borrowing from our history (0.00 / 0)
CONSERVATIVES ARE BORROWING FROM THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.  The NYT article quotes FreedomWorks staff saying that they are making close study of Saul Alinsky and other community organizers.  Like progressives, the other side is increasing conservative candidate development (NY-23 and in GOP primaries all over the country), and improving their grassroots advocacy skills (like the impression made at August town halls).

Progressives could stand to make a close study of Alinsky - it's hard to see much of his influence among progressives currently. Even better might be Marshall Ganz.  

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


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