Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley to Start the Populist Caucus

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:30


populist caucus

This is a Dear Colleague letter being circulated by Bruce Braley.

This is an interesting internal shift in the House, and suggests that no current ideological caucus is quite capturing the moment.  The plank for this group is economic justice, universal health care, affordable college education, consumer safety, fair trade, and good paying jobs.  Culturally, though, this has more of a rural farmer and union feel than the progressive caucus, with its heavily New Left and multi-ethnic approach, but policy-wise it is substantially different than the Blue Dogs.

The Blue Dogs are have always relied on the argument that their districts are more rural and swing than the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and positioned themselves as more populist than liberal.  Since 2002, though, that group has become riddled with corporate lobbying influence, and their brand has suffered.  The progressive caucus doesn't have any requirements for belonging, so it's stocked with anyone who wants to attach their name to progressivism for any reason, often so they can triangulate against progressives with something along the lines of 'even the liberal Barney Frank believes that a bailout of Wall Street is necessary' or so that Dennis Kucinich can use it as a stepping stone to run for President.

This is an interesting development, and I suspect there's going to be some strong caucus reorganization going on as an expanded Democratic majority finds its sea legs.

Matt Stoller :: Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley to Start the Populist Caucus

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

it could use an environmental plank (4.00 / 5)
development of solar/wind farming, reform of land use laws and water and agricultural policy, etc., as well as a plank for rural broadband.

This is interesting (4.00 / 6)
Because "populist" seems to mostly be an epithet lately. I saw it used to describe both Edwards and Huckabee, in both cases rarely communicating much about what kinds of policies either one pursued but sometimes communicating a vague air of distaste-- maybe this is just my perception, but it seems like people use "populist" to describe grassroots movements they dislike, and "grassroots" to describe populist movements they like. A Congressional caucus intentionally describing itself as "populist" would make it difficult to continue to use the word this way.

Does anyone know anything about Bruce Braley?


My perception of "populist" (4.00 / 1)
Is that the appeal is anti-elitist and anti-intellectual at heart. As formulated, the populist caucus platform should sound appealing to those with a nativist streak.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
You would be quite wrong in thinking that. (4.00 / 10)
Of course, economic royalists like to tar working class groups with whatever they can.

Perhaps you can read this to learn the 19th century history, although this group is not the same (Obviously)

  http://books.google.com/books?...

This might help:

"The Populist Moment" is a reworking for the general reader of "Democratic Promise," a history of American Populism. For Prof. Goodwyn, the destruction of Populism as a political force is an example of the ways in which a powerful elite can thwart democratic reform. By removing whole areas of public life from democratic control, the powerful elite is able to limit citizens' freedom while pretending to uphold democracy.

Goodwyn sees Populism as a movement of democratic promise. Like the popular movements of the '60s (continued in a distorted form in the single-issue politics of the '70s), Populism was important much less for its programs and organizations than for its "actions" in bringing thousands of a ordinary citizens in contact with each other "in a self-generated culture of collective dignity and individual longing. As a movement of people, it was expansive, passionate, flawed, creative -- above all, enhancing in its assertion of human striving."

Considering the history presented here, it is, if not surprising, at least disheartening that Populism has become a dirty word. Populism was the largest and strongest mass democratic movement in American history. The Populists showed how people who felt powerless "could create for themselves the psychological space to dare to aspire grandly" and to challenge the oppressive "received culture" (received, that is, from those who control and benefit from the status quo).

The Populist idea was simple (if subtle): People could work together to achieve individual freedom. It is an idea that still animates many citizens, such as the anti-nuclear activists, the "anticipatory democrats" and some trade unionists. It might even work. (1978)

http://www.johngabree.com/onbo...


[ Parent ]
Well, that is a romantic version of populism (4.00 / 6)
and one that we all support.

The truth is that populism can take a number of forms because it simply involves mobilizing the masses against some perceived elite other.

The Republican Party was very successful in selling its program in populist terms, attacking liberal policies like equal rights, environmentalism, and humane immigration policies as ideas of the liberal/academic/hollywood/etc elite.

Populism has a proud tradition when it comes to the economically marginalized mobilizing around making their lives better, but there are also some less savory aspects (See William Jennings Bryan for both)

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone


[ Parent ]
We lack good terms. (4.00 / 6)
How about economic democracy?

What the Rs do is not populism; it's demogoguery based on social issues and racism and homophobia.


[ Parent ]
Both (4.00 / 3)
I think the Republicans very much do populism, which is one reason why I never liked the term.  Economic populism is only one component.  Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs are perfectly legit examples of populists, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean I think all populism is bad, I agree with quite a lot of it, but the term encompasses much more than just the parts I like.

I think of populism as the opposite of libertarianism, two terms orthogonal to the normal meaning of Left and Right.

Anyway, I think this caucus looks like a great thing.  Socially conservative Democrats need a place to go that still allows for liberal economics.


[ Parent ]
Sure it is (4.00 / 3)
The William Jennings Bryan who gave the famous "Cross of Gold" speech and who resigned as Secretary of State in protest of Woodrow Wilson's move towards World War I is the same guy who argued for Prohibition and against evolution.

If you hold that populism does not require a positive connotation and that demagoguery need not be viewed as always negative, then you can see how there can be both left-wing and right-wing populism.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
But you did not make that distinction (4.00 / 2)
between left wing and right wing populism. You portrayed your total impression of populism as being one of the right-wing. Why is that? Were you ignorant of the left-wing history of populism or do you wish for populism to solely be viewed as a right-wing movement?

[ Parent ]
where did I claim populism is right-wing? (0.00 / 0)
I think that both left- and right-wing populism haveanti-elitist and anti-intellectual tendencies.  

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Goodwyn effectively refutes the idea (4.00 / 1)
that the silverites played critical role in agrarian politics.

[ Parent ]
TV Populism in California (4.00 / 5)
A hundred years ago Hiram Johnson, a Teddy Roosevelt progressive, instituted ballot initiatives and referenda in California, and this was populism at its purest.

The people bypass corrupt legislatures and make their own laws!

Hurrah!

Fast forward 75 years and Howard Jarvis puts Prop 13 on the ballot, capping property taxes. This thing crapified public education, public health, and the whole infrastructure of California.

Deregulate electricity! Put it on the ballot!

Then let tax-payers pay off the $100 billion that this catastrophe cost the state.

Gays want to get married? Defeat it directly on the ballot!

Boo! Hiss!

Populism today means...

What can you sell the rubes with $20 million in TV advertising.

The answer is...

Anything!


[ Parent ]
Goodwyn's history of populism (4.00 / 1)
may be rightly criticized for projecting 60s movement culture onto the agrarian movement and making too much of the subtreasury.  But it's central argument, that agrarianism possessed a movement culture within which educational institutions played a central role, demolished Richard Hofstadter's anti-intellectualist thesis in Age of Reform.

[ Parent ]
Hofstadter and Populism (4.00 / 1)
Hofstadter thought Bryan-era Populism was anti-intellectual because it didn't generate an elite class of book-writing intellectuals like Hofstadter. But the idea that Populists were thoughtless bumpkins compared to other contemporary demographics didn't really have to wait for Goodwyn to demolish it. It was born stupid.

IMHO the most useful part of The Populist Movement is Goodwyn's nitty-gritty analysis of post-Civil-War politics, and there's a lot that's all too familiar from right now.

"Sectional, religious, and racial loyalties and prejudices were used to organize the nation's two major parties into vast coalitions that ignored the economic interests of millions."

Where have I seen that before?


[ Parent ]
Your "born stupid" comment (0.00 / 0)
misunderstands the profound connections between historiography, social understanding, and state power in the twentieth century.  

Lest this turn into a Richard Hofstadter bashing party, he was the most influential American historian of his era, and his legacy remains with us in the work of his eminent students like Eric Foner and Christopher Lasch, to cite two wildly differing examples.  Hofstadter saw history as the intersection of ideas, social movements and politics, and in this sense shares much with the radical New Left historians who came after him.  I challenge anyone to find a better writer of American history not named Henry Adams.

Also, you may want to consider that your dismissal of "book writing intellectuals" applies to Obama too, and bears more than a passing resemblance to the features of Hofstadter's brilliant, if somewhat flawed, argument in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.


[ Parent ]
Obama? (0.00 / 0)
Obama isn't a "book-writing intellectual." He never wrote a scholarly article of any kind, neither in a law journal or elsewhere. He wrote a couple of low-brow made-for-Oprah campaign promos, and Marvel Comix is more "intellectual" than his fictionalized "biography."

I didn't dispute Hofstadter's claim about Populism as a movement. It's about as unintellectual a political flavor as the Surfer Party of Southern California, unless you count campaign rhetoric as literature, as in your celebration of "Blathering Barack" as an intellectual.

Advocates of left-wing populism should remember that the last real populist who won more than 10% in a national election was the racist demagogue George Wallace. You can't call a candidate like Nader "populist" just because he stands for what das Volk should want.

It isn't accidental that populism has no theoretical basis, because there's nothing to base. "The will of the people" is ever changing, and you can't define it any more than you can define a fog.

This foggy, shifting quality is obviously inconsistent with anything you could reasonably call a "constitution," so it isn't surprising that the long-enduring US Constitution is an anti-populist document written by an anti-populist elite, and the Federalist along with all other relevant contemporary literature is full of warnings about the evils of "direct democracy."

Those guys had read Thucydides, and they understood that the mob-people-Volk want reasonable reform today and blood tomorrow. The Constitution is designed to thwart "popular" reform, and populists who want to make "popularity" the final arbiter of law and politics should spend a little less time with middle-brow historians like Hofstadter and low-brow demagogues like Obama, and read the History of the Peloponnesian War instead.

The citation of Obama as an "intellectual" reminded me of a passage in Book Three:

"Every  intriguer who succeeded was considered intelligent... and in general it's easier for a scoundrel to acquire a reputation for intelligence than for a simple man to acquire a reputation for virtue."

Promoting populism in an age of electronic advertising is just an offer to hand over government to the slickest ad-men and the slickest personoid they can recruit to front for their agenda. David Axelrod cast "Barack Obama" in the role of "candidate," and consumerist rubes bought that package without much inspection.

Some of them are already surprised that the contents don't match the pretty pictures on TV.



[ Parent ]
Your thoughts seems a bit scattered (0.00 / 0)
and no where do I suggest populism = popularity.  

The discussion is about post-WWII historical interpretations of the populist movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  If you read Goodwyn's work, you'll see that the movement he analyzes indeed has a considerable "theoretical base."  Check it out.  

Your description of Hofstadter as "middlebrow" juxtaposed against Thucydides suggest that I was right about your seemingly idealistic understanding of history as a succession of timeless inner truths veiled by changing outward circumstances. I find such a platonic view of "Historical Truth" naive, and it, taken with the rest of your "response" - in which you failed to address any of the concerns I raise - leads me to believe that your in way over your head here.  

As for Obama, like it or not, he's an intellectual, and I'm supported in this judgement by people like Cass Sunstein, to cite one prominent example. Knowing what I do about Columbia's core curriculum, he, like you, myself and millions of others, has also The History of the Peloponnesian War.  

I'm not even going to touch your transparently ugly pseudopsychological "insights" into "mob-volk mentality."


[ Parent ]
Personal insults? (0.00 / 0)
My comment was about Obama, populism, the anti-populist quality of the US Constitution, and advertising as a determining factor is so-called "populist" initiatives. It didn't attribute any qualities to you whatsoever.

Your comment was (mostly) an ad hominem attack on me: I'm "naive" and "over my head" with "ugly pseudopsychological 'insights.'"

I won't bother to reply to you again.

By the way, if you want to contract "you are," for example, where you wrote "your in way over your head here," the correct form is "you're."



[ Parent ]
I stand behind (0.00 / 0)
my characterization of your comments and their relationship to your lack of understanding of the writing of American history in the 20th century, given the naive dismissal of Hofstadter, lack of insight into populism as a subject that has been studied systematically by brilliant scholars, and simplistic platonism, among other things.

And your advice to quit reading "[middlebrow tripe like Hofstadter]" easily amounts to the ad hominem of which you accuse me.  


[ Parent ]
And I can't resist adding, (0.00 / 0)
"surely there must be a more felicitous way to make this point."

[ Parent ]
Populists=putting government on the side of the people (4.00 / 2)
At The Progressive Populist we have been working on rehabilitating the good name of populism since 1995. Our working definition of populism is "the belief that people are more important than corporations" and that we believe that the government should protect working people and small businesses from big businesses and other predators. See a good essay by Max Sawicky on "Why Right Wingers Can't be Populists from 2003 and our editorial, "Yes, Ashley, There Are Populist Democrats", from 2004.

[ Parent ]
I like this. (4.00 / 7)
We neeed populism, because "progressive" seems to describe all sorts of centrist views now.

It's really about economic justice.  We used to speak of progressive populists, which had a meaning.  Many of the people who supported John Edwards, like Congressman Braley, fit that.

From December 2007:

Like Edwards, Braley is a former trial lawyer, and his strong ties to local unions and Democratic activists could help Edwards to solidify support in the working-class 1st District, a chunk of northeastern Iowa that stretches from blue-collar Waterloo to the Mississippi River.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...


Yep. (4.00 / 2)
At its heart, the left tradition of populism is about bring the corporate state under democratic control. I think that pretty much sums up economic justice.

[ Parent ]
testing new account (4.00 / 1)
t.t

See if no one responds... (0.00 / 0)
then for all you know its only your computer on which this message is displayed.

[ Parent ]
Braley has far exceeded my expectations (4.00 / 11)
I did not get involved in the 2006 Democratic primary in the first district, knowing little about any of the candidates. Braley won that primary by a whisker, and all I knew was he was an attorney who turned out a lot of voters in Waterloo.

He has been strong on many issues, especially transportation, and I am glad to see him showing some leadership. He got more done in his first term than Leonard Boswell has in six terms.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


Loebsack (0.00 / 0)
He's surprisingly seems to be left of Dave Loebsack, the former college professor who ran Dave Osterberg's campaign in 1998.

[ Parent ]
It is exciting because... (4.00 / 3)
It truly has the feel of populist values. It sounds driven by a nurturing vision of government and is not a bunch of policyspeak.

The Dems should do more like this.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


Braley questioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs today (4.00 / 5)
You Tube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Of course, the all-time best Braley You Tube was his questioning of Lurita Doan in the GSA misconduct hearings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


I'm excited about having a progressive AND populist caucus (4.00 / 4)
It applies two different kinds of leftward pressure, hopefully dragging us into the center.

Hooray (4.00 / 7)
Hopefully that gets lots of members.

Braley is one of my favorite new members. Not only this but he also spoke and whipped in favor of Waxman and was a co-chair of Red to Blue in 2008. He knows how to build power effectively and for progressives. Hopefully he gets to chair the DCCC for the 2012 cycle. He's got a good future ahead of him.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Grassley's seat (0.00 / 0)
It might not be a bad idea to start considering Braley for Grassley's seat in 2010.  I know he'd be a better senator than Tom Latham or Chet Culver.

no no no! (4.00 / 1)
Braley would be an extreme longshot against Grassley. Definitely not worth giving up his safe House seat for that.

We need him to keep working in the House. Even if Grassley retired, I think I would prefer for Braley to stay in the House. Not that he wouldn't make a good senator, but we don't have enough upwardly mobile progressives in the House.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
Not necessarily (0.00 / 0)
I think Braley would not be a longshot against Grassley if Grassley retires, as has been rumored. Unfortunately for Braley, though, if Grassley retires, I should think Braley would be an extreme longshot against Tom Vilsack in the Democratic primary.


[ Parent ]
Who do you think (0.00 / 0)
redistricting will hit in 2010? Which part of Iowa is losing (or not gaining) the most people?

[ Parent ]
Redistricting hits Western Iowa (4.00 / 2)
Right-wing Rep. Steve King likely will be paired with Rep. Tom Latham, who is a more reasonable conservative.  

[ Parent ]
or more likely (4.00 / 2)
Latham will run in the redistricted 3rd against the ineffective Leonard Boswell, or perhaps a non-incumbent Democrat if we could ever get Boswell to retire.

Steve King would then be safe in the 4th, which would cover most of western Iowa.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
<b>Good start</b> (4.00 / 4)
but it would be nice if he included relief from usurious credit card debt in the consumer protection rhetoric. We will not be crucified on a cross of plastic!

Real agrarian populism would also include vocal support for small farmers and sustainable ag that I'm not hearing, and doubt will fly in Iowa. Corn ethanol is insane, not populist.

Also, if he wants to be a caucus leader, he'll need to open up comments on his home page,  http://www.braley.house.gov/  to folks who don't live in his state.

Overall, probably a positive move, akin to the Working families Party in fusion states like NY. And it will slow down GOP fake-populists like Huckabee and my own Cathy McMorris-Rogers (WA-05).


progressive caucus, with its heavily New Left and multi-ethnic approach, (4.00 / 2)
If that's progressive, no wonder the left equals dfh.  

I'll tell you one thing the WS vs auto bailouts underscored to lots of people in the midwest, particularly in MI, is that Democrats no longer represent or even care about working people.  In fact, they pretty well pissed off the entire state of MI.

When they are protecting institutions that have rich peoples' money, watch Obama and Dodd move faster than a speeding bullet.  When it comes to protecting unions and middle class jobs, they wallow in the mud right next to Shelby.  I wonder the impact this will have on voting next time around.  For being a donor and a loyal blue state, MI has gotten nothing in return.  They need to take a lesson from all of this and move on.  


Yep (4.00 / 1)
Considering how important the midwest was to the election, that must have hurt a lot of people. Perhaps some organizing around Congressman Braley's efforts with this caucus across the midwest would be helpful in uniting across the states. This seems tailor made for your section of the country, dkmich.  

[ Parent ]
Same as it ever was (4.00 / 1)
or perhaps, there is nothing new under the sun.  

What we're seeing is a replay of classic American political trends and dynamics.

An urban "progressive" movement whose white supporters tend to be wealthier, more educated, have a "do gooder" impluse and want to seem welcoming to immigrants African-Americans, people of color, the "third world".   In today's world many white progressives also want to be seen as culturally hip and inclusive, even though their approaches may be condescending and even elitist at times.

And a "rural" populist movement which in the 21st century is morphing into a suburban and exurban movement - mainly white, oftentimes skeptical of the "big city" or the urban environment, and concerned with jobs, family and their local communities. Populism can go either right or left.

The challenge for left-populists will be to ensure the black and Latino working-class is well represented and that public education in first ring suburbs and the working-class parts of cities is rebuilt to the levels of excellence that existed in the 40s, 50s and 60s. This of course needs to be done in conjunction with policies that both protect and reconfigure the suburban and exurban middle class communities and rural population centers.          

Otherwise populism stands a very good chance of morphing into the politics of resentment and taken over by the Palinites as part of their own coalition building efforts.   Populist democrats and populist republicans throwing people of color under the bus again.  We've seen it happen before.

The Obama challenge will be to finally merge these two related but very distinct populist/progressive strands of American culture. And Obama is probaly one of the very few, and quite possibly the only leader, today that can do that.

It will be interesting.


If those are their planks... (0.00 / 0)
They could be a strong ally on some key legislation for the Progressive Caucus.     They share alot of similiar feels on issues.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox