The dying days of the Hillary Clinton campaign have brought the breathtaking spectacle of a candidate lashing out at every element of public life that has nourished her career. The über-wonk has disparaged economists and expertise. The staunch ally of black America has attacked her opponent for lacking support of "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." People who thought they knew Hillary Clinton have gazed in astonishment: What has she become? The answer is, a conservative populist.Conservative populism and liberal populism are entirely different things. Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people's interest. Conservative populism, by contrast, dismisses any inference that the rich and the non-rich might have opposing interests as "class warfare." Conservative populism prefers to divide society along social lines, with the elites being intellectuals and other snobs who fancy themselves better than average Americans.
Consider this analysis recently offered by Bill Clinton in Clarksburg, West Virginia: "The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules." This is precisely the dynamic that allows multimillionaires like George W. Bush and Bill O'Reilly to present themselves as being on the side of the little guy. A more classic expression of conservative populism cannot be found.
One quibble ... well, not quibble, but comment. When Chait says...
Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people's interest.
...it should be pointed out that liberals posit that moral and/or religious conservatives wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for social policies often at odds with most people's interest.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I think Chait makes some good points. It's one of the main reasons why I don't care for populists, left or right. Whether it's Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, or John Edwards, they all annoy me. I'm not sure why, but they do. Maybe it's because they play way too much on people's emotions rather than trying to pursuade people with facts and logic.
Has anyone ever paid attention to Jack Cafferty on CNN in the afternoon? He does a good "Grumpy Old Man" schtick, but I'd add him to my list of annoying populists whose entire point seems to be to get people's boiling.
t should be pointed out that liberals posit that moral and/or religious conservatives wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for social policies often at odds with most people's interest.
:sigh: Not all liberals rage against "moral and/or religious conservatives," Rod. But thanks for lumping us all together like religious conservatives complain about those on the left doing.
Mark Steyn recently wrote a column about Obama's "bittergate" or "Crackerquiddick" depending on one's preferred title.
He pointed out that in Europe, working class voters have been voting their "economic interests" as defined by the Left: More socialism. More government regulation over business. More unionization. Higher taxes. More lavish social-welfare spending.
Mark Steyn the asked, "How's that working out?" And pointed out that France, Germany and Italy now live with unemployment rates of over 8 percent and stagnant economies that will have a very difficult time funding old-age retirement programs as their population ages.
This is one reason why London has as many Frenchmen as all but a half dozen cities in France: Many are voting with their feet against socialism.
So, we should be a bit more skeptical about whether the Left really understands what is in the working class' "economic interests." If you raise taxes on business, increase the threat of litigation on business, increase regulation on business and offer more social-welfare freebees for everyone, don't be surpised if your economy doesn't grow as fast (if it grows at all) as Ireland's or US's.
I don't think that the two have to be mutally exclusive. Being for the little guy is going to mean that you are against the influence of the few. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com
CONGRATULATIONS TO HILLIARY CLINTON
ONE OF THE BEST SPEECHES EVER AT ANY CONVENTION; DEMOCRAT OR
REPUBLICAN.
HILLIARY; 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.