Unfortunately, the word populist may be for the Right what liberal is for the Left - a bad word. Both words suffer from extreme over-simplification in today's political rhetoric.
via Real Clear Politics, an excellent site for a timely snapshot of political news - and just wait until the polling gets started. They're incredible. But the topic for now is political terminology thanks to an interesting piece by Craig Shirley at the Washington Post.
The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.
Two additional particularly noteworthy paragraphs follow:
The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they've found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists' commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power.
... It was the populists under Reagan, and later under Newt Gingrich, who energized the party, gave voice to a maturing conservative ideology and swept Republicans into power. We would be imprudent and forgetful to disregard this. But it may be too late, because conservatives don't want to be part of the looming train wreck. They know that this is no longer Ronald Reagan's party.
In its pure form, populist means little more than lower-case d democrat.
an advocate of democratic principles
Unfortunately, its common usage has been aligned with some less than ideal partys, concepts and opinions.
Populism is a political philosophy or rhetorical style that holds that the common person's interests are oppressed or hindered by the elite in society, and that the instruments of the state need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and used for the benefit and advancement of the people as a whole. Hence a populist is one who is perceived to craft their rhetoric as appeals to the economic, social, and common sense concerns of average people. Most scholarship on populism since 1980 has discussed it as a rhetorical style that can be used to promote a variety of ideologies.
Individual populists have variously promised to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, and "put people first." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes nationalism, jingoism, racism or religious fundamentalism. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers. Often they employ dichotomous rhetoric,...
The above, combined with the large D Democrat Party's usurptation of the word democrat, doesn't leave many options for the plain old non-partisan American. See here for more.
I'd argue that the Reagan Revolution might indeed have been a populist movement, but it was one in the best, or purest sense of the word. While it didn't embrace elitism, it also didn't overly divide our soceity into elitists versus populists. Few in the Reagan revolution were calling for an accounting of corporate finance and pay structures for CEOs, which the Democrat Party is doing today, at least as regards the oil industry.
Yes, there may have been jingoists, or religious fundamentalists, or whatever else under Reagan's banner, but no one actually supplanted the other to any extreme. It was a popular movement, not populist by today's terminology.
What is it that Conservatives and Reagan Democrats have asked of the GOP? Nothing in any broader people's agenda reeks of racism, intolerance, or an uber-nationalism, despite the Democrats success in making it appear that way through manipulation of the media. What little d democrats in America, so let's call them Americans, want - is a little restraint in government and more common sense.
We want passage of meaningful good laws combined with observance and enforcement of them. That alone would all but solve the immigration issue. The laws are there now. They were simply never enforced. And its the governments failure to enforce our laws which has led to a calling for a barrier, not some hatred of all things Mexican by a bunch of populists.
Americans witness the failures of big government everyday - from ineffective motor vehicle offices, to emergency response teams ala Katrina, and so on ad infinitum.
Americans want to appreciate that unique aspect of self-reliance which has served this great Nation so well for so long. But they would not deprive development and internalization of the concept of self-reliance for a poor Black population, having been led astray by Big Government entitlements which simply don't work. Nor would Americans deny that concept to a prudent and appropriate number of legal immigrants from South of the Border, or anywhere else, for that matter.
The average American doesn't think in grand concepts involving the people versus the power structure - political rhetoriticians think and talk that way. And to the extent our politicans embrace such talk, they stop talking to Americans, opting for talking and eventually shouting back and forth at one another.
Clinton had the gift of talking to the American people, though his policies and actions betrayed his rhetoric. Reagan's never really did. If nothing else, he mostly told people what he thought and acted according to it. He was consistent. Can that be said for politicans today who talk law and order but don't enforce the laws? Can it be said for politicans who claim to support the military but bash a war effort every chance they get? Sadly, no it can't.
Republicans can span the golf course and the factory, they proved that when common sense ideas and ideals were given voice by Ronald Reagan. But unless they come up with a candidate that can not only speak common sense to Americans, but also mean it because he or she thinks it, they'll be nothing more than another empty suit party Americans couldn't care less about.
And both parties better beware if that continues to happen and fester. Clearly it is happening today.
Wanted: Statesperson reply via the RNC.
Outstanding article!
Posted by: Crazy Politico | Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 10:56 AM