Jon-P:

Have you heard of a "Populist Democrat?"  That's pretty much what Webb reads like to me, a moderate populist.  Now here's the kicker that's going to confuse a lot of people; there are populist on both sides of the spectrum (though admittedly more on the Democratic side than the Republican).  For example, a guy with liberal leanings who also sides with Populist theory is John Edwards.  As a matter of fact, most Democratic politicians in red states have some form of Populist leanings.  A conservative with populist leanings would include Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

A populist believes that taking care of the people is far more important than hot-button issues.  A populist remembers that the point of governemnt is too protect and aid it's citizens, not control them.  Bill Clinton considered himself to be a populist, as do many Red-State Democrats.

"Webb represents a very large contingent of Atwater and Reagan Republicans who are shocked and furious at the direction the GOP has taken…"

Ok, so as Democrats we are going to elect a guy who is really a Republican?!

Beating Allen is good and all, but winning isn't everything. You have to win with the ability to govern, for god's sake!

I am still on the fence, but:

How are the Dems supposed to run the Senate, if one of the guys in the caucus is really a pissed-off Republican? 

If Webb some how pulls off a win, is he going to be in the Senate bombing any Dem efforts to check things like the Patriot Act?

The best example of the winning at any cost regardless of the long term effects . . . is . . . you guessed it, George W. Bush.

I hardly think Webb will be for the questionable aspects of the Patriot Act--particularly if he is negative on executive privilege.  I am glad to see that the Repubs are taking him seriously--I only hope that the Dems are taking him seriously as well.  And that his campaign people are very aggressive and fast on their feet.  This is going to get very ugly very fast, IMO. 

I am in a hurry, but I have read several places that he is very "hawkish", on the domestic side of the WOT. 

Also, what happens if the "Reagan Republicans" take over their party again?  What happens if McCain wins the presidency?  Does this guy jump ship?

Also, is Webb a "Reagan Republican" on issues like the environment, early development, helping the poor get into college, and all other social issues?

“Is Webb pro-life? If so, then Allen is going to have a war on his hands. Webb could take all the pro-abort libs, and cut into the Allen pro-life support. This is potentially a disaster for the GOP.” (T)

-- we know the answer to this one.  Webb is pro-choice.

“… he might have been a good GOP candidate in an open race and has some interesting views about U.S. foreign policy, but switching parties to run for office reeks of opportunism rather than character.” (Nick)

-- really?  is switching parties "opportunism"?  I'm sure Virgil Goode, Phil Gramm, and a host of other current GOPers would be interested to know that.  It's one thing to switch parties to keep office or to align with the current ruling party - it's quite another to turn away from the ruling party and run with the party that CW would say isn't the favored one in Virginia in recent years.

It's a sad day for progressives when we can't get our own elected and have to turn to disaffected Republicans to represent us.

Confession time: I was a teenaged Republican myself. Also, a middle-aged and early elderly epublican. Beginning with Reagan (when Mr. Webb was Asst. Sec. of the Navy, and he resigned out of disgust with Reagan's insisting on cutting back on the number of ships we have), I began to be uneasy with the direction the GOP was taking. I tried unsuccessfuly to keep the right wing extremists from taking over at the local level, so began voting independent (leaning Republican) and continued for well over 10 years in that mode, becoming more and more disaffected as the Republican Party moved ever further to the right, and finally vanished over the horizon, leaving me alone in what had formerly een considered middle ground but now was excoriated as "leftist" and "liberal." Finally, with the arrival of G. W. Bush and his depredations, I made the (gulp!) transition to being a formal Democrat... about 22 or 23 months ago; I decided the only way to stop the Republican Bushite insanity was to join the only organized opposition which had a prayer of unseating them

It strikes me that Mr. Webb has made somewhat the same journey. This does not make him any less a Democrat now.  The longer I have been a formal Democrat, the more I see that, despite some occasional oddball (in my opinion) Democratic aberrations, the Democrats are exactly where I belong.  So I don't suck up to the Dem leadership? So I don't like everything that leadership does? So what, there is plenty I do agree with, and this is where I belong. It is probable that Mr. Webb is of similar mind... and I'm sure he and I will not agree fully on everything. Good. I'd be suspicious if we did.

Stop fretting about is he "a real" Democrat.  Can you define that satisfactorily? Mr. Webb is, by all evidence, an honorable man, even a good man. A good man is hard to find.

Listen Matt, stop throwing bombs and calm down. 

Teddy

  I really appreciate the evolution of your thinking over time. 

What is a "real Democrat"? 

I don't know, and  I certainly don't philosophy claim to own the definition.

And, I do certainly believe in the big tent philosophy. And yes politicians do evolve and change their minds and switch parties every once and awhile.  That doesn't mean that we don't question their reasons. 

Back to Matt:

My main question (and it is simply a question--I might end up voting for Webb).

Is Webb committed to the GENERAL philosophy, that unites the whole spectrum of groups that make up the coalition that is the Democratic party.

Or, is he just the Right of Center version of anything but the incompetent Bush cabal: using whatever means he has to take them on.

If that is true, then I don't want to vote for him.  He should have that fight within the Republican party.

Somebody should, having one of the two major political parties in this country so out of alignment with reality is dangerous.

But, I do believe that the meat and core issues that make up the Democratic coalition are the domestic, social issues: using societies resources in quarantining equal opportunity to those historically disenfranchised.  If he is against this then what do we win, if he wins?

I do not believe I am hijacking anything. And I am sure that you would agree with me on what the Democratic party is general about. No?

These are just questions.

And just to qualify all of this.  I would defiantly consider myself a center of the center Democrat. 

Ok, ok, maybe a little left of center . . . but all this label stuff is silly isn't it?

I would say that the most accurate description of Webb is "Jacksonian Democrat."  I just started reading a new biography of Jackson, by HW Brands, and the book jacket blurb made me think of Webb right away:

Andrew Jackson is a seminal figure in American history.  The fist "common man" to rise to the presidency, Jackson embodied the spirit and the vision of the emerging American nation; the term "Jacksonian democracy" is embedded in our national lexicon.

[...]

...it was Jackson's contributions as president that won him a place in the pantheon of America's greatest leaders.  A man of the people, without formal education or the family lineage of the Founding Fathers, he sought to make the country a genuine democracy, governed by and for the people...]

In other words, Jackson was a populist and anti-elitist who believed strongly in Democracy.  If that's not a "Democrat," I'm not sure what is.  And if Webb's not a Democrat, then I'm not either.

This might surprise you but there are other anti-elitist's who are common men, who strongly believe in democracy, and who also just happen to call themselves Republicans. 

Your quote doesn't prove anything.

You are describing very abstract, and common ground of populists on both sides of the spectrum.

Lets talk about the specifics of of how to secure these goals; and just what specifics Webb believes in: and if they have anything in common with the "general" philosophy that holds the Democratic coalition together.

Ha. There's no way Bush starts pulling out before Labor day. It's hilarious that some Conservatives are such koolaid drinkers that htey believe that.

Teddy,

I agree, it is a great system. You describe it perfectly.

Of course there are always those who would sacrifice the good for a perfect that doesn't exist.

Can we get the Webb campaign moving already? Enough of the talk and comparisons. What is happening with the campaign this week? Anyone care to tell us?

Dannyboy,

See my post above: that was my point.

My other point is that populism does not always have the sunny connotations that you give it.

Actually Clinton's whole political philosophy was to escape traditional Democratic populism. 

It is well documented that he blamed Gore's drift into populism for his "lose" in 2000.

Now, there are those who blame Clinton for the Dems lose of power in the 90's, because leaving populism behind worked for him, but not so well for the rest of the party.  See "Whats The Matter With Kansas", great book.

In that book, Thomas Frank outlines how conservative backlash populism propelled the Republicans to power.

Populism is simple representing, or grandstanding, or demagogueing  for the "interests" of the "ordinary" people versus some perceived elite who are holding back or robbing those same ordinary people.  Sometimes appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational arguments.

What exactly are those interests or who are those elite?  Well they can be anything: sometimes they are corporate bosses, sometimes they are east coast liberals, or Massachusetts liberals. 

Sound familiar, it should, because the Republican party is actually the biggest provider of populism today: George Allen comes to mind. But certainly not Arlen Specter, are you crazy?

Populism can also have quite a dark  side: sometimes those shadowy elite robbing you of your just dues are Jews: Hitler was a grand populists.

"Holds the Democratic coalition together." Ah, yes, one reason American democracy continues to provide us with two parties, pragmatically uniting disparate groups, whereas the Europeans splinter into many philosophically purer, more unitary groups.

Americans are pragmatists, we get together to win and then implement some of the programs or ideas of our particular coalition. Today we see the hard disciplined Republicans splintering a little bit themselves, and the old-time "moderates" waking up and beginning formally to leave their old party (having suddenly realized thatthey aren't leave the party, it has already left them). That's how in works in the United States, and the Republican Rove's dream of a one-party state, which was borrowed from  the Soviet Communists, is proving to be less and less likely.  Thank God.

Dannyboy,

You can stick up for the little guy without beating the populist drum.

Frances,

Thats the problem isn't it? Can anyone tell us what Webb has been up to?

Dannyboy,

You actually have your political equation completely backwards.  Redstate (lets make it a word) Democrats are actually class warrior neutral: Warner is certainly no populist, Kaine is certainly no populist, neither is

Edward's drift into liberal populism was one of the reasons it was pointless for him to seek reelection in conservative NC.

Anyway, it is the Redstate Republicans who are the populists.  They are rallying the Commonman (we'll make that one word as well) or Joesixpack against the east coast liberals elites who want to tax their deaths, and make their wives gay, and brain wash their kids in liberal colleges.

Classic populism, classic class warfare.  Just not how you imagine it: its cultural now, baby.

in the second sentance the blank spot after "neither is", is  Phil Bredesen

How about a list of Redstate Democrats in the Senate alone with populist leanings?  Would that help, John?  This isn't my opinion, mind you, but the opinion of analysts after careful analysis of hundreds of quotes.  According to those analysts, Specter WOULD have populist leanings.  Don't call me out on this stuff because I didn't say it.  This is all the analysts, baby. 

(D) Senators with populist leanings in Red States:
Mark Pryor - AR
Ken Salazar - CO
Evan Bayh - IN
Ben Nelson - NE
Harry Reid - NV
Byron Dorgan - ND
Kent Conrad - ND
Tim Johnson - SD
Robert Byrd - WV

Again, this isn't my opinion.  This is from multiple analysts.  To say that a populist message doesn't work in red states is ridiculous, that's why a few Republicans have grabbed onto it, they SEE that it works.  This same study called Bill Clinton a Moderate Populist, even though you may claim with all of your soul that he wasn't.  He won A LOT of Redstates in his run for President.  Was he a hot-button warrior in 1992?  No, of course not.  He talked about helping get the economy back up and running and providing health care for everybody.  What's more populist than that?  Again, Clinton wasn't a radical class warrior, he was MODERATE.  Key word there, Jon.  Moderate.  As in moderation. 

Bring up Hitler all you want, Jon, it's a different kind of populism and you know it.  The form of populism that I support, as did Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson, the founders of this party, is one where the government does it's best to protect and aid.  It remembers that the commonman has just as many rights as those with wealth and power.  After the Bush cronyism, playing to those in power, defense contracts going to rich buddies, I think that a party fighting back for the average-joe is just what this country needs.  We don't want to make this radical populism; a dangerous class war of sorts.  There are MODERATE POPULISTS, like myself, Jon-P, don't automatically jump to the most radical conclusion.

P.S.  Yes there are populist-leaning Republicans, just as there are libertarian-leaning Republicans.  They're populist and libertarian leaning Democrats, too.

P.P.S.  Let me quote you: "because the Republican party is actually the biggest provider of populism today."  Maybe, but they also happen to hold every branch of government.  Maybe it works, as you pointed out yourself?  To win back the South, you may have to be able to accept Populist philosophy, because it's always done quite well there.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson?  I guess their populism was alright, as long as you didn't happen to be a slave or a Seminole indian.

An analyst of politicians with populist leanings? I mean come on, what politician does not have some populist leanings!? 

Its in the job description, its what they do. And it is certainly how they win elections: pitting constituencies against one another.

That is a thing completely different than making yourself into a meat and potatoes populist, making it the root of your world view.

Oh and no kidding, really, are you serious? There is a spectrum of populism?  I didn't get that, I thought all populist where Hitler.  Oh well, I was too busy jumping to the most radical conclusion.

And, you where too busy not actually reading what I wrote . . . soooo, since you didn't pay attention the first time: my point is that populism HAS A DARK-SIDE, and that dark-side is simplistic and reactionary and its worst down right evil.  Hitler is an example, Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is another.

A "moderate populist", who isn't? 

Is Bill Clinton a populist, is Evan Bayh a populist, I don't know, have you ever heard of the DLC?  I am sure most of those senators you listed have . . .

Anyway, I think you are confusing egalitarianism with populism.  They are different. 

No, I read about your "Dark-Side" Jedi thing the first time.  I didn't want to comment on it, because I thought the response was too easy, but here we go.  Yes, Populism has a dark side.  EVERYTHING has a dark side, though.  Anything can be used to achieve evil ends.  Not just populism, but any form of politics.  It's the person that matters there, bub.  Not the philosophy.  I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree Jon.

P.S.  I have nothing against the DLC, and I would support every Senator I mentioned in that list.

P.P.S.  Just leave Hitler out of politics, okay?  Remember what happened to Jerry?

It seems to me, Jon, that you view Populist thought as more of a campaigning technique than anything else.  "Populism is simple representing, or grandstanding, or demagogueing for the “interests” of the “ordinary” people versus some perceived elite who are holding back or robbing those same ordinary people."

I have to say I disagree, as would many others.  Here's a little populist philosophy for you (right from my US Government Textbook here at VT).

Populists generally will be willing to pay higher taxes for more government services.  They support Public Education, Government Funded Health care, and other government services.  However, they tend to support
"traditional values" in society.

So, there you go.  When I say that I consider myself a "Moderate Populist", it has nothing to do with a campaigning technique or rhetoric.  It has to do with my beliefs.  I happen to be very supportive of Health Care, Education, and Civil Rights.  I do have a moderately "traditional values" believe.  While I support the right to choose, I personally am opposed to abortion.  I don't believe that we should legalize marijuana or any other drug for that matter.  I'm a fan of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military.  However, as a populist, I choose not to fight these hot-button topics, and try to stay more on Bread and Butter issues about improving the living condition of people everywhere.

THAT'S how I see populism.  It isn't about class wars, it isn't about political rhetoric.  To me, it's about sticking up for the little guy, no matter the cost.  Laugh and mock me all you want, call it idealistic or naieve, but you are not going to budge me on that one.

Dannyboy,

No, I am talking about governing.

And your quote about populism, you are leaving out somethings (and only pointing out what some populist's preferances are).

There is also:

"Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes nationalism, racism or fundamentalism."

At its core populism is AlWAYS oppositional, and it always prefers HOT BUTTON/ EMOTIONAL issues (which are not always social, they can also be economic). If it does not have these it is simply something else.

It has to be against somebody or some group. Taking something from someone and giving it to someone else. Liberal, moderate or fascist.

That is why I would propose a separation between populism and egalitarianism.  Someone who you probably think of when you think of populism is Martin Luther King, I believe in fact that he was an egalitarian.  This is a very important distinction.

"In recent years, conservative United States politicians have begun adopting populist rhetoric; for example, promising to "get big government off your backs", or to stand up to "the powerful trial lawyer lobby", "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite"."

"Populists are seen by some scholars as a largely democratic and positive force in society, while other scholars argue populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process."

Here is where we agree to disagree.

Because, I would say that every liberal has populist instincts, myself included.  But, when I think about populism, and how one would govern in perpetuance with populism I cant imagine it sustaining itself. 

Because the "revolutionarys", eventually become the status quo. 

How are we to build a more fair society?  Not through populism, thats for sure!

And don't take Hitler of the table when talking about this stuff (though, I would agree its not good politics, but this aint a campaign). The phenomon of the National Socialists is one of the most interesting and cautionary tails in history. 

Espeacly if you are waxing about populism. You don't think it can happen here, even under the banner of moderation, no less?

So, back to Webb, and this Scots-Irish fetish.  Its just a story, a way to structure history, into some ethnic us vs.them.  And, I don't know if it is accurate.  (yeah, yeah, yeah:  I know the history of how "we" where oppressed)

But, where I live, the "white trash" are all pretty much French decedents, (some of them my ancestors).

But and the predominately Scots-Irish like myself are all middle to upper middle class, and have been for generations. 

In history, who the "victims" are and who the "perpetuators"  are, is actually very fluid.