Of Democratic Presidents elected since World War I, only Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson managed to get significantly more than 50% of the votes (they got about 61%). All the others, including Clinton, hovered at the midpoint, basically splitting the country 50-50 with Republicans. While neither FDR nor LBJ were populists, most of their programs were populist or progressive in nature, often lifted whole cloth from the original populist agenda.
Populism in America goes all the way back to 1676, when Virginia farmers, fed up with unfair taxes and corruption in the royal Governor's office, joined Bacon's Rebellion. The sentiments carried over into 1786, when Massachusetts farmers, likewise fed up with unfair taxes and the pretensions of the new elite in the post-Revolution American government, mounted Shays rebellion- which was rapidly crushed. Andrew Jackson represented the rising power of populism when he challenged not just the form of elitism, but the substance, opposing, for example, the national central bank.
Populism was not institutionalized until the end of the 19th century, usually as the Progressive Party in the rural Midwest. We can today still recognize and resonate to the populist issues from over a hundred years ago: economic concentration, unfair taxation, welfare and democracy. Liberal scholars are quick to add that the Progressives' agenda also included nativism and racism, while the scholars simultaneously ignored the class warfare aspects of the ruling business-oriented elite. I find it interesting that the elements of racism and nativism have been essentially co-opted by today's business-oriented Republicans, and the original core issues of the Progressives are now coming home to roost once again among Democrats. During the 20th century Democrats adopted many of the Progressive Party's proposals including the graduated income tax, election of the Senate by direct vote, civil service reform, pensions, and the eight hour workday.
As it worked out in the United States, both rural populism and leftist urban socialism were overwhelmed by the new, intellectual liberal ideals which emphasized civil liberties and human rights--- while refusing, incidentally, to address economic unfairness. Indeed, while FDR brought many populist ideas into the mainstream, he also began the irreversible growth of the colossus of big government and of an elitist liberal intellectual leadership which rarely questioned the primacy or policies of big business. The so-called centrist DLC comes to mind.
Beginning in the 1960's one after another disadvantaged or mistreated minority demanded to be heard, each seeking to form coalitions in order to advance their special agendas, and this method has carried forward to today (abortion rights with Democrats, gun owners with Republicans, for example). Lately, traditional populist/progressive ideas have re-sprouted, such as economic justice, decentralized democracy, and an end to the concentration of power. No other political philosophy has the fortitude to deal with these issues; indeed, traditional Republicans and old-line Democrats are offended and generally oppose any attempt to address such heretical notions.
Modern liberals, unlike those of FDR and LBJ's time, have cut their ties to populism, and have been in a decline. Liberals made a serious mistake when they turned up their noses at church-goers, gun-loving pickup truck drivers with Confederate flags, and so on, in favor of, say, "saving the cities" (from who: poor inner city blacks and Latinos?).
Smith contends these ignored groups are actually a natural Democratic constituency: church-goers would be handy allies for political integrity and ethics, gun-owners for civil liberty beyond just the Second Amendment. Beyond that, he contends that the NON-voter can be the secret weapon of Progressives, pointing out that a study by Jack Doppelt and Ellen Shearer, associate professors at Northwestern University's School of Journalism, found that in the 1996 elections, 73% of non-voters were 18-44 years old (39% were under 30), 48% made less than $30,000, and 30% were minorities. It is likely the proportions are no different ten years later, the only change being a steady increase in the numbers who do not vote. Surprisingly, the study found that 52% of the non-voters were not completely hostile to government, believing that the federal government often did a better job than people gave it credit for (this was before Katrina, so who knows how they'd respond today). Even more surprising, 83% of non-voters believed the federal government should have a major role in health care, housing, and education- all of which are big progressive issues.. Today, if those of voting age turned out in the same proportion as they had in 1960, there would be about 24 million more voters. Progressives need their votes.
These non-voters are turned off by the system, and, thinking politicians will say anything to get elected, believe their vote will not make a difference. Another unexamined factor is that social tension and hate are directly related to economic and social status, a fact that exploiters like segregationists and the corporatist Republican Party use to turn members of the under-class against each other, discouraging turnout or using irrelevant hot-button issues to trick disparate groups to vote paradoxically against their own best interests.
What would an appealing Progressive agenda look like today? Smith suggests:
*Universal healthcare with no trough-slopping by insurance companies
*A housing program in which the federal government would be an equity partner with lower income house purchasers. It would be a self-sustaining program as each partner would get their equity back when the house was sold
*An end to usury in credit card lending.
*Pension protection
*A revival of high quality vocational training
*Election reform including instant runoff voting and public campaign financing
*Expansion of cooperatives and credit unions
The idea is to speak to the concerns and ideals of those non-voters. Some ideas are missing here, but the concept is compelling. Sam Smith says "John Edwards has done the Democrats an enormous favor. He has retrieved the party's reason for existence from the attic where it has been stowed lost and forgotten for some four decades." Democrats, newly hopeful for victory in 2008, will ignore Edwards' Progressive/populist message at their peril.
I noticed that unions and 9/11 were missing from Smith's progressive agenda. What else would RK readers consider to be a good progressive agenda? What would they replace?
I'm tired of talk. Just about anybody can talk a line of bull about inclusion and civil rights. Some folks think I am too politically correct at times, but what I see too much of among who I would call liberals is something like a politically correct contest.
Something like who can express the most horror at the most insignificant thing. These same people are utterly indifferent to the injustices in front of them. So don't come talk to me about women's issues, ethnic issues, GLBT issues, rural issues only at election time.
I know I'm not alone on this. This attitude is just as damaging if not more so than out and out bigotry.
You write
Lately, traditional populist/progressive ideas have re-sprouted, such as economic justice, decentralized democracy, and an end to the concentration of power. No other political philosophy has the fortitude to deal with these issues; indeed, traditional Republicans and old-line Democrats are offended and generally oppose any attempt to address such heretical notions.
True "Open Minded" people are always looking for improvement, therefore they are "Progressive" by nature. What I believe has happened is Democrats have a bunch of "Stagnent" politicans too set in their old ways and refused to be progressive.
I am all for this new breed or fresh crop of Politicans and they can call themselves anything they want as long as they stay "Open Minded", Liberals.
I am a liberal because it is the political philosophy of freedom and equality. And I am a progressive because it is the political path to a better future. And I am a Democrat because it is the political party that believes in freedom, equality and progress.
- Digby
Granted that statment glazes over the actual histories of the terms which you explored. But I still found it to be a nice and simple way to explain our values.
Fabulous and interesting diary Teddy. Bravo!
Both of these are rally the flag moments. It would be far more accurate to say that LBJ won a landslide in 64 due to the JFK assassination effect and the country after suffering from the shock of an assassination of its leader did not want to further step out on a limb and try the untried leadership of someone they don't know aka Goldwater. Further, at that time, liberalism was still the big kid on the block due to FDR and the idea that government could do no wrong due to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, among other examples, was not a idea people knew. That relatively started in 1964 and made its grand entrance after Johnson's Vietnam and Nixon's Watergate.
FDR was possible with the New Deal because Corporate America presidencies of Harding-Coolidge and Hoover had been discredited in a way not unlike Reaganism and the idea that government should stay out of people's businesses because it can't do anything right, was discredited due to Hurricaine Katrina and Iraq, that allowed an opening for Democrats. Why should we expect the government to run a war right?
But, yes, I do agree that until 2006, Democrats seded a lot of stuff to the Republicans.
This is because the DLC is an interest group. FDR's installed people in his cabinet that generally disagreed with each other so that the big decisions come to FDR. And that's the other thing, the cabinent IS related to the White House. Yet I think you're on to something when you tie those two together because certainly the peddeling influence is connected.
But can we move on from a discussion of how we distinguish ourselves from each other, which much of the talk has been about, to a more productive discussion of how we can turn all of these good positions and characteristics into an ideologically-inclusive Party with a platform and candidates that get elected?. Otherwise we will be here post-November election having the same philosophical discussion. We need to start figuring out how to use liberal and populist principles and objectives to get a message out to the voters.
I'm talking nuts and bolts here. You guys are intelligent thinkers, informed, write clearly, and are Democrats. I live in a county in which the Democratic message does not (nor ever has) gotten out to the county residents and Republicans trounce the Democrats unmercifully, every time. Because the county committee cannot or will not figure out how to elect Democrats it is up to us and the state party to fix that problem....and we could begin here. It all comes down to the results in November.
Signed a former "armchair" liberal/progressive. (Please don't be too hard on me....)
*We need to reduce/reverse the trend towards economic inequality in this country. Unfortunately, as Webb points out, America today is in danger of breaking into three pieces - the poor getting poorer, the rich getting richer, and the middle class getting squeezed. What we need to do is to focus ouf policies on helping the poor and middle classes, while increasing progressivity in the tax code so that the top 1%, richest Americans contribute to society what they get out of it. Specifically, it's time to repeal the Bush tax cuts for anyone making more than $100,000 per year or so (in more expensive areas like DC Metro, that cutoff might be $200,000, but let's not get bogged down in the exact details). It's time to use that money to start providing affordable health care to the poor and the middle class. It's also time for Webb's modern-day GI Bill, as well as some sort of lifetime learning/retraining programs for civilians.
*We need to put people before corporations. That includes laws aimed at strengthening organized labor, providing workplace protections, ending subsidies and tax loopholes to corporatsion that do nothing to discourage them (and even ENCOURAGE them!) to downsize and to outsource jobs overseas.
*We need to reorient our foreign policy. I would argue that, in order ot do that, we need to cut our reliance on oil imports, thus sharply reducing the flow of money to groups and countries that do not - to put it mildly - have our best interests at heart. And, by reorienting our foreign policy in this way, we decrease the likelihood that we will ever be stuck in another disastrous, wasteful war like the one in Iraq, which to date has cost us something like half a TRILLION dollars. Just think what $500 billion could do here at home (quick math: that's over $1,500 for each American).
*We need to push for FAIR trade, not so-called "free trade." "Fair trade" means that we incorporate strong labor, human rights and environmental protections into our trade agreements. It means we join with other countries in slashing subsidies, such as the absurd farm subsidies that Europe and America give mainly to large agribusiness companies like ADM.
*We need a Gongress that does its job as a co-equal branch of government vis-a-vis the executive branch, unlike the past 6 years.
*We need to get beyond "wedge issues" and the nasty, destructive strategy of "divide and conquer" known as "Karl Rove politics." We need to unite all Americans in the quest for a better, more secure life, where everyone's liberty is secure and where their pursuit of happiness is not impeded by government snooping in their bedrooms or anywhere else.
*We need to get beyond the old politics and old labels of "liberal" vs. "conservative." We need pragmatic, progressive, economically populist policies and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Is that too much to ask?
Let's encourage the Party and the candidates to formulate and communicate this clear, no BS, message you've crafted. Once again, thank you Lowell.
It took three generations for most of the original Progressive agenda (income tax, direct election of Senators, etc) to be enacted. I don't think we can wait that long nowadays. Rolling back executive arrogance,plus reversing the loss of civil liberties along with emasculation of the courts and degradation of Congress are extremely hard to do, especially considering modern science and clever psychological manipulation through propaganda of an apathetic public... a public which, if it personally suffers little from the depredations of the unitary executive, is happy to continue watching reality TV and football or NASCAR. Can we Progressive find a way to enlighten this public and goose them into political awareness?
At my local committee meeting last night, one of the members told us that there was training in Richmond this past weekend and we'd hear about it in the future "as appropriate"....I've heard that line a thousand times before and still nothing.
Oh by the way, we don't play well in this committee (we want to play with their toys), so they're not going to share their toys with us. But hey someone from the DPVA (and thank you for coming) was there so we were on our "good" behavior.
Agin thank you Lowell for just about everything you do!!