Tag: populism
Chris Murphy

Progressive Democrats Say 'Big-Tent Populism' Will Renew Party

In a political era defined by economic disparity and class anger, Democrats are reckoning with the political ideas that Donald Trump hitched his ride to and landed him successfully in front of the White House.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut is calling for a break from the economic neoliberalism of the past. He joins a growing list of progressives who argue that Democrats must prioritize the needs of working-class Americans to stay relevant in today’s political climate of staggering economic inequality.

Do Murphy’s comments signal a growing divide in the party or does he represent a fresh voice on more significant, bolder steps than the party ever considered before?

Murphy recently sparked attention after making a bold proposal on MSNBC: He suggested breaking up concentrated monopolies, raising the minimum wage, and placing greater emphasis on issues that resonate with the working class.

His comments took aim at the billionaire class and the economic institutions propped up by neoliberalism. He suggested a series of institutional reforms—including health care price caps—and critiqued his own party for failing to fully embrace these populist positions. Murphy argued that the way forward for Democrats lies in what he calls “big-tent populism.”

“Attacking power is not easy for everybody in the Democratic party because we have become a party that is dependent on high-income elites,” said Murphy to anchor Katy Tur.

He also highlighted what he sees as a false choice between unfettered market capitalism and socialism, proposing a middle ground: “common-good capitalism.” This vision, according to Murphy, would ensure that economic rules value workers just as much as shareholders and that certain sectors—such as health care—should not be commoditized for profit. “I think that’s the winning argument for Democrats,” Murphy concluded.

He isn’t the only one embracing a populist, working-class Democratic agenda.

The newly appointed chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat, echoed similar sentiments in an interview with NBC News. Casar reminded Democrats that they must focus on returning to their roots as the party of the working class “without throwing vulnerable people under the bus.”

Casar said he believes the average voter stands to the left of the Democratic Party on economic issues but admitted that social issues could be a losing issue due to American voters being more “culturally conservative” than his party.

"The members of the Progressive Caucus know how to fight billionaires, grifters, and Republican frauds in Congress," Casar said at a recent press conference. "Our caucus will make sure the Democratic Party stands up to corporate interests for working people."

According to Gallup data, the number of Americans who see economic issues as the most important issue facing the country has been steadily rising since 2020. Meanwhile, the middle class is steadily decreasing.

After President Joe Biden was elected, Republicans pounced on the opportunity to cite the administration’s failures amidst persistent inflation and unlivable wages—although they’ve long been a party that has legislated against raising the minimum wage. At the same time, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pointed out how “global headwinds because of the COVID-19 pandemic” led to disruptions in supply chains—a phenomenon not only within the U.S. but the sharpest downward economic trend in the global economy since the Great Depression.

At its core, populism claims the system is rigged against the average, working-class citizen in favor of wealthy “elites.” Defining features of populism are a disdain for the ruling class and a focus on the working class, critiques of government and corporate institutions, nationalism and identity politics, and perhaps, most importantly, an overall sense of economic discontent.

Democrats like Murphy are right to assume Americans feel economic discontent. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, wealth inequality has steadily increased for those at the top, with the wealthiest 5% of Americans owning a staggering two-thirds of the wealth distribution. Meanwhile, wages have remained stagnant, and home ownership is unattainable.

While Democrats were still heeding the twilight of Obama-era neoliberalism, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, were ahead of their time, calling for the party’s focus on an economic agenda that prioritized Medicare for All, livable wages, and breaking up Big Oil, Big Banks, and other monopolies.

Only a month ago, in the days after the Democrats' defeat to MAGA, Warren reminded the party in her TIME op-ed to act urgently to address wealth inequality and a dysfunctional system stacked to benefit the rich if they want to get back in the game.

“Good economic policies do not erase painful underlying truths about our country,” she, a long-time populist, wrote. “For my entire career, I’ve studied how the system is rigged against working-class families. On paper, the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world. But working families are struggling with big expenses like the cost of housing, health care, and childcare.”

According to a New York Times report, some voters who can reasonably be deduced as populists are those upset about the “status quo " who went from voting for Sanders to electing Donald Trump.

However, party leaders like outgoing Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, who is Black, believe it’s not wise to veer away from “identity politics,” which draws much of the party's voting bloc from African American or LGBTQ+ voters. He recently rebuffed criticism that the party had become too reliant on “identity politics” or had gone “too woke” instead of focusing on kitchen-table economic issues.

“When I look in the mirror when I step out the door, I can’t rub this off,” he said, pointing to his face. “This is who I am. This is how the world perceives me. “That is my identity,” he said. “And it is not politics. It is my life.”

However, other party leaders, like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, said in his postmortem press conference after Election Day that Democrats must focus on the “economic challenges” facing Americans.

“Far too many people are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck,” said Jeffries. “And we’re prepared to work with the incoming administration to decisively deal with that issue.”

During that time, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used her Instagram platform to reach out to her 8 million followers. She asked them if they backed her during her election and then also voted for Trump in November to explain why. The majority of responses were about the economy. On Nov. 11, Ocasio-Cortez’s Communications Director Sidney D. Johnson, posted some of the answers on X.

"You are focused on the real issues people care about. Similar to Trump populism in some ways,” one responder said.

“It’s really simple … Trump and you care about the working class,” another user wrote.

Democrats like Murphy, Casar, and Ocasio-Cortez are beginning to align more closely with the economic populism that has long been associated with Sanders and Warren. They are increasingly pushing the Democratic Party to tackle wealth inequality, challenge corporate power, and, as Murphy put it, move toward a “common-good capitalism” that values workers as much as shareholders.

As the hindsight conversation about where the Democratic party steers itself evolves, the demand for a political system that works for all Americans—not just the wealthy—will continue to drive political fervor among its constituents. The question is, will Democrats seize on it or not?

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Don Jr. Touts Populist Cred Because He Once Tended Bar In Aspen (VIDEO)

Don Jr. Touts Populist Cred Because He Once Tended Bar In Aspen (VIDEO)

Donald Trump Jr., the first son of billionaire ex-President Donald Trump, suggests that he is more average American than political elite because he had worked minimum wage jobs — an experience he said could teach lawmakers the “hustle” culture.

In last week's second — and arguably most embarrassing — episode of the nascent far-right podcast Triggered With Don Jr., Trump Jr. sat down with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to discuss a panoply of right-wing talking points, spread alt-right misinformation and conspiracy theories, and attack Democrats.

In a cringy portion of the show, the Trump Organization executive sought to validate his fear-mongering by claiming a connection with everyday Americans and their hustle, saying he once worked for tips.

"I understand where I come from and my background — I get it. But my father made sure I worked minimum wage jobs… I also worked for tips, which is something that's really important that everybody should understand,” Trump Jr. told McCarthy, according to Newsweek.

Seeking to distance himself from the political elite in Congress by citing his supposed work experience, Trump Jr. added, "They've never actually had that hustle."

Trump Jr. has often brought up his bartender gig in Aspen, Colorado, in sit-downs with media outlets, recalling that he lived in a truck at the time.

According to Politico Magazine, though, the Trump son — who grew up in the ostentatious 53-room penthouse atop Trump tower, cared for by nannies and protected by bodyguards — moved to Aspen as a raging alcoholic “to keep the party going” and returned to New York a year later after “he grew tired of the mindless high life in Aspen.”

The news outlet also reported that Trump Jr. had, during summers, tended to boats as a dock attendant in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and worked at Trump Organization construction sites while in high school.

Trump Jr. suggested that many in Congress can't connect with the constituents who elect them because the lawmakers lacked “so much” of the work experience he’d had.

"No one's ever had to make payroll. No one's signed the front of a check, as opposed to the back," Trump Jr., a millionaire, told McCarthy. "You always come to expect that not to exist in these offices."

Trump Jr., a culture war troll on Twitter, has repeatedly assailed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) for her political views and frequently made fun of the Democrat’s stint as a once-struggling bartender, portraying as suspicious her eventual rise to the People’s House.

While McCarthy and Trump Jr. performatively recited right-wing lies on the podcast, the speaker suggested that impeaching Biden is on agenda for House Republicans, possibly in retaliation for Trump’s impeachments for extorting Ukraine and inciting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

“After watching what they did to your father about impeachment, using it politically, I’ll never send use it politically, but that doesn’t mean we won’t use,” McCarthy said. “We’re going to investigate ‘why is the border like that,’ which could lead to an impeachment inquiry.”

Twitter users ridiculed the Trump spawn for peddling populist commentary and offering faux menial job experience as his connection to the struggles of regular Americans and for repeatedly talking over at a point during the show in which both men struggled to outdo each other in praising Trump.





What’s So Bad About ‘Coastal Elites’?

What’s So Bad About ‘Coastal Elites’?

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

There was a time when "coastal" was an innocent geographical adjective, as in "coastal islands" or "coastal flooding." It referred to events and places located on large bodies of saltwater. But somewhere along the way, "coastal" gained a sinister, shameful connotation.

Populists and pseudo-populists have long fulminated against elites. But these days, the only thing worse than being one of the elite is being one of the "coastal elite."

Read NowShow less
Interview: Historian Rick Perlstein On The Conservative Roots Of Trumpism

Interview: Historian Rick Perlstein On The Conservative Roots Of Trumpism

This interview with historian and author Rick Perlstein originally appeared in the Berlin daily Neues Deutschland

After Trump won the election you published an essay titled “I Thought I Understood the American Right. Trump Proved Me Wrong.” How did Trump’s election change your view of American conservatism?

The conservatives’ own story about their evolution has been that there were two streams of conservative political activity in the US: one that was extremist and conspiratorial, often viciously racist and even violent. And then there was a mainstream movement that policed those boundaries, associated with the figure of William F. Buckley and the magazine National Review. That mainstream conservatism, as the story goes, had largely prevailed, and the extremist elements were pretty much vestigial. What Trump demonstrates is that those much more feral streams in the movement never really went away. Knowing about Trump, it was a lot easier to see in retrospect how often that extremist underbrush was part of the story.

Is Trump even a conservative in the traditional sense? The National Review published an issue during the 2016 primaries titled “Against Trump,” in which various conservative intellectuals stated that a true conservative could not support Trump, because he violated conservative principles.

Yes, but if you look at the National Review website in the years before that, pretty much everything nasty and politically grotesque that we associate with Trump could be seen in National Review, too.

But weren’t there also actual policy disagreements, regarding the economy or trade for example? Did Trump in that sense violate the principles of US conservatism?

The problem with that idea is that if you survey self-described conservatives, about 90 percent identify with Trump. So you have to question the conservatives’ own story about what was at the heart of their movement. Conservatism, in the basic sense of valuing authority and hierarchy over equality and fluidity, has taken different forms in different times and different places. In the US in the 1920s, the strongest conservative force was the Ku Klux Klan; they ran some states. I saw KKK pamphlets from that time that supported universal government-provided healthcare — because of the fear that dirty immigrants would bring disease with them. The precise policy formulae that conservatism has exhibited over time have to be analytically subordinated to the bottom line: That they are the forces of order, hierarchy, and frankly, the strong leader.

You have used the term “Herrenvolk Democracy” to describe this kind of right-wing social populism.

Yes, but Trump seems to have largely abandoned that by now. Herrenvolk democracy would have been, if he had spent a lot of money on infrastructure, which he promised to do, and provided blue-collar construction jobs; if he had worked to shore up programs that serve mostly middle-class and elderly people, like Social Security or Medicare. But instead he has gone with the more traditional right-wing laissez-faire economic program.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News, one of the most vocal supporters of the President, has recently aired a segment which was very critical of neoliberal capitalism, which he said destroyed families and the social fabric of the country.

Tucker Carlson is a proponent of “herrenvolk democracy”. This has always been a tradition in American conservatism, but very minoritarian. You would never see this kind of thing on Fox News until now. But American right-wing populism has always seen the white middle class in kind of a pincer movement between the rich liberal elites from above, and the rent-seeking, parasitic poor from below.

Steve Bannon often speaks of the Davos Class.

The form that this “herrenvolk democracy” takes seems to be a dog-whistle for anti-Semitism: the idea that unseen, mysterious moneylenders and financial elites are determining the fate of ordinary Americans.


As you said, the actual practice of the Trump administration is not much different than how a traditional Republican would have governed. Traditional, more libertarian Republicans like Paul Ryan found a lot of common ground with Trump, regarding tax cuts, cuts to welfare programs, or gutting environmental protection.

Yes, but there are important differences, too. Ronald Reagan, for example, was actually quite reverent about the idea of immigration to the United States. He was very sentimental about it, he loved the idea of people wanting to come tot he US. That was a central form that his patriotism took.

But mobilizing white racial resentment has always been central to US conservatism, such as Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.”  Is this racial politics under Trump more central to the GOP, or is it just different, or more honest and open?

It’s more central and it’s more open. Historically, elite conservative politicians did a much more careful job of stoking racial resentment without actually using the language of racial resentment. There is a civil religion in America that includes equality and a rejection of ethnic particularism. You see this in figures like Reagan and Newt Gingrich and generations of conservative politicians. And then you see Donald Trump, starting his campaign in Trump Tower by saying that Mexico is sending us their rapists. He ripped off that skin of civility and was perfectly willing to show the ugliness that other people were careful to hide.

After the election, there was lots of talk about how Trump was very successful with the “white working class,” which maybe hadn’t been voting Republican before. Do you think that the social base of Trump is different than the one that elected George W. Bush or Reagan?

That’s been exaggerated a bit. He got plenty of support from richer white suburban Republican voters as well, even though that is the most vulnerable part of his support. But he did receive an enormous emotional affection from this white working class in the areas of the country that were ruined by neoliberalism. Ronald Reagan had a lot of affection in those areas, too, where his voters were called “Reagan Democrats”: unionized workers who were doing very poorly in the international economy in the late 70s. So it’s an acceleration of a trend that’s been going on for a long time.

In Nixonland, you describe how Nixon in the 1960s engineered a realignment by using racial and culture war issues to split the Democratic voter coalition and create this new social base, on which the power of conservatism rested in the next decades. Is this still the basic split in the population?

Yes, it’s still indispensable to understand our time. In fact, I have a placard from a Donald Trump rally I went to that said: “Donald Trump Stands with the Silent Majority,” which of course was the central slogan that Nixon used back then. And Trump used the same slogan as Nixon did in 1968 in his acceptance speech: “Law and Order.” Donald Trump came out of that world, the early 1970s.

The way you describe Richard Nixon’s emotional appeal seems very similar to Trump today, how he presented himself as the advocate of the common man against the arrogant liberal elites.
To quote Nixon’s vice-president Spiro Agnew, “an effete corps of impudent snobs.” He was talking about the press, but the idea is that people who are more liberal are part of this Davos Class of international ruthless snobs who look down on everyone else.

 One central concept in this regard is resentment.

Resentment is contempt mixed with envy. And even though Trump is a very wealthy man, his habits of mind are very status conscious. He constantly talks about how he went to an Ivy League school, because he felt condescension by the intellectual class that also went to Ivy League schools. Trump went to a college that was very much on the lower rung of the Ivy League. This game started with Richard Nixon. This kind of class politics is very surreal, because Trump wraps himself in all this refinement, but it’s been said that Donald Trump is a poor person’s idea of what a rich person looks like. His aesthetic is very much a brutish, arriviste flaunting of wealth.

And very vulgar too, like when he ordered cheeseburgers for his guests in the White House. It’s almost like he is doing it on purpose, to provoke the liberal condescension.

That was a call back to Michelle Obama, who had a vegetable garden in the White House, and made her big public issue healthy food for children. You see Republicans rebelling against this idea, as in “eating what you want to eat is what a real American does.” While Obama was eating all this fancy food that no one knows how to pronounce. It’s very much part of the class template of American politics, and Donald Trump is playing it to the hilt.

Very few Republicans still criticize the president, Mitt Romney for example. Did Trump take over the Republican Party, or is there any chance that it could revert back to more traditional, less populist styles?

No, these people have no popular constituency. They have a lot of articulate spokesmen, but no bodies on the ground.

Rick Perlstein is the author of the New York Times bestsellers The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan and Nixonland:The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, and Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, which won the 2001 Los Angeles Times Book Award for history. 

 

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World