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.
-
January 3, 2008 6:05 PM
The Numbers Don't Lie - As I Said Long Ago, Populism Is On the Rise
Back in August, I wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled "An Economic Populist Is Rising In the GOP Presidential Primary." In that article, I predicted that Republican Mike Huckabee would rise and potentially win the Iowa caucuses based on his relentless focus on economic inequality and class-based populism. I chided the media and Democrats for ignoring him, and when I wrote this article, I was laughed at by many reporters, pundits and readers alike.
In November, I wrote a nationally syndicated column for Creators Syndicate entitled "The Huey Longs of Iowa" about both Huckabee and John Edwards. I once again noted that these two underdog candidates were competing in the Iowa caucus despite being outspent precisely because both men were running as bare-knuckled economic populists. As the only nationally syndicated columnist to write something like this, I was largely dismissed and laughed off by national political reporters, pundits and many readers, with most telling me the Iowa race was between only Romney and Giuliani on the Republican side, and only Clinton and Obama on the Democratic side.
Now the results are in: Huckabee has resoundingly won the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards duked it out in a dogfight with Barack Obama, who has over the last month adopted much of Edwards' populist rhetoric. That Edwards was even close in this race at all, and that Huckabee won outright is a success for both candidates considering they were grossly outspent by candidates being funded by huge corporate interests. More importantly, these results (regardless of who ends up winning what is effectively a tie in the Democratic race) resoundingly support precisely what I wrote way back when the Punditburo in Washington was still berating economic populism, and downplaying the very real class-based anger that is roiling America.
In the last week, a few columnists have scurried to point out what I pointed out a long time ago about both Huckabee and Edwards - as if it is some sort of new revelation that the country is ready for a truly populist economic politics. However, watching CNN, it is clear national political reporters will continue to ignore economic populism's central role in American politics. When it comes to Huckabee, all the talk is about religious conservatism, even as conservative publications like the Weekly Standard have very recently acknowledged that Huckabee's economic message is what has propelled him to victory. Similarly, when it comes to Edwards miraculously being in the middle of the race despite being outspent, all the talk is about the horserace. It is as if the Washington media and political Establishment will do anything to pretend that the public's anger at corporate greed and economic inequality simply does not exist.
They don't want to admit this anger exists because it fundamentally indicts the corrupt system that has allowed such economic oppression to flourish - a corrupt system brought on by the hostile takeover of our government by big money interests that I described in my first book. But, as they say, the numbers do not lie. They are there for all to see - and they prove what I and many progressives have been saying for years.
As I said at the beginning of the day, no matter what the final exact tallies, we the progressive movement - and We The People - are already winning.
-
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
So is Obama as much "a populist" as Huck?
Anyway, congrats to the Edwards' on preserving (barely) their campaign.
"Huckabee won outright is a success for both candidates considering they were grossly outspent by candidates being funded by huge corporate interests"
Ok, seriously, I've just about had it with Sirota's "Huckabee is a economic populist" crap. I suppose Huckabee's contributions from CEO of Wal Mart Lee Scott doesn't mean he's a corporate tool? Or the contribution from Jim Walton, "Wal Mart billionare"? Whatever.
Kucinich and Richardson's idealistic bases may be more enamored of Obama, but their record and message -- change -- have more in common with Edwards.
I would have thought that in advising their supporters they would go with substance versus image.
The only genuine populism that will ever really make it will be outside both parties. Let's see what happens from here on out. I'll bet the Democrats are already scared that Huckabee might win the primary and nail the Democrats for not living up to their promised platform of anti-ft and pro-worker.
This isn't a victory for populists on the Democratic side, yet.
The Democrats seem to have sadly settled on a overly ambitious man who embodies style over substance and a very corporate friendly agenda.
Its not in concrete yet, Hillary or Edwards can still do a upset. Though Hillary coming in 3rd despite having a powerful political machine shows she has some serious problems.
If Edwards doesn't pull off a victory soon he's toast and then it becomes a contest between two K Street puppets. One with charisma and one who is merely ambitious with a god complex.
As for Huckabee, considering that CNBC has been spewing blood over him and Edwards and the spectre of a resurgent populism, it makes him a populist(as compared to Hillary or any of the other GOP thugs).
The GOP establishment hates Huckabee and his victory makes them nervous. The establishment is clearly touting McCain as the real deal despite his dismal showing. They own McCain, they don't own Huckabee.
robert beal - Richardson did not advise any supporters to shift their votes. Kucinich was the only candidate (just as in 2004) to do so. What I heard and saw during the live caucus coverage on C-Span was Richardson's precinct captains asking people to stay on board and attempt to pull people over to their side to help acheive the 15% "viability mark" but, if they felt they could not do that, they should use their own judgemet as to which other candidate they might align with. They were not directed toward any specific candidate.
As a Richardson supporter I am drawn to Edwards' populist messsage but am more concerned about his trust worthiness (after having voted for all of the things he is attacking today) and his lack of experience in any executive position. I was very discouraged to see the Democrats dismiss experience (and Clinton's years as "The Boss's Wife" doesn't count) over hype.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Edwards is finished. If he couldn't win Iowa, he done. The corporate candidate won.
Obama is to the right of Romney on health care, right up there with Thompson on social security, and has many of Clinton 1's most center righteconomic advisers. Obama is clearly the most anti-union candidate the Democrats have ever put up. Going into the caucus he barely had 13% of the union vote, same as Richardson.
Awhile ago I predicted that if Huckabee won there would be a major political shift. The Democrats would move to the right (economically) and the money cons would abandon the Republican Party. Just look at how the Fox boys react when talking about Huckabee.
There was a huge class divide in the Rep caucus - working class folks with Huck. I find myself wondering how many Edwards supporters decided to go Huck in the end.
The Dems are dead to me. Well, at least the likelihood of Nader getting in is greater now.
The GOP establishment will be even more scared of Huckabee once he wins the following:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/03/wyoming-to-hold-fogotten-caucus-between-iowa-new-hampshire-primaries/
P.S.: It's terrible when even the GOP can overlook their own Dick Cheney's state of WY, not that the state ever benefitted from him to begin with.
In reality, Huckabee is a fundamentalist right wing Bible-thumper. He is, in no definition of the term, a populist.
As a populist, he's right down there with Ron Paul, who the local Libertarians are now proclaiming as the "saviour of our country".
Most of his message is aimed at recapturing the votes of the less fanatical, and more moral, left leaning evangelicals who have been turned off by the extreme right wing conservative "Christians" with their single-issue-voter issues, and total disregard for the Sermon on the Mount.
If he wins, in true Republican tradition, all the campaign promises will go out the window, and he will continue to follow the right wing Republican church is state agenda.
Hi Butte,
First, haven't seen you in a long time. Second, I saw Mike Huckabee's site and anyone who thinks that Huckabee is a populist should take a look at his actual take on various issues right here:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home
He mentions nothing about trade, product safety, or consumer rights. He keeps promising tax cuts for the wealthy. He's prepared to follow Bush's stay-the-course in Iraq and shows his zealous hatred of Palestinians while showing strong support for the warmongers in Israel.
Between Obama and Huckabee, given their legislative histories, I'm already predicting that Huckabee will turn out to be worse than even Obama once he gets the White House. Like Obama, nothing that he did while being a state pol is going to match what he'll do in Washington.
In the meantime, the best hope for any trace of populism in the Democratic Party can only come from Edwards despite his controversial voting record in the past.
Butte,
At minimum his rhetoric is authentically populist. This would compare to Edwards whose rhetoric is moderately populist, but not authentically so. I am just talking about rhetoric not actual policies.
Huckabee is right when he says most folks see me more as a fellow employee than the guy who just laid them off. This rhetoric is strong, and his support in Iowa demonstrated this. Much of Huckabee's support came from the poor and working class.
If Huckabee's strength continues, you'll see economic conservatives and money cons jumping ship. George Will has some very flattering words about the Obama team. I think in the end, this will push Huckabee further to the economic left.
n*t*,
Did you even take a look at how Mike Huckabee is going all out to push for a National Sales Tax at 27% to say the least? Don't forget that it can and likely will be raised a lot higher than that anytime they're ready. Any candidate pushing for a National Sales Tax and eliminating progressive taxation altogether isn't a populist given that a National Sales Tax is fundamentally designed to let the wealthy pay less while the rest of us get shafted even as we try to catch up in life by having to spend what's necessary. Just take a look at his Taxes and Economy option on the website I posted a link to earlier and see for yourself.
Obama is a smooth talker alright great orator but if you listened really listened and not just fallen under the ether, you'd have heard that he will make deals with the very powers we seek to defeat and take back our government so that it Serves the People and not the elite only and the Corporations..
Obama thinks you can dance with the devil..
He's more a Clinton than an Edwards..
You'll see..
Sadly the working class has gotten the short end of the stick again. Populism and issues affecting the working and middle-class has been repudiated by Democrats, instead they've decided to opt for corporate friendly candidates who only represent the status-quo.
I'd say the Democrats are well on their way to another presidential beat down.
Way to go Democrats!
Edwards pissed off many in IA. Was chronically late for rallies; wouldn't deal for secondary caucus votes; miserable non-concession/non-congrats speech at the end.
His purer-than-thou rant got pretty tiresome, too.
David,
Here are my problems with Obama - after the trashing of the Constitution, I think that the "Corporatization of America" is THE most important issue facing us, today, and much like Hillary Clinton, I am afraid that Obama is too closely aligned WITH the Corporatocracy to institute the changes necessary to take America back from the Corporations, and return it to "WE THE PEOPLE." (Did you know that Obama is the 2nd largest recipient of campaign donations from the health insurance industry - after Hillary - regardless of political party? To me, that is very scary.)
Secondly, as much as I like Obama (his speech last night was great, and it gave me the same "spine-tingly" feeling I got when I saw him speak at the Convention in 2004 and thought "Damn, that guy is going to be the first black President!") I do NOT think that this is the right time to be trying to build a "Purple America" were Democrats and Republicans work together to find "common ground" on issues.
Today's Republican Party is SO FAR to the radical right wing (having been thoroughly taken over by the "neo-cons and the movement conservatives"), that there is NO WAY to find "common ground" with it without "selling out" MAINSTREAM Democratic priniciples. As John Edwards said - "You can't find common ground with people who would allow a teenager to die because they put corporate profits over her need for a liver transplant."
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratically-controlled Congress are still trying to "find common ground" with Bush, and, as a consequence, the war has been funded for another year, and the Telecom Companies still might get blanket immunity for spying on US, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Is that REALLY what America needs right now?
I don't think so. In my opinion, what America NEEDS (as opposed to what might make us feel better), is an AGGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE, like John Edwards, to fight back against the neo-fascists and the Corporatists. It will only be AFTER fundamental balance has been restored to the body politic - in say, 8 years - that America will be ready for the type of bipartisan, coalition building, government that Barack Obama would epitomize.
All of that being said, Obama is currently my second choice, and, unless Edwards does much better than expected in New Hampshire, or Obama does much worse, I will probably think about switching before the Colorado Caucuses. I know a "band wagon" when I see one, and certainly, as of last night, Obama looks like destiny's candidate.
spankinrankin,
First, I am not a fan of a straight fair tax. I don't think its progressive, but it does have a populist sense to it. My son watched him on Leno, and he was all excited about those earning under $40,000 being exempted from the tax.
As I said above its Huckabee's rhetoric that is authentically populist, his policies much less so. My problem with both Huck and Edward's is their populist rhetoric has not developed into a populist platform. At best they are economic centrists in a right of center political atmosphere.
Excellent article... I noticed the 'Longs of Iowa' bit when it was linked by BuzzFlash... You are nibbling around the edges of something Mr. Huckabee brings to the race that seems to most folks at first glance to be genuine sincerity and an ability to focus his responses apolitically and personally.
As George Burns was reputed to have said "The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made...", and if you don't believe that he's got it, you can review the MSNBC interview with Huck and Tweety, and the banter afterwards if you can... Aw, shucks... "Did the Earth move for you, too...".
My wife, a pro choice professional college educated lifelong Democrat who was disappointed by Hilary's showing asked "Who was that?" when he went off, I told her it was Huckabee and she said, "Wow... Who does he remind me of? He's very good..., I thought he had horns..." Economic populism may attract the attention of voters, as will a bent toward fundamentalism attract a certain type of voter, but it is the man himself who will close the deal, and this guy is a closer.
As to the Democrats, I haven't changed my mind and the Iowa results only make my prediction that much more likely...
DEADLOCK IN DENVER
Dems turn to Gore...
Happy New Year all...
RGJ/Dallas112263
But I gotta admit...
...Obama extending health coverage to all "like (he) did in Illinois" was the nadir of an otherwise great speech.
Health care/coverage for most folx here tain't much better than other states.
One media pundit who understands the issues, and the reason that US populism is growing like a kudzu vine is Lou Dobbs.
Populism is neither a progressive nor a conservative ideology. Nor is it owned by either of the R/D parties of today. Both parties today have imbedded self interests that oppose populism. The Democratic Party of 40 years ago did tend to be of populist bent, but that was lost with Kennedy's assassination.
The important aspect of populism is the growing public awareness that both Congress (D/R) and the President are making laws for the benefit of politicians and big business only. That applies to a host of issues, whether it be NAFTA, bankruptcy laws, Medicare part D, amnesty & illegal immigration, mortgage crisis, CEO compensation, tax credits for oil companies, failing health care, an Iraq War that has hurt both the USA and Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, and corrupt lobbyists. The Democrats and Republicans in Washington have run our country into the ground.
Example: The Democratic politicians play politics with illegal immigration believing that amnesty and an open door policy will get them more votes in the long run. They do this knowing it hurts wages of the poorest Americans and negatively affects the fiscal health of social security and the country. Republicans want business and the rich to have unlimited cheap pseudo slave labor.
n*t*,
I'm sick and tired of politicians who "sound populist enough" but are ready to FUCK the country to death with their secret hands. And here's more on Huckabee:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
Frankly, I don't think either one of these parties are worth fighting for anymore anyway. Mike Huckabee reminds me of Bush's fake populism in 2000 and 2004 only to allow the wealthy elite to FUCK everything up once in office. I'm already regretting my vote for Haley Barbour in 2003 because I was angry as hell with Musgrove for giving the rightwing motherfuckers everything they wanted while pissing on us working class liberals. I'm gonna write in my choice if it ain't on the ballot the next time I vote !
I tend to agree. I don't think anyone have moved out of the rhetoric phase. Its not like either are pushing a Share the Wealth plan.
I do think Huckabee's rhetoric is more authentic - he's one of us - than Edward's, who often gives the impression of playing a role.
spankinrankin,
I think everybody's is pissed as hell that it's all sizzle and no substance as usual. However, to win an election at any given time, you have to cater to the voters in a way that they can "identify with you the candidate" which is exactly what Obama and Huckabee did. Of course neither of these two are genuine populists. It doesn't matter how much truth you tell to the voters or your honest stand on the policies. You have to convince more voters out there to say "Yes, I can identify with this candidate". I'm pretty sure both Obama and Huckabee took a good read at Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" and George Lakoff's "Don't Think of An Elephant". Those two books give a great insight into what sounding genuinely populist is all about.
P.S.: I don't know how your voting goes out in MS since most folks outside the state will believe it's all GOP anyway but even lukewarm red states such as Virginia where I live in have put in populist-sounding Democrats such as Mark Warner and Jim Webb and Warner is already preparing to defeat Jim Gilmore with his authentic-sounding populist rhetoric despite the fact that he makes no bones about his association with the DLC. Even Tim Kaine, another DLC hack, went "populist" on the last minute although he was lucky to write off rural VA and misuse the urban and exurban/suburban areas to make up for it. Even now, Mike Huckabee is well aware that even in rural New Hampshire, there are not as many "evangelical" fundies as there are in rural IA so now he's changing his "Christian" tone to "reach out" to secular voters as he would call them.
speaking of populism:
I am beginning to think that protectionism is not that important. If we have a minimum wage and high progressive taxation to redistribute the gains from trade, it could actually work out nice. I mean, do people really don't give a hoot whether they work in the service sector or manufacturing? As long as we are paid well, who cares? And it is not like we can do anything about the cheap asian goods - we may as well take advantage of it!!! now there is a leftist platform - free trade, but redistribution of wealth and worker protection. If the elite don't want protectionism, I say let us take advantage of their global economy!!!!
Join the Discussion