How Democrats Can Learn Populism

[Valmy]

Sometimes I wonder if our public discourse on jobs is missing a big elephant in the room.  Perhaps no matter what happens we just do not need that many workers for alot of industries anymore.  Automation means that we can build more widgets with alot less peeps so all these promises that cutting taxes or some other political solution will lead to huge job creation rings might ring a little false.  Perhaps these jobs are not coming back, we don't need them.  The consequences of that, how to create well paying jobs for average Joes and Janes in the future, is a difficult problem that I suspect thoughtful people are already discussing.  I am not even sure there is a political solution to that problem.

But I realize this is about political strategies not solutions to the actual problems.

[Sheilbh]

Another point that you and Crook seem to be missing is that Obama has been playing the anti Wall Street card for all it's worth, it just hasn't been generating the desired results.  (Although I think it will be part of Obama's play book come the general election.) 

Well both of us think Obama can't be a populist due to his temperament.  I'd say the results would be like Al Gore's attempt.  Or Mitt Romney trying.  No-one would believe it and it would just be awkward and embarrassing for everyone.

The Michael Moore wing of the Democrats thinks bankers should be in prison.  For what?  Lending money to people who didn't pay it back?  That's not a crime.  For "causing a recession?"  That's not a crime either.  Moorites like the spin the narrative that Wall Street hasn't gotten what they deserve because they are bed with Congress, but they forget about things like the rule of law.

Crook's not a Moore-ite though, neither am I

He's a deficit hawk centrist Brit writing for the FT who disagrees with the Democrats on tax and finds Obama's tone too left-wing.  Normally I agree with him, but sometimes I find him a bit too righty for my tastes. 

I think vested interests within the White House and Congress are a big problem in dealing with the banks and financial services.

[Sheilbh]

The communism we know was never really populist at all. The main thrust came from the upper middle class and educated elites in places where that was an extremely small portion of the population.

Yeah.  Even genuinely popular Communist Parties never went in for populism.  I mean the French leadership was unbelievably uncharismatic apparatchiks.  The PCI leaders (until Berlinguer ) were similarly uncharismatic.  Togliatti toed the Soviet line and then threw in a veneer of Gramsci for the intellectuals.

[Admiral Yi]

Well both of us think Obama can't be a populist due to his temperament.  I'd say the results would be like Al Gore's attempt.  Or Mitt Romney trying.  No-one would believe it and it would just be awkward and embarrassing for everyone.

You're jumbling the various versions of populist again.  Obama is totally unconvincing as a Santorum style celebrate the common man type of populist--he bowls 48 and sips bourbon like it's cognac.  But he is very convincing as a basher of the rich/Wall Street.

Crook's not a Moore-ite though, neither am I

I understand that, and that's why neither you nor Crook can get past the desire to "do something" about Wall Street and get to specific policies.  But you are enough of a Moorite that you're not willing to confront that contradiction.

[CountDeMoney]

The Michael Moore wing of the Democrats thinks bankers should be in prison.  For what?  Lending money to people who didn't pay it back?  That's not a crime.  For "causing a recession?"  That's not a crime either.  Moorites like the spin the narrative that Wall Street hasn't gotten what they deserve because they are bed with Congress, but they forget about things like the rule of law.

[Razgovory]

You think Yi believes his own shit, or is he just having a laugh?

[crazy canuck]

I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation.  Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist.  It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.

[Sheilbh]

You're jumbling the various versions of populist again.  Obama is totally unconvincing as a Santorum style celebrate the common man type of populist--he bowls 48 and sips bourbon like it's cognac.  But he is very convincing as a basher of the rich/Wall Street.

You can bash the rich or celebrate the common man without being populist.  As I've said before tone matters, it's a style of politics not a series of policy prescriptions.

I understand that, and that's why neither you nor Crook can get past the desire to "do something" about Wall Street and get to specific policies.  But you are enough of a Moorite that you're not willing to confront that contradiction.

What contradiction?  I support Webb's policy.  I'd support a permanent financial transactions tax and a bonus surtax.  I'm in favour of all of the Vickers recommendations (though I don't think they go far enough).  It's not necessarily all about prosecution.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I agree with Sheilbh.  Populism is more style then policy.

[CountDeMoney]

What contradiction?  I support Webb's policy.  I'd support a permanent financial transactions tax and a bonus surtax.  I'm in favour of all of the Vickers recommendations (though I don't think they go far enough).  It's not necessarily all about prosecution.

Maybe that's the problem;  if it were all about prosecution, perhaps there'd be more accountability.

[Barrister]

I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation.  Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist.  It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.

I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and  before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935).  What this means in effect is very technocratic government.  I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe that's the problem;  if it were all about prosecution, perhaps there'd be more accountability.

Over here there's some talk of making executives personally liable in more situations than is currently the case.  Again that's something I'd support.  But Yi's right you can't do that retroactively.

[crazy canuck]

Maybe that's the problem;  if it were all about prosecution, perhaps there'd be more accountability.

Over here there's some talk of making executives personally liable in more situations than is currently the case.  Again that's something I'd support.  But Yi's right you can't do that retroactively.

Also you need to think of the unintended consequences.  Most CEOs and senior executives are in full cyb mode - and have been for at least the last couple years.  I havent seen so much buck passing, lack of direction and unwillingness to make a decision since well... ever.

Things just stop getting done.  One can imagine what further populist type legislation might do.

[crazy canuck]

I live in a Province which has been dominated by populist politicians and parties since its creation.  Both left wing party and the centre right coalition created to stop it are populist.  It makes for interesting politics and generally bad socially by both of them.

I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and  before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935).  What this means in effect is very technocratic government.  I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.

Meh, I would take boring and well governed over populist swings in government everytime.

[Admiral Yi]

You can bash the rich or celebrate the common man without being populist.  As I've said before tone matters, it's a style of politics not a series of policy prescriptions.

So far Obama's bashing of the rich and Santorum's celebration of the common man have been all about tone and not much to do with policy.

What contradiction?  I support Webb's policy.  I'd support a permanent financial transactions tax and a bonus surtax.  I'm in favour of all of the Vickers recommendations (though I don't think they go far enough).  It's not necessarily all about prosecution.

As Seedy's post points out, measures like this don't appease the populist rage that you want Democrats to harness.

Also not sure how you impose a surtax on officers of banks that for the most part have already paid back their TARP loans.