Economic populism.

Do Dems. victories reflect a surge in "economic populism" [middle class under attack]


  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Does the election show it's 'in the air.' I'm referring to a nest of issues around "the middle class" and/or the skilled or more highly paid workers. Does the flock of Democratic winners reflect these issues, for example economic pressures on the middle class. Export of manufacturing jobs.


David Sirota:

NYT: Dems Learn Difference Between Dobbs' Populism & Faux Centrism (7 comments )

From a Sirota article: "Cultural liberalism focusing on social issues that have only varying degrees of support among the general population is far different from full-throated Dobbs-style economic populism. It is undeniable that aside from Dobbs and a few politicians, America's political debate is almost entirely devoid of economic populists.'War on the Middle Class' confronts this problem head-on -- and thanks to Dobbs's passion and charisma, it succeeds in sounding an alarm that cannot be ignored."


Sirota: Dobbs-style populism, along with opposition to the Iraq War, was the overwhelming theme of the 2006 elections. There is no denying it. In the last few days, there have been a barrage of right-wingers and DLCers trying to hide this very simple fact. They have said the election was about Democrats pretending to be Republicans, citing people like Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb - even as Webb himself has appeared on Dobbs' show to give voice to the very kind of economic populism many of us have been pushing for years.

And, of course, even in the face of the New York Times' own news page admitting the rise of populism, we are asked by the Establishment revisionists to simply forget about the election of red-region economic populists like Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Heath Shuler, Nancy Boyda and others.

Writers like Tom Frank, Chris Hayes, Matt Taibbi, Bill Greider and I have for years been pushing this brand of politics, and for our efforts we have all been attacked by Washington insiders and Big Money interests. I remember vividly the DLC attacking me for publishing The Democrats' Da Vinci Code back in 2004 that proposed a populist national campaign strategy, citing real-world examples of how this strategy works in red regions of the country.

But we have stuck to our guns because polls show populism (aka. challenging economic power) is the "center" position in the public, even though it may not be the "center" position in a K-Street-owned Washington, D.C. On Tuesday, the true "center" won out over Washington's faux "center" - whether our status quo opponents in Washington's think tanks, cocktail parties, congressional cloakrooms and lobbying firms like it or not. [...]

...all in all, there is no denying that if Democrats want to hold a governing majority for the foreseeable future, they cannot continue to deny the populist outrage seething all over the country and highlighted by Dobbs book. They cannot continue to listen only to the former Clintonites now on K Street. They cannot continue to listen only to executives on Wall Street. They cannot continue to openly brag about how close they are to corporate lobbyists. They must see election 2006 for what it was: a mandate for economic populism and a battle cry against the hostile takeover of our government and against the War on the Middle Class.
 
Last edited:
I hope so.

If 'economic populism' means that the tent is made big enough for everyone to participate in the economic system as opposed to most people being human resources, expendable human resources.

If it's just 'soak the rich', I'm not in favour of that.
 
well, of course the end of Bush's 'gifts' to the rich (tax exemptions, tax cuts), will inevitably called 'soaking them' by the right wing.
 
Pure said:
well, of course the end of Bush's 'gifts' to the rich (tax exemptions, tax cuts), will inevitably called 'soaking them' by the right wing.

That may be true but I'm nowhere near rich and the tax cuts sure as fuck helped me....
 
GW Bush granted tax relief but the part of the neo-con agenda he did not carry out was to reduce government expenditure.Instead the government has financed itself through massive increases in the sale of US government Bonds.

The market for these is now utterly dominated by the Chinese Communist Government . So how will the US populist economists protect the US Domestic economy when the Chinese are holding all the IOU's?

When the USA gets out of Iraq it will be History within a twelve month but US debt to China is set to bedevil American economic policy for years to come. :)
 
Tx Rad, even if he's rolling in those couple hundred dollars ("cuts") seems unaware that the Chinese banks have him and his kids by the short hairs.
 
Sorry Pure is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Yanno, I lurve ya, darling, and I'll respond to your posts within threads, but speaking personally- it would be nice to be able to remove from my own personal sight so many of the political threads in this forum.
My preferences will change sometime, I'm sure. Right now... :rolleyes:
 
2006 was about Iraq and Foley.

It was more a rejection of the Republicans than an endorsement of the Democrats.
 
here are a couple 'populist' issues Dobbs brought up.

Should states governments farm out work contracts to India, China, etc.

Should the Fed do that?

Is 'Buy US' jingoistic, even applied to governments?
 
Hmm.

This kind of thing annoys me although I'm not really up on it. But what are they gonna do? Put a bunch of sanctions on outsourcing jobs to other countries?

it seems unlikely.. The wto and stuff..

Encourage people to join Unions? Yeah right. And even if they did...

and I think the minimum wage changes are so the wrong way to go about it too.

Tax solutions seem kinda dubious to me as well. And as much as some people look to european pseudo-socialism i don't so much see it..

I think the shrinking middle class is the result of laisse faire and globalism and various socialogical trends.

The experiment of modern economics is really not all that old. And a lot of why they think it should work is pretty theoretical anyway. Adam Smith predicted in Wealth of Nations that it wouldn't work out quite in the end.

Now, I don't think we are looking at the end of western civilization.. but I do think that the fifties suburbian dream with everyone in their nice house with their nice car and everyone getting the same deal is looking a bit more far fetched.

Honestly, I think that people voted probably based a lot on the war, and probably also on general discontent manifeted in a variety of issues which you could chalk up to economic populism concerns.. But in the end, I don't think that this line of political expectations is gonna get people very far. I think mostly it will stir up people who beleive that polics is the problem, and that the rich people are the problem and we will, I suppose see how that goes for them.

As an aside.. I think that the best things people can do to fight for the middle class is support their local economy.. and to try to encourage companys to distribute their money differently as an investment in their customer base..
but yeah I have no real answer..
 
Last edited:
explaura,

i do see your point about 'unions.' would encouraging them be an answer? clearly not in itself, since high union wages may become a reason to outsource. OTOH, do we just let Walmart and the chicken processing companies of the south set the wage they feel is competitive (keeping unions out)?

further that company may simply divide the jobs involved in production, as it sees fit; major manufacturing jobs [say, for components of computers] are in bangladesh only.

the problem is one of trying to control capital: it's pretty hard; even now companies set up phoney main offices in the cayman islands to avoid taxes. persons with large amounts of capital dictate to the lawmakers, not vice versa. that is where 'populism' tries to come in, since supposedly lawmakers serve their constituents' interests.
 
still waitin' there for ya, stella; i bumped it! (what color IS your underwear?)

(you needn't inflict political threads on youself ya know; unless there's some kinda kinky pleasure in the pain.)
 
Pure said:
still waitin' there for ya, stella; i bumped it! (what color IS your underwear?)

(you needn't inflict political threads on youself ya know; unless there's some kinda kinky pleasure in the pain.)
White cotton. I've never posted in that thread, come to think of it.

I tend to put posters on ignore if their threads are more political than not. I can look at their posts within threads, easily- and it tidies up the board for me. I would have put you on that list, ages ago, quietly- even though I agree with you!

Since you are a mod, I can't do that. I'm not saying you can't talk about what you want, I just wish you had less... privilege. It's like the neighbor's talk radio that I cannot tune out or turn off.
Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just today. But I remember someone else mentioning it once as well.

My humble suggestions would be-
creating a political discussion forum, and/or
transferring your moderator duties and privileges to an alt, and keeping Pure as a regular guy- talk about anything you want, and allow me the equality of not being privy to it all.

Yanno what I'm saying here?
 
s.o.

oh, i think you can handle skimming a thread title. i've never gotten into the joys of 'ignore function'. so, same as you, i just ignore some people, at certain times. (not you, dear, of course). :rose:
 
Last edited:
Pure said:
oh, i think you can handle skimming a thread title. i've never gotten into the joys of 'ignore function'. so, same as you, i just ignore some people, at certain times. (not you, dear, of course). :rose:
I'm just saying there's no choice, that's all.
 
TxRad said:
That may be true but I'm nowhere near rich and the tax cuts sure as fuck helped me....
Me, too, but then again, by Mexican standards, I'm a top 5% income earner.
 
Stella_Omega said:
White cotton. I've never posted in that thread, come to think of it.

I tend to put posters on ignore if their threads are more political than not. I can look at their posts within threads, easily- and it tidies up the board for me. I would have put you on that list, ages ago, quietly- even though I agree with you!

Since you are a mod, I can't do that. I'm not saying you can't talk about what you want, I just wish you had less... privilege. It's like the neighbor's talk radio that I cannot tune out or turn off.
Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just today. But I remember someone else mentioning it once as well.

My humble suggestions would be-
creating a political discussion forum, and/or
transferring your moderator duties and privileges to an alt, and keeping Pure as a regular guy- talk about anything you want, and allow me the equality of not being privy to it all.

Yanno what I'm saying here?
We've discussed the 'opinionated moderator' issue before and the moderators (naturally) don't see any problem with it.
 
Back
Top