Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 10:20 PM Dec 2014

Elizabeth Warren Is No 'Populist'

Obviously, we here in the Elizabeth Warren group won't agree with this, but its good to know what angles we'll be fighting when she enters the race.

Please keep in mind~

Populist

n.noun

1. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

2. A supporter of the Populist Party.


Elizabeth Warren Is No 'Populist'
12/28/14

Democrat Elizabeth Warren's claim to being a Main Street populist is an abuse of the American populist narrative, not unlike the hijacking of the tea party following the 2010 elections.

Yet that hasn't stopped the freshman U.S. senator from Massachusetts (or Washington's political class) from anointing her as a populist heroine and an antidote to establishment Washington.

Populism does not start at the top and work its way down to people; it works from the people up. And it is rarely embodied by the far left, which typically turns populist sentiment into demagoguery.

Being anti-Big Business, which is Warren's thing, is not the core of populism, although it can be a component. But it is the core of progressive economics, which is socialism.

We are in the midst of a record wealth gap between America's rich and middle class, according to the Pew Research Centers. That has fueled the populist opposition to Washington among Main Street Americans on both sides of the political line — and Warren is trying to cash in on it.

That's fine; that's what we do in America. But it isn't populism, as will be seen when people do not rise up.
Populism is an ideology extolling the virtues of the people against the depravities of elites — such as Harvard Law professors like Warren, according to Baylor University political science professor Curt Nichols.

Her “well-established Harvard faculty progressivism fits oddly with the classic left-of-center populism she is … attempting to espouse,” said Nichols, an expert on populist movements.

Populist movements of the left, right and center have existed throughout American history; politicians as diverse as red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy, a Republican, Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, and segregationist Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, have emphasized populist themes.

The anti-establishment philosophy of the early grassroots-inspired tea party movement was genuinely populist in tone; the Occupy Wall Street movement sought to advance its radical agenda with a classic populist theme, the distrust of banks.

Populism and progressivism, however, normally have been at odds.

“Indeed, throughout most of the 20th century, progressives equated populism with narrow-mindedness, provincialism, and a tendency toward demagoguery,” Nichols explained.

That was so, not only because American populism has been practiced mostly by conservatives of one stripe or another, but because the progressive movement came about at the very time that left-leaning populists of the 1890s — members of the short-lived People's Party — challenged the political establishment to champion “the little guy,” Nichols said.

“Early populists and progressives thus fought each other to represent the anti-corporate side of the political spectrum,” he said.

Besides a shared distrust of banks and corporate elites, the early left-wing populist and progressive movements had little in common.

And they still don't.

The left-leaning Populist Party of the 1890s, as it is sometimes known, was strongest in the South and Great Plains — exactly where progressivism was and still is weakest — and appealed to poor white farmers hard-pressed by the economics of the Gilded Age.

Even more than being anti-corporate (in today's lingo), left-wing American populism has been agrarian in orientation and generally hostile to urban workers and lifestyles....


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/28/elizabeth_warren_is_no_populist_125079.html

A populist is a populist is a populist. That's what I think anyways.

And I'd rather have a genuine one this time...

Dec 2011.. Declaring the American middle class in jeopardy, President Barack Obama on Tuesday outlined a populist economic vision that will drive his re-election bid, insisting the United States must reclaim its standing as a country in which everyone can prosper if provided "a fair shot and a fair share."
http://archive.wtsp.com/news/elections/article/224858/36/Obama-sets-campaign-theme-Middle-class-at-stake





20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren Is No 'Populist' (Original Post) RiverLover Dec 2014 OP
A piece of trash dragged in from a right-wing toxic site. Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #1
Sorry to have dirtied you shoes!!! RiverLover Dec 2014 #7
It wasn't just my shoes. Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #11
And your notion of a genuine populist is...? n/t. Ken Burch Dec 2014 #2
I'm going to guess he agrees more with the Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #4
I like your definition better than Webster's. RiverLover Dec 2014 #8
So let's see... Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #3
Great takedown of this ridiculous article! Thanks Erich. RiverLover Dec 2014 #9
The quest to get her to run seems very populist to me Fearless Dec 2014 #5
Exactly! RiverLover Dec 2014 #6
"I'm not a populist, but-- Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #13
Took me a second to get that. ;) RiverLover Dec 2014 #14
That is one of the tactics I saw a couple of weeks ago - djean111 Dec 2014 #10
Definitely, I think so too. Good post. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #12
Depends on your definition-- Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #15
There you go again, makin me think. RiverLover Dec 2014 #16
Well, I'm sure you'll be OK with that. Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #17
You do remember I'm the one who asked you RiverLover Dec 2014 #18
Yes of course. Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #19
Here's a sneaky slam from Third Way Bill Schneider.... RiverLover Dec 2014 #20

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
7. Sorry to have dirtied you shoes!!!
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:45 AM
Dec 2014

I think this piece shows desperation.

There isn't much to criticize with her. They're digging deep.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
11. It wasn't just my shoes.
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 12:30 PM
Dec 2014

I wandered around that site a little bit & came back feeling a need for a shower.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. I'm going to guess he agrees more with the
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 10:50 PM
Dec 2014

first definition he listed in the OP.

1. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.


Personally, I'd add it's also a person who doesn't believe the country should be organized and structured to empower and enrich a tiny fraction of the people at the expense of the rest.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
3. So let's see...
Sun Dec 28, 2014, 10:46 PM
Dec 2014
And it is rarely embodied by the far left, which typically turns populist sentiment into demagoguery.


but

Populist movements of the left, right and center have existed throughout American history;


So it's 'rarely embodied' by the left, but movements of the left have existed throughout history. And later, he even adds

the progressive movement came about at the very time that left-leaning populists of the 1890s — members of the short-lived People's Party — challenged the political establishment to champion “the little guy,” Nichols said.

“Early populists and progressives thus fought each other to represent the anti-corporate side of the political spectrum,” he said.


How many times can one expert contradict himself in a single article?

And the tea party was 'grass roots'?

Populism does not start at the top and work its way down to people; it works from the people up.


Somebody should have told that to the 'grass roots' Koch-paid-for 'tea partiers'.

So there's a definite agenda on display in the article, and that agenda is diminishing Warren and sneering at populism.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
9. Great takedown of this ridiculous article! Thanks Erich.
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:54 AM
Dec 2014

And I'm getting so tired of people comparing us leftie's to the Koch party, um Tea party.

To me, we just want to bring the party back to where it should be, left of the GOP. It's getting old having people run as Democrats and act as Republicans in office.

Fearless

(18,458 posts)
5. The quest to get her to run seems very populist to me
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:01 AM
Dec 2014

If populists want her to run then what else could she be?

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
6. Exactly!
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:43 AM
Dec 2014

And while our current president isn't actually a Populist, he ran as one 2xs and won. OWS was a movement begging for a leader.





RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
14. Took me a second to get that. ;)
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 01:30 PM
Dec 2014

Twice bitten, twice extraordinarily suspicious of populist rhetoric with banker campaign donors...

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
10. That is one of the tactics I saw a couple of weeks ago -
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 06:03 AM
Dec 2014

people trying to discredit her will embrace the second definition of Populist, and say being a "Populist", according to that strict definition, is Very Bad or else that Liz is no Populist. So, therefore, Populism will be used in one way towards Warren, but Obama and Hillary can spout (insincere, IMO) rhetoric about the same things Warren is saying, and that will be called Populism In A Good Way - as in see, you people who do not want more of the same corporatism? The corporate folks are saying populist things, so climb on board right now! Sort of a twist on bait and switch, really, and just another campaign tactic. It is like the current, and annoying, but, in its way, hilarious in its obviousness, practice of fastening on one word and making 20 posts about the word or the use of the word. Pathetic.

And to say anyone who is writing and pushing the current trade deals is populist in any fucking way, is either disingenuous or just thinks we are not actually gifted with reading comprehension skills. Or cannot comprehend, themselves, that what is wanted is Not Hillary, and taking shots at Warren or Sanders misses the point entirely.

Hmmm, looks like a lot of RW points will be used against Warren and Sanders - but not by RWers. Just a feeling I have.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
15. Depends on your definition--
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 01:36 PM
Dec 2014

"but not by RWers"--I'm beginning to loosen up my definition of Right Wingers.

Actually, I'm only returning my definition to what it was 40 years ago.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
17. Well, I'm sure you'll be OK with that.
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 02:54 PM
Dec 2014

I always tell my right-wing acquaintances to take it a little easy with that thinking stuff at first, until they start getting used to it.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
18. You do remember I'm the one who asked you
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 04:27 PM
Dec 2014

To post your independent populist thread in the group for that? I posted this article bc it's fucking ridiculous and I thought we could discuss what the other side is saying. The angles, like I said in my OP. It's harder to be more leftie liberal populist than I am and I guess I have been reading you wrong. I ascribed a level of thinking to you which doesn't apply if you imply I'm RW bc I posted an article from a certain site. I don't know that site from Adam. I do a search in google/bing news ev day for E W articles to read what others are saying. Doesn't make me RW.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
19. Yes of course.
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 06:17 PM
Dec 2014

I was reacting more to the source than to the specific piece you brought here.

And I understand and approve of your logic in bringing it here. If I didn't at first, I certainly do now because of the very useful discussion and thoughtful analysis that has ensued.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
20. Here's a sneaky slam from Third Way Bill Schneider....
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 07:55 PM
Dec 2014

Its really slick

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/12/28/what-does-it-take-to-win-the-democratic-nomination-in-2016/

He sounds like he's praising Warren, but then progresses to show how all these people running as populists have lost presidential races. But the problem is, and how he reveals himself & his agenda, is he says in 2008, Hillary ran as a populist & Obama ran as a progressive.

Ha!

And as crazy this is, I mean you can rewrite history, but we were all here, I've heard some people at DU say the same bogus Third Way line.

Obama ran twice as a populist & won & we all know it. We also know (now) that he was faking it, but the point is he ran as one.

And how is it Hillary ran as a "populist" in 2008(as if), but now she's suddenly the "progressive"? I say she's neither. She's a centrist conservadem on the wrong side of the aisle.

Anyways, I guess we'll have to get used to hits coming from all sides, some more subtle than others.

FYI~

William (Bill) Schneider (born October 8, 1944) is an American journalist. From 1990 to 2009 he served as CNN's senior political analyst. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow & Resident Scholar at Third Way, a Washington think tank. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Schneider_%28journalist%29
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Elizabeth Warren»Elizabeth Warren Is No 'P...