the populist addiction

[Azazello1313]

 

Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds. The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.

 

These two attitudes — populism and elitism — seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.

 

Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue. The Republicans have their populists. Sarah Palin has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites. And the Democrats have their populists. Since the defeat in Massachusetts, many Democrats have apparently decided that their party has to mimic the rhetoric of John Edwards’s presidential campaign. They’ve taken to dividing the country into two supposedly separate groups — real Americans who live on Main Street and the insidious interests of Wall Street.

 

It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.

 

Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.

 

Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.

 

So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.

 

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.

 

Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.

 

In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.

 

Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.

 

In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.

 

The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.

 

They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

As usual, Brooks sums things up very well.

[Ursa Majoris]

As usual, Brooks sums things up very well.

Hmmmm. Sort of. I'll get back to this.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Hmmmm. Sort of. I'll get back to this.

 

Well, i think he gives the Bankers and the Masters of the Universe a bit too much of a free pass here (I'm guessing that's what you mean), but the larger point is we need all levels of society to work together hand in hand for the whole "rising tide to lift all boats" thing to work.

 

Populism sucks. I've really grown to understand that. It can be downright dangerous.

[Pope Flick]

It worked pretty well for Teddy Roosevelt, who had a country that was 50 years evolved from Lincoln, and nearly 100 from Hamilton. Take Brooks' logic to its ultimate end, and the robber barons and monopolies would never have been dismantled at the turn of the 20th Century.

 

Skipping over that part of our history is rather disingenuous imo. Solid lessons were learned from it and at this point in our history we're much closer to that scenario than a few banks while we were building up our industry and were by and large an agrarian society.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Pope Flick

[bpwallace49]

Good article Just illustrates it doesnt matter if the left hand or the right hand holds the whip, it still hurts just as much

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

It worked pretty well for Teddy Roosevelt, who had a country that was 50 years evolved from Lincoln, and nearly 100 from Hamilton. Take Brooks' logic to its ultimate end, and the robber barons and monopolies would never have been dismantled at the turn of the 20th Century.

 

Skipping over that part of our history is rather disingenuous imo. Solid lessons were learned from it and at this point in our history we're much close rot that scenario than a few banks while we were building up our industry and were by and large an agrarian society.

 

Well I do agree that we need more competition in the private sector and we need to break up some of these larger financial institutions so none are "too big to fail". I'm on board with Teddy there.

[Perchoutofwater]

Hamilton and Lincoln were proponents of a central bank, which is one of my biggest problems with both of them.

[westvirginia]

My favorite part was this:

 

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.

 

Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.

 

As I've said before I do realize there can be a tyranny of money, but the tyranny of the majority is just as bad. And the rich DO provide the risk, the capital, and the JOBS that everyone else needs (going with the obamessiah definition of rich as someone that makes over $250K/year). Eat the rich, and pretty soon everybody starves. Create a system that ends up in feudalism, and then comes revolution.

 

As for Teddy, he didn't want to take money from the rich, he wanted to take power away from a few individuals. To me, he's the biggest proof that our system of government works. There were probably 20-30 men that held 70+% of the wealth in the country at that time, and he wanted their power lessened, and the voting public agreed. Populism run amok is what gave Germany Hitler too.

[bpwallace49]

Populism run amok is what gave Germany Hitler too.

 

And what keeps Hugo Chavez in power in Venezuela . . . . which makes people that specifically play on populism like Sarah Palin inherently dangerous