Democrats and populism

This is a sad indictment of the Democratic party, coming from Matthew Yglesias who is a Democrat (but more rational than most Democrats):

I just don't think a really populist candidate could win a Democratic primary.

Now my understanding of populism is appealing to the regular voter, not the top 10% nor the bottom 10%, but the people in the middle. (A dictionary says that a populist is “a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people.”)

So here is an admission from a Democrat that my view of his party is the same as his: a party that represents not the average American but rather liberal college professors, liberal people from the top 10% (like Hollywood types), and a mishmash of minorities and special interests.

This is a pretty poor alternative to Republicans. It’s too bad the Democrats aren’t populists.

Comments

[Michael H.]

My impression has always been that populists are panderers: they tell voters what they want to hear instead of what the candidate believes is true. Most people can see through that. Populists tend to want to restrict markets because the play on peoples fear of the changing economy, but you just have to look at the Amish to see where that logic leads to.

I believe Democrats need to focus less on economic issues (except maybe the deficit - but that never excites people) and focus on the core social liberal pricipals. The should be uncompromising in their condemnation of torture. They should support individual liberty. And they should support the spread of freedom around the world. It is strange that the Democrats let the Republicans take that issue from them. And Democrats should stay on the liberal side of church vs. state issues.

A lot of people are not confortable with the rise of the religious right. It is a challenge for the Democrats to appeal to the non-religous people of all types and the religous moderates. Issues like human rights can help. Kerry never made Abu Ghraib an issue. That't why he isn't president.

[Michael H.]

I admit that I am probably bothered more by torture than most people. I posted on that subject here. Tyler Cowen is my hero.

[Mike R.]

Along those lines, I don't believe that a moderate could win the republican primary. Even John McCain (who isn't all that moderate) would probably get chewed up by the religious right.

[heh]

Michael H, your theories are a wonderful strategy for Democrats to never win another election, while yet managing to satisfy that woefully neglected sphere of collegiate quasi-libertarians for generations to come.

[Michael H.]

heh
Actually, Democrats would wise to adopt some mildly libertarian positions. The minority party should always campaign for smaller government and reducing the influence of the government in people's lives. Democrats could easily say "Farm subsidies are just a waste of the people's money." How many farmer's votes would they loose? Not many because Democrats did astoundingly poor in rural areas.

It makes no sense for Democrats to advocate for more government intrusion in people's lives when they don't even control the government. It's a no-brainer for Democrats to say "the Republicans and the religious right are trying to run your lives." But that line doesn't work if people think that the Democrats are just jealous.

[Half Sigma]

Michael, with some brief exceptions, such as the period after 9/11 (which is already fading in people's memories), voters generally aren't that interested in foreign policy, and foreign policy proposals don't win elections. Democrats won elections (they controlled the House for decades before Newt Gingrich) while having a wimpy foreign policy that, in my opinion, never represented the average American.

My impression has always been that populists are panderers: they tell voters what they want to hear instead of what the candidate believes is true.

BOTH parties are guilty of pandering to one group or another whose interests are opposite what's good for the country as a whole. There are lots of issues right now where the common man is not being well represented by either party.

[Michael H.]

Hi Half-Sigma
BOTH parties are guilty of pandering to one group or another whose interests are opposite what's good for the country as a whole. There are lots of issues right now where the common man is not being well represented by either party.

I couldn't agree more.