How Democrats Can Learn Populism

[Valmy]

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.

I live in a State ruled by a single party since 1990 (and before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1846) and our government is almost completely populist.  It is not all it is cracked up to be.

[Valmy]

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.

And he is saying Obama's bashing of the rich lacks the populist tone.

[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.

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

The thing is I'm not all that sure how well governed it is.

[Barrister]

As a total aside, back in Alberta of 2012 I feel ideologically more akin to the Wild Rose Alliance party, the new up-and-comers who are trying to do to the PCs what the PCs did to Social Credit - out-flank them on the right.

But as a public servant, Wild Rose is promising slashes to government spending, including the public service.  The PCs are not.

[Sheilbh]

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.

With Santorum you're right, he is a populist.  But if Romney were to say the same, even if it was fully meant, it wouldn't work.

Similarly Obama's 'bashing of the rich' is pretty insipid - go read some FDR if you want to see how to do it - and clearly tied to his argument on taxes.  Again there's little passion, drama or rage - which is right because it wouldn't suit Obama.

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

Well that bill was proposed in 2009.  Right now I support a permanent surtax on bonuses above a certain level.

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.

Of course.  My understanding is that a lot of proposed reforms to UK corporate crime legislation is to bring us in line with international norms.  I believe we've had a pretty lax attitude for a long time.  For example I believe the 1906 law on bribery didn't criminalise bribing foreign officials and that was the case until 2010.

[Sheilbh]

The thing is I'm not all that sure how well governed it is.

Personally I think you occasionally need a populist revolt against the elite.  Otherwise I think you'll end up with probably quite corrupt and corporatist public life rather than a well managed technocratic regime.

[Jacob]

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

Me too.

[Tamas]

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.

Yeah, I think you are right on this. The weight of the issue is certainly bigger than the public discussion time it gets (which is just about zero as far as I can tell). Together with globalism and the cheap workforce of the third world, it gets all the more pronounced.
And the only clear-cut solution for it would be to await Chinese and Indian masses entering the European standard of living. Which we supposedly cannot really support at present technologies until killing off the ecosystem, so there you go.
The pressure of this all should create the solution (cold fusion, hopefully, for starters) as it always has in history, but that inevitable ride toward progress was rather bumpy, and who to say that our generation will not end up being remembered as the first of an era of collapse?

[Barrister]

The thing is I'm not all that sure how well governed it is.

Personally I think you occasionally need a populist revolt against the elite.  Otherwise I think you'll end up with probably quite corrupt and corporatist public life rather than a well managed technocratic regime.

I'm not sure there's much destinction between the two.

[Oexmelin]

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

Me too.

Yet that would be the end of politics. There are no objective definitions of "well-governed" and the ideal of management is precisely to keep any sort of popular input out of a mechanistic approach to populations, money and regulations. I find that scarier.

[Jacob]

Yet that would be the end of politics. There are no objective definitions of "well-governed" and the ideal of management is precisely to keep any sort of popular input out of a mechanistic approach to populations, money and regulations. I find that scarier.

Well don't worry. In spite of the agreement between CC and I on this particular subject, we're quite far away from being well governed

That said, I think you're being a bit unfair. A preference for boring, efficient and rational governance in contrast to swings between populist extremes doesn't preclude popular input; nor does it imply that everybody has to agree the correct application and direction of boring and efficient governance.

Just because we think that getting shit done with a minimum of fuss is preferable, doesn't mean we agree on what shit needs to get done.

[Maximus]

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.

Wasn't Klein about as populist as they get?

[Berkut]

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.

Yeah, I think you are right on this. The weight of the issue is certainly bigger than the public discussion time it gets (which is just about zero as far as I can tell). Together with globalism and the cheap workforce of the third world, it gets all the more pronounced.
And the only clear-cut solution for it would be to await Chinese and Indian masses entering the European standard of living. Which we supposedly cannot really support at present technologies until killing off the ecosystem, so there you go.
The pressure of this all should create the solution (cold fusion, hopefully, for starters) as it always has in history, but that inevitable ride toward progress was rather bumpy, and who to say that our generation will not end up being remembered as the first of an era of collapse?

I think there is a fundamental mistake in the story of manufacturing jobs being outsourced to other countries.

And that is that it may not really even have happened much at all.

Has the number of manufacturing jobs in the US decreased drastically over the last 60 years? Of course.

Has the amount of manufacturng going on in the US also decreased drastically over the last 60 years?

Uhh, well, no - actually it has not. Actual manufacturing output in the US has grown in fact over that time, and teh US share of the global manufacturing pie has been steady at around 20% - first in the world.

The real story is that the decline in employment in the manufacturing sector in the US is mostly driven by productivity increases - and giving manufacturing companies tax breaks will surely make their executives happy, but it won't cause them to hire people to work in a less efficient manner.

[Admiral Yi]

With Santorum you're right, he is a populist.  But if Romney were to say the same, even if it was fully meant, it wouldn't work.

Similarly Obama's 'bashing of the rich' is pretty insipid - go read some FDR if you want to see how to do it - and clearly tied to his argument on taxes.  Again there's little passion, drama or rage - which is right because it wouldn't suit Obama.

Please.  He has just as much passion, drama, and rage as Santorum.  Which is not that much.  The difference between the two (apart from the type of populist message they're peddling) is that Santorum's message is getting traction with a subset of the population when he wasn't supposed to, and Obama's message is not getting traction when he was supposed to.

Well that bill was proposed in 2009.  Right now I support a permanent surtax on bonuses above a certain level.

And I repeat: do you think a policy of this sort would harness populist rage in the way you would like?

[Razgovory]

Where is this Obama Rage?