NY Times wouldn't know a populist...if one got elected

Posted by Joshua Holland at 6:17 PM on November 12, 2006.

Robin Toner and Kate Zernike had an almost incomprehensible article on Sunday in the New York Times.

Incoming Democrats Put Populism Before Ideology

They start with a discussion of the freshman class in 1994 under Newt Gingrich, which they say was distinctly ideological despite the fact that it was, in reality, deeply populist. Gingrich railed against entrenched Democrats and the day was carried by the House Banking Scandal -- a non-issue that was all about out-of-touch politicians getting bennies that were inconceivable to ordinary people. Sorry, but term limits are not ideological -- they were a textbook example of 'throw the bums out' populism.

Then Toner and Zernike contrast Gingrich's supposed ideological revolution with the winners last week:

Many in the class of 2006, especially those who delivered the new Democratic majorities by winning Republican seats, show little appetite for that kind of ideological crusade. ...[T]hey say they were given a rare opportunity by voters, many of them independents and Republicans, who were tired of the partisanship and gridlock in Washington.

Hating partisanship and gridlock is neither populist nor ideological -- it's exhaustion with poor governance.

Now, they say, they have to produce -- to deal with long-festering problems like access to affordable health care and the loss of manufacturing jobs, and to find a bipartisan consensus for an exit strategy in Iraq, a source of continuing division not only between but also within the parties.

Many of them say they must also, somehow, find a way to address the growing anxiety among voters about a global economy that no longer seems to work for them. There is a strong populist tinge to this class.

What a bunch of nonsense. If you put the word "economic" in front of "populism," then you're talking about the economic world-view -- the ideological position -- of the Dems' liberal wing and progressive base. The problem here is the authors' attempt to create a false dichotomy; they're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist. If they mean a group that may be more moderate on social issues (that's not entirely true) but are a bunch of fighting lefties on the economy, they should say it.

Because populism is a specific rhetorical style; populists stress that the system is being gamed by elites who govern in their own narrow interests and that ordinary people have to take power for the good of society. Populist issues can be social or economic, left (e.g. CEO pay) or right (O'Reilly's war on Christmas or activist judges). At their best populists shine a light on the fact that there's so much policy that is in fact made by elites in their own interests and at their worst populists can be anti-intellectual, racist or fond of using silly stereotypes to marginalize ideological opponents (like East-Coast latté-drinking liberals).

Five or six incoming lawmakers ran genuinely populist campaigns, but every winner ran against the Bush agenda. They fought hard, and maybe that's what's confusing these Times' reporters -- they've been convinced that liberals are supposed to be wimps. But that obscures the fact that they ran against what passes for conservatism these days and that's why they won (by the way, I haven't seen any exit polls in which voters said that "partisanship" in Washington was a key issue -- Iraq, corruption and the economy were the big issues).

And look at these examples of a "strong populist tinge" -- economic anxiety in the face of corporate globalization, affordable healthcare and a strategy for getting out of Iraq.

I'll concede that opposing the bipartisan trade consensus blurs the line between populism and ideology. In every article and post I write about trade I stress that lobbyists write these deals and the benefits they confer go primarily to those who hire them. That's populist rhetoric and it was used in a dozen campaigns in 2006. But the implication here by the New York Times, which shills for any policy that bears the "free trade" label, regardless of what it entails, is that there is no ideological basis for opposing corporate trade deals. That's wrong; more and more progressives are waking up to the fact that their effect is an upward redistribution of wealth, and that they're a part of a broader basket of issues that fall under the banner of "economic justice," which is decidedly ideological.

And look at the other two issues the authors cite -- single payer healthcare and getting out of Iraq. Sorry, but if those aren't among the top issues among ideological progressives, I don't know what is.

In general, they set themselves an extraordinary (political veterans might say impossible) task: to avoid the ideological wars that have so dominated Congress in recent years, to be pragmatists, and to change the tone in Washington after a sharply partisan campaign.

Good luck getting single-payer healthcare through without an ideological war. Try "bloodbath."

The authors then give examples of newly-elected Democrats who complain about partisanship: Harry Mitchell (AZ) says "I can't be a rabid partisan Democrat and represent this district," Nancy Boyda (KS) adds: ""Stop the gridlock, stop the nastiness, get something done. People are tired of excuses" and Claire McCaskill (MO) finishes with: ""I'm not from a blue echo chamber. I'm from a state that's really like America -- it's divided."

Then this whopper:

These attitudes could lead to tensions with the party's liberal base in Congress -- many of the party's expected committee chairmen are traditional liberals -- and thus occasional headaches over the next two years for ... Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid.

Why? Because traditional liberals don't want to get out of Iraq, don't want more protections written into trade deals and hate single-payer healthcare? Please.

But Democratic strategists say both leaders recognize that the new Democratic majority was elected, in large part, from Republican-leaning districts and states. If those new members vote in a purely partisan way, they -- and the majority -- will quickly be put at risk.

If they vote in a purely partisan way on what? Raising the minimum wage? Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies? Reducing interest rates on student loans? This is yet more incoherence from un-named "Democratic strategists" (and, hey, wasn't the Times going to cut down on using un-named sources when they aren't entirely necessary?)

Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who recruited many of these candidates as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, described the group as "moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit." Conservatives tend to highlight the conservatism in the new class as a sign that Democrats are essentially ceding ground to the right on issues like gun control and abortion.

What conservatism in the new class? Here's Chris Bowers' take on that narrative, one of 9,000 articles showing that last week's elections were anything but a win for conservatives:

So, it looks like about 60%-70% of the incoming Democratic freshmen who took over Republican-held seats meet one of the three following criteria:

• Joining the progressive caucus
• From a blue district
• Netroots candidate

Wow. What a conservative wave. A great victory for conservatives indeed. Throw in uber-conservative freshmen Phil Hare (IL-17), Keith Ellison (MN-05), and Mazie Hirono (HI-02), who all filled Democratic open-seats, and who will all probably join the progressive caucus …

And as for "ceding ground to the right" on abortion and gun control, there are essentially 3 or 4 incoming Dems who oppose abortion -- all from conservative districts (nothing new there). Gun control is an issue that most Dems have pretty much given up on years ago -- like the Republicans ditched the idea of balanced budgets. Party platforms evolve.

The rest of the article is in the same vein; newcomers like Jim Webb (VA), Ron Klein (FL) and Sherrod Brown (OH-- new to the Senate) saying they're concerned with basic issues of economic fairness.

Let's bottom line this. The prevailing culture of the New York Times is liberal on social issues -- and most of its writers certainly don't seem to like Bush -- but is economically conservative and supports a "muscular" foreign policy (although they favor the Clinton/ Bush I style of muscularity). There is a basketful of real, pressing issues that fall into the category of "economic insecurity," and these have long been core concerns of the progressive community. Americans are moving left, and these issues are the reason why. By dismissing them as lacking in substance and ideological coherence -- portraying them as a matter of populist rhetorical style that is, for obvious reasons, marginalized among social and political elites -- they're essentially discounting their legitimacy.

Tagged as: media, populism, election06

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.