Populism vs. Liberalism

After a recent comment by Howard Dean, saying he'd rather see people get involved (Republican or Democratic party, it mattered not) than sit out the process, I am curious where our priorities rest.

•If populism means "returning power to the people and removing corporate control of media and politics" -- ala Howard Dean

•If liberalism means "advancing liberal issues such as gay marriage, reproductive choice, environmental conservation, and civil rights" -- and it DOES matter with what party you affiliate, then:

Are you a populist, or a liberal?

Does liberalism promote populism, or is the opposite true, both true or neither?

I know they complement each other, but do you think it possible to be a populist rebulican, say?

Hitler used populist rhetoric, but I challenge you to explain to me how a dictator who illegally seized power, who was never elected by a majority in a free election, could be considered an example of populism.

Populists worked to unite blacks and poor whites against the rich and elite. If there is any connection between lynching and populism, it was because those who did the lynching were afraid of populism.

Its easy to SAY things that are controversial, but if you have no evidence to back up your claims, you should just remain silent.

Hit and run editorialism rarely defends itself

People used to bring their families to watch the people fly at lynchings. Also, watch the videos. The majority of German people passionately loved Hitler.

a huge chasm. But you must know that.

Please tell me you know that, and that you are just being difficult.

The alternative is far too frightening.

with effective advertising, etc. people vote against their own interests.

Like what the Republicans are trying to do to Social Security.


With more and more resources are being poured into PR and such - opinions are bought and sold. Without an effective counter campaign, "poplulism" becomes meaningless. I think it already is.

Populism only becomes meaningless when we give up. Power can not be taken from us, we must freely give our power away.

Imagine a group of doctors clucking their tongues about a patient, complaining that modern medicine is useles as people continue to do and eat things that are harmful to them.

They don't treat the patient, they just discuss the ramifications of illness till the patient dies, then they use the death as proof that modern medicine is useless.

If they would just APPLY a bit of that medical practice, the patient would live, and the worry over the usefullness of medical practice would prove premature.

The cure is the application.

The cure is the application.

The cure is the application.

Apply a little populism, and you save populism.

Definition: A supporter of the rights and power of the people.


WRONG!

To me, what people are calling "populism" is really at the core of what it means to advance the cause of a liberal democracy. Being a liberal by definition means returning power to "we the people," does it not?

Being a liberal also means respecting the rights of the minority...populism without liberalism can be very dangerous indeed.

So, I don't really understand the purpose of this poll...

One purpose of this poll is to develop an understanding of how we define populism. Is it a byproduct of liberalism? Is the reverse true? Do liberalism and populism exist outside of each other? Are none of the above applicable?

Also, after asking ourselves the above questions, how do we apply the answers to ourselves?

One of the reasons I first thought about these questions is that populism impresses me as a positive force in politics. Of course, not all that poses as populist IS populist. Hitler used populist rhetoric, but was NOT a poulist, despite the fact that he was a popular figure.

That which is populist is often popular, but not always.

That which is popular is rarely populist, but can be.

I believe that the strength of the Democratic Party lies in its populist appeal. I also believe that the more we embrace populism, the more we win elections, but I would like to see some evidence of that. So far, all I have is my opinion.

Thus, this poll is the beginning of my research.

and a fake populist.

But he plays one on TV.

I'm a dedicated liberal. I don't actually believe that populism naturally leads to liberalism, or vice a versa...however I think they are required for a healthy excercise of each other if that makes sense.

I put Populism at the top NOW, because I think we have no Chance at maintaining liberal values in a corporatist state...so if we don't disempower the BFEE we won't have to worry about the rest.

We can still screw it up regardless...but I think rolling back the corporate interests gives us the best shot in the long run.

You're answer today may not have been your answer during Clinton's presidency, and it may not reflect your feelings 4 years from now.

I'm interested in what you feel is important today.

Thanks for the clarity. :)

is THE issue to address. Everyone I've told about corporate personhood has been more than surprised & a little pissed off. Most of them didn't even know what corporate personhood was.

My fave handout: "Timeline of Personhood Rights & Power"

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf

What an aggravating experience! Reading those milestones made me feel as if I were reliving the moments, each a step in the march toward the dissolution of our human rights.

it will be difficult to give something to people who don't care if they have it or don't know they need it. The idea of collective bargaining is so foreign to so many. You just don't see it represented so well on TV.

by this definition. I've been studying definitions, for the last 3 weeks or so....I get Liberal; 1) favoring individual freedom and non-revolutionary reform. 2) Broad minded or tolerant. 3) Cultivation of general knowledge and the humanities (liberal arts). Populist 1) A supporter of the rights and power of the people. 2) A supporter of the populist party 3) A populist aversion to business monopolies 4) An advocate of democratic principles Populace common people. the masses..a population

I voted for populist. I am a libertarian socialist and so I put great emphasis on returning power to the people and public ownership of media.

Despite being a socialist, I am a great admirer of liberals and liberalism and respect their ethics immensely.

as you see it, what are the differences between the "Libertarian Socialist" and the "Populist"?

in that there can be socialist, conservative, progressive and even far-right populism. It's difficult to contrast this simply to Libertarian Socialism, which as a political philosophy is a specific ideology.

There are many populist elements to libertarian socialism, especially the anti-hierarchy and anti-state power elements. If you would like to read more, Wikipedia has a page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist

You can be both at the same time, so I don't understand this poll.

Teddy Roosevelt was a populist, and a Republican, though by the standards of the time he was a bit of a progressive.

John McCain cast himself as a populist, or at least used populist rhetoric.

and a faux populist.

"at least, he used populist rhetoric"

So then, someone help me oput. Name a conservative populist.

How about Pat Buchanan?

Kick

Nice poll. Non-divisive.

I didn't vote, but lean toward liberalism promotes populism.

Therein lies the problem, liberalism allows the conservatives to have a voice. Giving them a voice allows them to advocate their ideals. Allowing them to advocate their ideals gives them an opportunity to gain support.

Conservative understand this and try to suppress populism, stifling liberal ideas. No alternative viewpoints, no loss of support.

Given a true democracy, this is a cycle which slows down change, but still allows for it.

Conservatives want to continue applying the brakes to this cycle. Liberals want to restart it.

It's democratic. :D

or elitism, depending on the issue. So can conservatism.

Populism can promote liberalism or conservatism.

There needs to be a third leg of the stool thet determines how the stoll is going to sit. I'm not sure what to call it. Seems like you can have institutional meddling on both sides of the political spectrum, so framing it in terms of libertarianism-totalitarianism won't push it to either liberalism or conservatism.

Maybe Lakoff's moralities (Strict Father vs Nurturant Parent) are the right catalyst.

To start, Dean is not really a populist. That is a conveniently narrow definition of populism because Dean is not a populist, at least not how it's commonly understood.

The best known populists in American history, three of them anyway, are Huey Long, George Wallace, and Lyndon Johnson. All three were statists; Huey and George to the left of LBJ on economic matters. Huey was, to borrow from Truman, "nothing but a damn demogogue." Wallace is best known as a segregationist, though he was not at both the beginning and end of his career. LBJ gets vilified for being too dovish, too hawkish, too spendthrift, too cheap, etc.

Populism is not for the faint of heart. It means an expansionary monetary policy, which is inflationary. This is not an accident, it is purposeful. Inflation, provided wages are not depressed, can be a boon for all but the upper-middle and upper classes. It reduces the cost of future borrowing and cheapens the value of past borrowing. It also means redistribution of income. The redistribution is not on the same scale as socialism, but it's quite different from the token efforts of Bill Clinton, who was a populist in image but not in substance. Generally, populists have been socially conservative to moderate. The populist record on civil rights is pretty mixed. The spectrum goes from Big Jim Folsom of Alabama, who didn't racebait, to George Wallace of Alabama, who did. Southern populism is more hawkish than northern liberalism or even midwestern populism. It is not as hawkish as southern militarism, which is a different phenomenon entirely.

Populism is, and this will be misunderstood, a sort of friendly American socialism. It doesn't necessarily make the mistake of tossing individual rights for economic rights (though it can) and it doesn't necessarily make the mistake of attempting to abolish capitalism (though it can). The primary trouble with populism is twofold. It can easily degenerate into demogoguery. In fact, it's quite susceptible to the 'us and them' disease. The other problem is that populists don't much worry about deficits. This isn't to say that populists would blow off the current deficits, but they might ignore deficits 1/4 the size.

I see a lot of calls for populism on this board lately. This is a bit ironic because it was only 10-15 years ago that the Democratic party was not a friendly place for it. I just wanted to draw as clear a picture of populism, as it historically stands.

I'm in favor of a mild populism personally.

I don't see the contradiction here.

As Dean said (in essense), he didn't care if one worked with Republicans or Democrats, as long as one became invloved.

Dean seems to be suggesting a type of bi-partisan populism. Some people may not agree with my analysis, and of those who do--some may not agree with Dean.

Some people might think that it matters quite a bit with what party you work.

Populism and Liberals CAN be harmonius, but they are not one and the same.

A populist can appeal to the right. One could argue that the way the GOP leadership has appealed to the Christian right in the last couple of weeks is a right wing populism at its worst.

The term liberal elitist, while it has become a GOP cliche, has some basis in reality. A liberal can think he knows what's best and not think it necessary to appeal to the masses or give the masses any real power.

That's why I wouldn't pick choices 3 or 4 above. Liberalism and populism don't contradict each other, they aren't necessity complementary, either.

"Reform"

I've always thought of myself as a believer in reform, whether it's coming from the right or left.

The govt & the parties are not working for the people, therefore many changes need to be made. Reform of institutions, in order to return power to people is what I believe in.

In some cases it meshes with populism, but not always. I think it's more about cleaning up the corrupt mess we have now.

In a corporate dominated government and society, populism is the only reform that matters.

liberalism

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

These are simply the core issues that those who are "liberals" have identified--over and over again on DU--as the issues on which they would not budge.

In no particular order -

• gay marriage
• reproductive choice
• environmental conservation
• civil rights

...they're gays. ;)

Liberals support the right to make your own choices, to think for yourself, to set your own boundaries within the framework of co-existance.

As such Liberals will support A. the right to be gay, B. the right for gays to marry.

It's the Republicans who made gay marriage the number one issue in the past election (as if there weren't more important things going on).

The same is true for reproductive choice.

Liberalism has no particular claim on civil rights, although its interpretation might differ from other ideologies.

Environmental conservation is typically an issue for the Green Party.

Labeling Liberalism based on a handful of specific issues does not do justice to the concept and it is EXACTLY how Republicans managed to turn it into a dirty word to the majority if the U.S.

But -

• I chose those items based on what has been discussed at DU in regards to issues on which liberals should not bend.

• It's too late to correct this poll

All I can do is say I understand, explain my choices, and hope others cut me some slack :)

One thing this whole Terri Schiavo circus has shown me is that even though I can disagree with the politicians on a matter, there is strange comfort in knowing that the vast majority of Americans feel the same as I do. I guess it's because I do believe that ultimately in America, the will of the people will triumph. I have to believe that or the alternative is far too disturbing to contemplate.

As well, I'd describe myself as an FDR Democrat through and through and I've long considered myself a populist.

Which is why I would place it as a higher priority right now. Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of the liberal agenda as defined above, but I think that before we can do any of that, we need to get the power out of the hands of this authoritarian regime and corporate media and back into the hands of the people. Then we will have the ability to deal with everything else.

BTW I'd place civil rights and women's rights under populism as well. Maternity leave, for example, is definately a populist stance.

But I'm thinking that you could have a type of civil rights and women's rights in a liberalized, dictatorial, society. Read The Giver by Lois Lowry. In that fictional society, everyone has been given positions that are based on their ability, not on their gender or race. Everyone is extremely tolerant of everyone else. Women sit in positions of poqwer, and men aere sometimes assigned roles that --in today's America--would be thought of as "feminine." Color is such a non issue, people have lost the ability to even identify color differences.

So, a type of equality for everyone--without race or gender conditions-- exists in this story. But Lowry's vision of this society is by no means populist.It is a dictatorship of confused liberalism.

You're right, the world in The Giver is definately governed by a left wing authoritarian government.

However, I wouldn't call this a "liberal" dictatorship. Liberalism implies free thinking and freedom of choice. Certainly there is really no free thinking or choices in the world portrayed in the book.

BTW, it's definatley one of the best books that I've ever read.

I think populism is a great way to advance the progressive cause. The social issues are what made me a progressive, but I think populism can lead us to victory. We might never get some red-state voters to agree with us on social issues like civil rights, marriage equality, abortion rights, and drug reform. However, if we emphasize the progressive movement's populist efforts such as keeping jobs in America, access to health care, and a living wage, we can probably grab quite a few of those voters. We can ask them if stopping their gay neighbors from getting married is really more important to them than their ability to support their families.

Given the circumstances populism has to be the best option. No views outside of those that are supported by the corporate powers have legitimate chances in becoming legislation.

Teddy Roosevelt was mentioned and is an apt figure for such a discussion. We could use a Teddy right now to do some trust busting.

The white house is for sale to the highest bidder. Our president's are packaged and sold to the public on TV like butter spread.

A country that has thousands of different parties, groups, opinions, etc. is represented by only two parties.

Let's tackle these problems, and then we'll worry about pushing liberalist ideologies.

I hate it when people can't just accept a few loose definitions for the sake of a conversation, but in this case, I can't.

Liberals use tools of objective analysis to determine what social problems are and how to solve them. Liberals are *always* looking at our communities, because conditions are always changing. You have allowed Conservatives to define "liberalism" here, accepting the Conservative definitions -- liberals are for gay marriage, are pro-choice, etc.

Populism has changed down through history, and the term means nothing in strict political terms today. There is no "populist" movement. If you want to return "power to the people," well, Liberals and Progressives are for that and have been for a very, very long time.

Therefore, I say that your poll reenforces stereotypes defined by Conservatives (the GOP) and pretty much leaves us in fantasy land.

Howard Dean is a good man, but he doesn't have answers for everything, or for everybody. In this case, Howard needs to do a little more reading and thinking. ... and a little speaking out about the DeLay/Shiavio embroglio. He's being as cravenly silent on these important related issues, as if he were a Senate Democrat.

sc

These are simply the core issues that those who are "liberals" have identified--over and over again on DU--as the issues on which they would not budge.

In no particular order -

• gay marriage
• reproductive choice
• environmental conservation
• civil rights

If you want to say that this is a limited description of liberalism, then I agree.

But if you want to say this poll is inspired by republicans, reinforces republican stereotypes, or puts us in fantasyland, then I say you're missing the point.

I'm not trying to define liberalism. I'm trying to determine how we define populism.

I don't think this thread is ready to die yet, but Schiavo will push it off if unattended. :)