Time for Leftist Populism

Since the anti-reform corporatists manufactured the teabaggers into existence last summer, the label of "populist" has been erroneously applied to the racist, know-nothing, no-nothings of the right.

But there is a huge opening for a leftist populism, especially now with health care reform behind us we're looking at new battles on financial reform, unemployment, immigration and cap-n-trade.

All of those, just like health care reform, have enormous potential to hand Democrats popular achievements that will turn into Democratic victories in November.

And all of those, just like health care reform, are endangered less by repug obstructionism than by the corporatist influence behind the administration and Congressional Democrats that prevents them from fully exploiting populist anger on the left.

In January, Digby explained the self-destructive insanity of Democrats' pussy-footing on Wall Street regulation.

It's not like the Democrats have tried in the least to make a political argument about this that made any sense. But the Republicans have, and it's a doozy. If things don't improve quickly, a lot more people are going to be listening to it.

When you have a man-made crisis (or even a natural disaster) people will always look for someone to blame. It's human nature. The out of power Republicans have a ready made boogeyman in the government, of course, to which they conveniently misdirect all the fear and anger since they are the ones who both led the charge to deregulate and profited from the excesses. The Democrats, either out of a severe case of regulatory capture or a quixotic political desire to "change the tone" and "look forward not backward" have left themselves holding the bag as the defenders of the one institution everybody now holds responsible for the mess.

For those of you who shrink from the label "populist" because the MSM uses it exclusively to describe racist mouth-breathers, Digby, in December, explained the differences in populism on the right and left.

Right wing "populism" is of a completely different form than that of the left, although it's fed by similar feelings of disenfranchisement and suspicion of elites. At the very least, lefties are not in the pockets of corporate America while they rail against the system that benefits it. I can't say the same for the right. I realize that this new populist alliance relies on the belief that left and right are now an outdated political paradigm. I just don't believe it. You can call it whatever you like, but the lines will divide up pretty much as they always have in America and liberals will have to decide who they're going to sacrifice to the cause if they want to change that. Believe me, sacrificing corporate donations won't get the job done.

The left is already philosophically consistent on the issue of big money in politics, and if they made the case straightforwardly and gained popular support, it could change the way politics are done. The populist right is incoherent. They operate on a whole other set of impulses, which almost always involve scapegoating of the other. I don't see a meaningful alliance there, although I do see how right wing populism will be very useful to the wealthy. It always has been in the past.

And there lies the opportunity for the populist left.

SteveM has been whipping this idea for months:

Seriously -- this is the opportunity to create and put forth a liberal narrative with the potential to become America's narrative. And this is the opportunity to throw sand in the gears. Grind the process of reappointing Bernanke to a halt! Be Liebermans! Be Tom Coburns! It shouldn't just be Sanders -- make trouble, make news, get America to grasp the idea that liberalism is not corporatism. America doesn't get that right now, thanks to Obama.

And:

What was needed -- and, yes, I say this all the time -- was a movement to Obama's left on health care, a large number of people supporting a far more progressive plan than was politically feasible.

But (and I say this all the time, too) we don't have a large progressive bloc in this country. We need a bigger progressive bloc. I'll say it again: we need to make more liberals.

Could Obama, as Aimai says, have "whip[ped] up popular anger" and "create[d] a groundswell for major progressive reform"? I don't see it -- not in a still-quite-Reaganite country, not even with his rhetorical gifts. (He had a huge volunteer army in '08, but I think it's far from certain that they would have all agreed on this approach.) And even if he could, he'd be the scary radical with the scary radical plan -- he'd be the Bad Left Cop and it would be up to (probably) the Blue Dogs to play the Good Cops, and we'd be pretty much where we are now.

We needed to be to Obama's left -- and we never were in sufficient numbers and with sufficient force.

I think Steve gave up too soon. We've got what the MSM is promoting as a huge liberal victory (although we genuine liberals know what a corporate-giveaway piece of shit it is), the teabaggers have been exposed as domestic terrorists, and the repugs are on the ropes.

Now is the time for leftist populists to push our advantage. Demand more than Wall Street "reform": demand re-regulation under Glass-Steagall. Restrict banks to accepting deposits and making loans, period.

Tell your elected officials, "I'm a proud liberal and this is what I demand." Tell them today.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....