The Popular Capitalist View

A frequent derogatory stereotype of the populists, especially of the more prominent ones, is of a demagogue, of someone appealing to the basest forms of popular opinion. In almost all cases, those who make the charge are the ones who are making that appeal. In any event, such allegations display a common confusion between populism and popularity. Populism, as I had defined it before, and consistent with the original aims of such noted populists as Tom Watson, of the Agrarian Populist Movement, and Huey Long, promotes power to the people, individually and without exception. “Popularity”, on the other hand, is the use of popular opinion to gain political power. That “popular opinion” is often fabricated and, at its most successful, consists of a personality cult. In that case, the opinions of the “popular one” automatically become the “popular opinion”. It goes without saying that the “popular opinions” are usually favorable to the organizations pushing them or the “popular one” and against the interests of the ordinary folk who do not lead those organizations, typically political parties. However, the substitution of people with party needs a mechanism, and that is precisely the demagogic process employed by the popular candidates.

For example, a mischaracterization of the Second National Bank and the efforts by Henry Clay to build what we would today call “infrastructure” as being exclusively to the benefit of the rich was used to portray Andrew Jackson as a “man of the people” and vilified Henry Clay as a demagogue who was not to be trusted. From that point on, Andrew Jackson could do or think no wrong, and Henry Clay could do no right in the eyes of “popular opinion”. In actuality, Jackson’s blatant racism, murderous partisanship and corrupt system of patronage show him to be conclusively the worst President of the United States and, with his Vice-President John C. Calhoun, the one most responsible for leading the country towards the Civil War. Henry Clay, on the other hand, did the most of any politician to delay the coming of that conflict and to assure that the forces of freedom were well equipped to win when it finally came. In the political struggle between Clay and Jackson, Clay was the “populist” and Jackson the “Popular Leader”.

The struggle continued throughout our history with different characters. Many times there was no populist of any real prominence or threat, and such as were there being dismissed as “spoilers” in the Popular Leadership battles. Such has been the case more recently, where George W. Bush is the scapegoat of choice to advance the cause of The Great Popular Leader Obama. Obama would never have become President if Bush was not vilified.

It is typical of all popular candidates that, when the weaknesses of their own positions and policies are discovered, the scapegoat is pulled out of the closet to restore their sagging popularity. Popular leaders need that scapegoat as a bogeyman because their political power is based on their relative popularity rather than on serving the public interest. Nixon served that role for Carter and most Democrats for decades afterwards. “Liberals in Congress” served the role for the other Republicans in the Reagan era and afterwards, those who lacked Reagan’s cachet as a Goldwater Republican idealogue. Democrats tried to pin Johnson’s Goldwater label on Reagan – the whole “Ray-Gun” propaganda whereby we were supposed to be afraid of Reagan launching a nuclear holocaust — but then he confounded them by ending the Cold War and giving us a bit of a reprieve from nuclear anxiety. Clinton, a policy person like Reagan, also did not make a suitable bogeyman, so the Republicans had to fall back on “Liberals in Congress”. The Democrats obliged by running liberal Senators against George W. Bush, but then paved the way for a popularity run for his successor by vilifying Bush and his Vice-President Cheney. For Popular Leader Obama, Bush as bogeyman is his ace in the hole at least among his fellow Democrats.

As a populist looking at this, I am immune from such crass manipulation. I never bought into the “Bush is the devil” or “Cheney is the Devil” lines advanced by George Soros aka MoveOn.org. Quite frankly, I am ticked off at Soros for his incitement of violence by the young because it was and is a direct challenge to my parenting. So I am inclined to support any candidate Soros tries to vilify. I imagine that many independents are similarly disgusted by these tactics and that is only their use on the other side by Limbaugh and company that is keeping their wholesale defection from the approval side of Obama’s ratings.

Moving to a more local sphere, we see that Corzine’s attempts to summon the “Bush bogeyman” have fallen flat. Even in a heavily Democratic state, the people are not fooled by Corzine’s popularity tactics and clearly see his abject failure as a Governor. In poll after poll, the people overwhelmingly disapprove of Corzine’s performance in office. The only problem is that Christie is also a popular candidate so if he is elected, he will have to concentrate on playing the role of dragon slayer, rather than address any issues. Like a “fortunately-unfortunately” story, this outcome is not so bad, because New Jersey politics is such that it might take a whole term in office for him to kill those dragons of corruption.

Moving at last to my most local sphere, in the town of Edison, we have replaced one popular candidate with another. Choi got rid of some “good old boys” getting sweetheart deals from the township but brought in some of his own patronage buddies to “consult”. The Democrats returned the “old guard” who objected to Choi’s patronage. The people of the township are not well served by either of these groups. The key issue is the affordability of living in Edison, just as this is the key issue for the people of any locality. Both Democratic candidates, however, have endorsed the same single-use zoning which makes the citizens of Edison heavily dependent on transportation by automobile. Ricigliano had spearheaded and Choi supported the redevelopment of the old Ford Plant by Hartz Mountain into a shopping mall, exacerbating sprawl and automobile dependence. On the other hand, both Ricigliano and Choi rejected the mixed use Edison Train project which would have given Edison a pedestrian enclave with immediate access to mass transit, and which would have thus liberated people living in that development and its vicinity from the burdensome costs of owning, operating and maintaining a motor vehicle. The Democratic candidates for mayor prevented that liberation and left the town chained to the automobile. Clearly, the Democratic Party in Edison favors more sprawl development and the consequent dependence on automobiles and their gasoline fuel. If the Democrats continue to control Edison government, that crippling dependence will be assured. As gasoline prices resume their inevitable escalation, the prospects for Edison will be dire indeed as its citizens take their last trips from homes to which they can no longer afford to return.

Such is the glum fate to which popularity leads us at all levels of government. Issues are neglected in favor of spin and fear of bogeymen. At one time, it was common to say that elections should not be popularity contests. But the political parties and other supporters of popularity say they should be. So as the problems raised and solutions offered by populists and others are ignored by the popular leaders, we are led to a popular doom.

And we will be told that it is all Bush’s fault.