Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
August 14, 2007 7:56 AM
Democrats Beware: An Economic Populist Is Rising In the GOP's Presidential Primary
Leave it to the New York Times' crack campaign team to take what is a truly interesting story from the Republican presidential primary and boil it down into an uninteresting, hackneyed attempt to mimic People magazine-style nonsense (Suggestion for a new Times slogan: All the fluff that's fit to print). The Gray Lady - like almost every other major news outlet that is covering the campaign - uses former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) surprising second-place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll as an excuse to write not about the unique nature of Huckabee's substantive message, but to make the claim that the only reason he is getting ahead is because his "humor amounts to a style of politicking that many audiences have found engaging."
I'm not saying Huckabee isn't funny, but I am saying that he also has an extraordinarily different message than any of the other Republican presidential contenders - a populist economic message that may be shunned by conservative operatives and K Street lobbyists in the GOP-dominated Money Party in Washington, but likely has an appeal among rank-and-file working-class Republican voters. Though Beltway reporters are too insulated in their cliched views of politics to see how this economic populist appeal may be fueling Huckabee's candidacy, it is a phenomenon Democrats should be well aware of if they want to win the White House in 2008.
Here is Huckabee quoted on the AFL-CIO's webpage from the recent Republican presidential debate:
"The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we’re not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who for 20 and 30 years have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension. That’s criminal. It’s wrong."
Huckabee followed this up by telling The Politico: “I am not interested in being the candidate of Wall Street but of Main Street. Wealthy CEOs get paid 500 times what the average worker does, but they are not necessarily 500 times smarter or harder working and that is wrong.”
On trade, it's the same thing. Here's Huckabee at a recent campaign stop in Iowa:
“If somebody in the presidency doesn’t begin to understand that we can’t have free trade if it’s not fair trade, we’re going to continually see people who have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get the pink slip and told ‘I’m sorry but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.’...I’d like to prove that this presidency is not going to be just up for sale. If that’s the case, let’s just put it on eBay and be done with it. I’d like to think it’s going to be more about our principles, not just our pockets.”
Even on health care, Huckabee populist line seems to be working with GOP audiences. Notice this report from Raw Story:
"If you want to know how to fix it, I've got a solution," Huckabee said at the Republican debate. "Either give every American the same kind of healthcare that Congress has or make Congress have the same kind of health care that every American has." As he spoke, the electronic graphs rose dramatically for both moderate and conservative Republicans, from a neutral reading of 50 into the 80's.
This language sounds more populist and more tough than many (if not most) Democrats in Washington. And remember - Huckabee is no stranger to going against the economic orthodoxy of the Republican cabal in Washington. He signed a minimum wage hike and a statewide smoking ban in Arkansas, raising the ire of the fringe right-wing Club for Growth. When Grover Norquist's corporate front-group attacked Huckabee for his refusal to slash some state health care programs, Huckabee all but called Norquist an out-of-touch Washington insider in a meeting with the right-wing Washington Times:
"Grover's never been in government, doesn't have to balance a state budget, never had a state constitution forcing him to deal with a balanced budget. Grover's never been in a situation where he couldn't borrow money so he didn't have to raise taxes or tell old people he's just going to take them out of the nursing home and drop them on the curb. If Grover wants to run for governor, there's an election next year in Arkansas. He can get his residency requirements lined up. And there are 36 other states he can run in next year."
Beltway reporters, insulated by the chatter of other Beltway reporters, see America only through red and blue lenses. This is why a newspaper like the New York Times looks at an unorthodox candidate like Huckabee and attributes his surprising success just to style. Doing that means reporters don't actually have to engage in any "reporting" or "work" or self-evaluation of how the caricatures they use in their journalism are completely divorced from actual reality. Instead, they can just write about fluff and call it "reporting" and "analysis."
But as I noted in a piece for the Washington Post last year, public opinion data shows that on many core economic issues, the free market fundamentalists and economic darwinists who comprise the Republican elite in Washington are not only way out of step with the majority of the country, but way out of step even with the majority of Republican voters. This is the lesson Democrats in Washington learned in the last election when they saw candidates like Sherrod Brown (D-OH) reject the Republican-lite methods of the Beltway "strategists" and instead run winning campaigns on full-throated economic populism (think trade, jobs, wages, health care, corruption, etc.) in Republican states.
Huckabee, in other words, is differentiating himself not because he's funny, as lazy Washington reporters would have us believe, but because he sounds like a mainstream American on economic issues. (Sidenote: The only national beat reporter covering the '08 race that has actually done any real reporting on the substance of Huckabee's campaign is M.E. Sprengelmeyer at the Rocky Mountain News who astutely notes that Huckabee tells audiences he is not a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Wall Street, and uses "a populist pitch" revolving around talk about how "the Republican Party being in danger of being kept out of power for a generation if it's viewed as fighting for corporate interests, not the interests of real people.")
Unlike other leading Republican candidates who say more regressive tax cuts can fix bridges or who say Corporate America needs even more and bigger tax breaks, Huckabee is actually talking about the issues of corporate power and inequality that most people in the country understand is central to the challenges America faces.
I want to be clear - I think a lot of Huckabee's rhetoric is just that: Rhetoric. I say that because while he shows courage in actually talking about these issues that many other Republicans (and some Democrats) refuse to talk about, he supported many typical regressive Republican policies in Arkansas and on the campaign trail today he reverts back to failed right-wing ideologies when he talks about "solutions," offering up proposals that would actually make things far worse. As just one of many examples, notice that the Atlantic reports that his Iowa operation is being fueled by a group whose single goal is replacing the mildly progressive income tax with one flat national sales tax, which Huckabee supports, and which nonpartisan experts have shown would result in a massive tax increase for most Americans and a massive tax cuts for the superwealthy. Huckabee also said he supports a proposal that would replace the progressive income tax with a flat tax - even though experts (including top Reagan administration economic officials) admit would result in a massive tax increase on the middle-class and a massive tax cut for those CEO rip-off artists Huckabee rails against.
Nonetheless, in a campaign setting where rhetoric is (unfortunately) everything, the real story about Huckabee's spurt is the story of populism's acendance and cross-party appeal. As a Democrat who wants to see Democrats win the White House in 2008, I shudder to think about a candidate like Huckabee using this posture to triangulate in a general election. You can, for example, pretty easily imagine him seizing the rhetorical mantle of populism against a candidate like Hillary Clinton - a candidate who brags about pocketing big cash from lobbyists, who surrounds herself with K Street mercenaries, who takes in more health industry money than any other lawmaker in Congress, and who appears on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Money's handpicked candidate. And as I've stated so many times before, the only way to fight off a general election candidate like Huckabee - or any other Republican candidate - is for Democratic candidates to finally embrace populism for themselves, rather than shunning it in an effort to get approval from their Wall Street wing.
That said, when I take off my partisan hat and speak just as an economic progressive, I have to admit I think it's a pretty good sign that one Republican candidate is at least talking about these core economic issues (even if he's only just talking about them). It means that whether the elite Washington media ignores it or not, economic populism may end up taking center stage in both party's primaries - and that's a good thing. For too long, we've had a political debate in this country that seeks to avoid - rather than confront - the kitchen table economic issues that ordinary Americans face every day. Here's hoping Huckabee's rhetoric means that's changing.
UPDATE: Ezra finds some pretty interesting and potentially progressive views on drug policy from Huckabee.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
- Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest
- Viva Las Vegas?
- Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed
- We WERE Punked
- CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications
- Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
- Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.
- Becerra Turns Down USTR
- In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
February 17, 2009 -
February 10, 2009 -
February 4, 2009 -
January 27, 2009 -
January 20, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
If Huckabee continues to rise in the polls from hereon, then populism will be the message... then watch all the Dems scramble toward a more populist stance.
Huckabee sounds better than any of the three top Democrats and it will resonate among bluecollars and independents should he be the GOP nominee.
It should scare the Democrats but they are too busy worshipping Hillary and Bill.
That said, populism does work the problem is that none of the top three Democrats are using it. Hillary plays the DLC style centrist and makes no bones about her K street loyalties and yet is lauded and supported by Democrats everywhere. Obama controlled by the Rubinites is also running a very centrist campaign. Edwards lacks the stomach to say the things Huckabee says and which would pull him out of being a perennial 3rd tier candidate.
Edwards to me is a disapointment, by playing it safe he's and not condemning off-shoring and "free" trade practices and other forms of corporate predations. He'll lose the blue collar and independent vote.
In way it doesn't suprimise that a GOPer would be able to use populism to his advantage while a bunch of elitist Democrats are oblivious to it.
While he may sound good - does anyone remember the
wolf in sheep's cloth. Supposedly, Reagan sounded
good - but I remember going to Washington, D.C.
around the holidays and seeing the tent cities of
the homeless that were living in the park across
the street from the White House.
Of course I've heard Mr. Kucinich, and while I don't think he will get the nomination he also raises quite a few populist issues that need to be raised,but it does appear that no one can hear him. As we go into this election cycle I really wish that we could have more truth and backbone being shown.
Huckabee may sound populist but like the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, he'll cast it aside once in office. As another poster pointed out, remember Ronald RAYGUN? In fact, RAYGUN promised he'd be nice to labor unions but once in office he SADDAMized them to near extinction with Clinton and Bush to finish them off ! In any case, what has Huckabee done so far as governor of Arkansas? To an outsider such as myself, he looks identical to Bill Clinton aside from party affiliation.
Speaking of centrist Democrats, Glenn Smith nicely summarizes the TROUBLE WITH THE DLC !
Republicans have used economic populist rhetoric before - and it worked. Take George W. Bush 2000 "by far, the vast majority of my tax cuts goes to those on the bottom end of the economic ladder". Uh huh, sure they did. But it worked.
Just another reason why the DLC is so wrong to try to minimize the difference between the two parties on economics. Working and middle class cultural populists already vote against their economic self interest, and if you get a Republican sounding good to them on economic issues as well, watch out. Not saying that Huckabee stands a chance to win the nomination, but just for future reference.
"In times like these, we don't need to redefine the Democratic Party, we need to reclaim the Democratic Party" - John Edwards
Huck. Finn has tailored his campaign, as a clever winner politician would who can see a window of opportunity when it is open. You said it yourself, however. It's empty words, because his fixes are as bad or worse than the rhetoric implies. Why is the media not on top of this? What I can't understand is why Billary gets a free ride in the main stream media. Is it because she is a woman. Her broad general statement about lobbies should disqualify her as a democrat. Is it enough to say that some lobbies are good guys when everyone knows they are not the ones that have overthrown representative government in the United States with big money campaign contributions. I haven't heard a word about this lately. It seems that there is nothing anymore that is important enough to get more than cursory vapid shallow discussion in the media. No wonder the whole process seems like a shell game to me. Hill needs to answer for all the stuff D.S. brought up here.
Why would Hillary's statement about lobbyists disqualify her as a Democrat? Just because she was dumb enough to admit she's a sell-out?
The DNC/DLC is cut from the same cloth, except they do that little side-step dance when K-street comes up. Look how they're still kissing up to Liebermann after he's knifed the party in the back so many times.
Huckaabee is either a. playing a role a la Reagan, which he'll drop if he lucks out and gets into office; or b. is actually meaning what he says, in which case he's not real smart to run as a Republican, he's going up against the party lock-step and is wearing a tag that is extremely unpopular with the voters.
He should have gone Independent. Lord knows there's enough people out there who want nothing to do with either party, he could have had a ready-made support group.
I figure that I can look at this in a pretty even handed manner, because I wouldn't vote for either one of them.
It is true that Huckabee is not a '"wholly owned subsidiary" of Wall Street'--no one ever seems to have enough money to buy him for long. As the press keeps talking about him, a few things will come up that should derail his campaign. Like creating a gift registry for those who wanted to get him a congratulation present when he left office as Governor. Of using the governor's reserve fund to destroy a number of Arkansas State Police computer hard drives when he left office, probably to conceal the extent that he used the police aircraft on personal and campaign business. And then there is the case where he granted clemency to a rapist who went to Missouri and killed a woman once he was free. From a distance, Huckabee might look good, but look closer, and he has a record that makes Bush look clean.
Huckabee is a threat to Democrats for several reasons.
He's the only presidential candidate using a populist strategy. And no Edwards isn't running as a populist(just look at his website on economic issues), if he was he'd be #1 not a has been behind a admitted corporatist.
And if Huckabee gets the GOP nod, his populist strategy will be a big hit among independents and moderate Republicans who would otherwise stay home if someone like Ghouliani or Romney are the designees.
The thing is, a Democrat needs to win over independents to win and I don't see none the current contenders remotely even close to doing it.
None of them are really talking about trade, off-shoring, or any practices harming American workers. And none of them are offering solutions(save for Kucinich).
Edwards for me is a big disappointment, sure he talks alot but he's already kissing the asses of Silicon Valley executives by pushing for more H1-B visa workers. So much for being labor friendly. The Unions would be stupid to endorse Edwards given his pandering to big business.
This makes Huckabee a Democrat killer.
I completely agree concerning the potency of any candidate having an economic populist message. This is a case of ordinary people being way ahead of the DC political pundits, who have never understood economic populism. Like the previous poster, I have been disappointed in John Edwards. Although he is significantly better than either Clinton or Obama when it comes to economic populism, he's a long way from a true populist message.
Whatever. Whether Edwards is running as a "populist" or not (and quite frankly, I'm a little sick and tired of the term, "progressive" as well, I like the word LIBERAL)he is the candidate in the top tier who is fighting for economic fairness. He may not be quite as good as Kucinich on those issues, but Kucinich can't win, and Edwards at least has a shot.
But really, I'm sick and tired of the term "populist" because of it's right wing variety and it's "down home country boy" side. I'm sick of the word progessive cause to me, that sounds like the "third way" aka, Clintonesque. Not liberal, not conservative, but "centrist". So I don't like it.
Passive captives of the NEA, minority "leaders" and a tired consulting class, professional Dems have lost touch w/ reg'lar folx.
Several months ago, I heard someone ask "populist" Edwards if hiring illegals was depressing overall wages. His PC reply: "the jury is still out".
Still, don't lose sleep over Huckabee. SOMEone had to finish second.
ACD: What's wrong with "down home country boy"? Or is it that a lot of populist "country boys" are willing to listen to and work for their constituents which most "city boy" limousine liberals won't do.
True, the Republicans have co-opted a form of the "country boy" image, but it's the phony Tex-ass drugstore cowboy version, currently used by a certain eastern Ivy League spoiled rich brat to come off as "one of the fellas".
Don't forget the Republicans are the people who consistently disrespect the American workers with the pejorative term "Joe Six-pack".
It seems to me that the limousine liberals have done enough with their bonehead ideas to damage both the Democratic party and the term "liberal" and driven far too many swing voters to the lies of the Republican party in past elections.
So there had to be a different term, just to distance progressive populists from the bone-head "liberal" image.
The term liberal currently brings to mind the wishy washy Republi-lite sell-outs who will kiss up to K-street rather than work for their constituents and who keep feeding Republicans single-issue-voter issues, via the DLC, that are guaranteed to lose come election time.
As for the term "progressive" bringing up connotations of "centrism", I don't see a connection. Most of the Blue Dog Republicans Republi-lite sell-out "centrists" don't seem to use the term that much.
"Centrists" have absolutely nothing to do with real populist progressives. Particularly since the "center" claimed by "centrism" is so far out in right field that it's in a different ball park.
Populists work for the people, nothing wrong with that. That's why elected officials are called public servants, though most of the ones in Washington would prefer to forget that part of their jobs.
Some folks may like the word liberal buts its a evil word to many people that conjur up the image of a over-educated, elitist, upper class asshole who likes to ram social engineering experiments down the throats of people then tax the shit out of middle-class Americans to pay for them and who despises ordinary Americans.
Basically the kind of people that drove blue-collars and middle-class away from the Democratic party and into the GOP in the 80's and 90's.
Today you find them populating Dkos and the netroots(or nutroots depending on ones POV).
Wow, there's a lot of umbrage here. I think buttes got it pretty right on the defs. Don't know about anymore country boys or girls.
"ACD: What's wrong with "down home country boy"? "
In theory, nothing. Because most of all, I despise politics being based on "class". Meaning the stereotype of every "poor" person is fat and redneck and gun loving, and every rich person is thin, educated and against guns.
So by "down home country boy", I am refering exactly to those people who actually ARE redneck gun lovers. I don't think the Democrats should pander to their votes. Cultural "populism" does. I'm by no means rich, but I'm no redneck and I hate guns. Therefore, the "populism" shtick wears a little thin with me.
Hope that made sense.
Waltc, you make interesting points as usual.
The dividing line in our time isn't between left and right. It is between globalist and nationalist. The globalist of the left is willing to let megacorporations run the world if it means he can belong to a mandarin class that will raise our children. We saw with illegal immigration globalists of the left and right combine to be defeated by nationalists of the left and right.
I trust a nationalist of the right before I trust a globalist of the left. Frankly, you will hear criticisms of the global economy from Paul Craig Roberts and Phyllis Schlafly far sharper than any you will hear from Hillary Clinton.
Join the Discussion