populism

George Will on Sarah Palin and the populist movement

by Michael Fumento on February 18, 2010

in Odds & Ends

Columnist George Will notes that Sarah Palin is “obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012,” both by liberal and conservatives, but because she has stirred the imagination of the populist movement on the right – which in turn stirs reaction on the left.

Yet in observing that the latest poll shows 71 percent of Americans – including 52 percent of Republicans – think she is not qualified to be president, he asks: “Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.”

“This is not her fault,” he says. “She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. She is feisty and public-spirited, and millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America’s political circus, she showed grit.” But “She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning,” and this lady quit her office as governor of a lightly-populated state after only 17 months. She was a mayor of a small town before that.

Will also points out that “full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.” William Jennings Bryan lost three times in a row, Perot never got a single electoral vote. “In 1968, George Wallace, promising to toss the briefcases of pointy-headed intellectuals into the Potomac, won 46 electoral votes with 13.5 percent of the popular vote. He had the populist’s trifecta – a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue.”

He concludes, “Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.”

Right. Populists are always extremely sure of what they’re against, but that’s not enough. You have to have a very good sense of what you’re for. And being “for” being against something isn’t what I mean. Moreover, we all know about the problem with decisions made in anger.

It seems that Palin’s main attraction to many populists is that the left has tremendous disdain for her. They jostle each other aside in their efforts to save the damsel ostensibly in distress – though between her book, her Fox gig, and $100,000 speaking fees she seems to be doing pretty well for herself. And indeed, it’s precisely because she’s able to take advantage of that distressed damsel persona.

So pour out millions more words in her defense, if you will. But be thinking seriously about who can best lead the government in 2012 and what important issues we could be addressing if those millions of words – and the energy of the populist movement – were directed elsewhere.

Populism, jobs and the economy — where do we go from here?

by Fran Smith on January 20, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Health and Illness, Stimulus to Nowhere

Scott Brown’s decisive victory in the Massachusetts Senate race has upturned the Democrats’ Progressive agenda.  Brown, “the people’s seat” senator, had a resonant message that tapped into the electorate’s disenchantment with ever-increasing government (with the health care proposals figuring strongly), huge deficit spending, and increased taxes to pay for the trillions of dollars in new government programs. Jobs and the economy were an overarching issue.

It was a populist victory that carried many of the themes of the “Tea Party” movement, which, so far, haven’t been promoted by either party.  If the Republicans don’t latch onto those themes with an agenda of their own, they really are the “dumb Party.”

What’s a cause for concern, however, is how the Democrats are likely to embrace people’s fear and anger by taking up their own populist cudgel to even more vigorously attack capitalism, consumer choice, and any and all Big Business entities.

There indeed is fierce popular anger at bank bailouts and big bonuses – Wall Street has become a synonym for greed and arrogance that caused the financial meltdown, with little recognition that government and quasi-government entities like the Federal Reserve and Fannie and Freddie contributed to the financial problems.

Though some banks deserve much of the public disapprobrium because of their mismanagement and sellout on TARP funds, even those banks that were healthy or fought their own way back to solvency are being asked to pick up the tab for their less-responsible brethren. Expect the Democrats to exact more such retribution from banks — in the name of the people.

In addressing the big issues of jobs and the economy, the Democrats will have a hard time spending more money on stimulus packages that seem to evaporate before any jobs are created. But there will probably be an even bigger push for “green jobs.” Democratic leadership may decide that a massive and economically destructive cap-and-trade bill isn’t feasible in this political climate.  They may look to more “green jobs” and “alternative fuels” boondoggles through taxes and fees on fossil fuel industries as a better way to sell the idea of restrictions on and higher costs for energy use. Yet those subsidized jobs themselves are costly, as the Wall Street Journal noted in mid-December 2009 about the 253,000 of direct jobs created:

The 253,000 direct jobs works out to a cost of about $90,000 a head-just for one year. Clean-energy manufacturing jobs are even more expensive to create, costing about $135,000 per job.

It will be difficult to relate the Democrats’ health care proposals to jobs and the economy when the costs are projected by the Congressional Budget Office at $1 trillion in additional federal spending over the next 10 years. But that figure – while astronomical — doesn’t include the states’ mandates, which will cost $25 billion more over 10 years or the unknown costs of the mandates for individuals and employers to buy insurance. Those costs will be paid for by increased yet hidden taxes – and not just on the so-called rich.

Plus, the closed-door negotiations on the bills have resulted in deals that most people consider unfair and outrageous, for instance, Nebraska is the only state that won’t have to pay future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates; Louisiana gets $300 million for agreeing to support the Senate bill; and union members don’t have to pay “Cadillac-plan” taxes on their generous health care plans. These proposals will actually hold back job creation by causing uncertainty among both small and large businesses and thus reluctance to expand jobs. And taxpayers rightly understand that they will bear the increased costs.

In the wake of Scott Brown’s election, whether the Democrats will continue their shenanigans on their health care proposals isn’t yet clear.  Right now, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Recently, CEI’s president Fred Smith wrote an article titled “Change we can really believe in,” which sets out a blueprint to stimulate the economy by liberating it.  Fred must have been prescient when he wrote this on January 4 — before the surge for Scott Brown:

This year holds promise for a new start for America. As 2010 begins, we may be teetering on a cliff, but Americans aren’t lemmings. Support for statist policies is dropping, and taxpayer anger is growing. There is a renewed understanding that the limitations on government of the Constitution are the best protections of our liberties. Their restoration should be the primary hopeful change advanced by all friends of liberty.

Latin America Should be on Washington’s Agenda

by Silvia Santacruz on October 9, 2008 · 2 comments

in International, Politics as Usual

Yesterday, Nelson Cunningham, one of the panelists at a Hudson Institute conference on Latin America’s “Radical Populism Challenge” commented that it is better that the presidential campaign and debates don’t even mention the region. He said that speaking of Latin America would only bring bad news: illegal immigration and drug-trafficking.

As a Latin American myself, I could not disagree more. The region is one of the United States’ most important commercial partners, with U.S. exports valued at more than $150 billion a year, almost as much as its exports to the European Union, as Inter American Dialogue President Peter Hakim notes.

A more balanced argument was delivered by Jaime Daremblum, director of Hudson’s Center for Latin American Studies, who moderated the panel, but didn’t argue with the speaker. In his article, “What Will the Election Mean for Latin America?,” he shows how the 9/11 terrorist attacks pushed Latin America to the background of the U.S. foreign policy discussion. Meanwhile, Russia is gaining ground exploring oil fields in Venezuela.

The same controversial panelist also commented that Senator Barack Obama, if he becomes President, would probably enjoy future good relationship with Latin America—because of his Indonesian background. It is not clear how his Indonesian experience can increase his interest in a region he didn’t consider visiting during his international campaign.

[click to continue…]

Neither carrots nor sticks

by Ivan Osorio on October 6, 2008 · 1 comment

in International

Few things are as exasperating as watching two sides argue — and neither rise above being half-right, at best. Still, the resulting exchange in this case is thought-provoking.

Today, the left-liberal Center for American Progress responded to a Washington Post editorial calling for a tougher stance on the part of Washington against Latin American autocrats like Hugo Chavez and his cronies in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador. While the Post editorial is right on more counts than is the CAP piece, they both seem to buy into the notion that the internal policies of Latin American countries are any of American policy makers’ business.

Yes, the United States wields enormous influence in the region as the biggest economic and political player, but the biggest contributions it can make to the well-being of Latin America  countries are — and should be — limited to maintaining open trade and immigration policies (I know, easier said and done) and changing America’s Sisyphean drug policy.

CAP author Stephanie Miller rightly mentions “drug consumption” in the U.S. as an important factor affecting Latin America, but she fails to develop even this important point. Moreover, she doesn’t even identify it properly — it is drug prohibition that is driving Latin America’s rising crime wave. No amount of drug laws can ever kill off demand itself. Moreover, drug prohibition is causing great damage in Latin America, but the enormous damage it is already causing in the U.S. is enough reason to change policy, independently of any foreign policy implications.

Regarding the Post editorial, it rightly emphasizes the importance of trade. However it seems to imply that trade preferences for countries with hostile regimes somehow constitute “subsidies,” even though trade preferences usually entail the removal of trade barriers (however selectively).

Meanwhile, CAP’s Miller argues that, “Trade is important, but it is clearly not the magic bullet that promoters of the Washington consensus of the 1990s believed it would be.” Magic bullet? This is clearly a straw man. It’s a big jump to go from saying that trade is crucial — which it is — to it being a panacea to societies’ ills — which it is clearly not. Many development factors are necessary; none are sufficient on their own.

Finally, regarding what American policy should be, both the Post and CAP argue for interventions of different sorts. Miller argues that, “the United States must very proactively engage with civil societies in all of these countries at the grassroots level.” The Post contends that, “Sooner or later [Latin Americans] must be forced to choose between Mr. Chávez’s half-baked socialism and the democracy of the 21st century.”

What about just stepping back and let Latin American countries solve their own problems — and deal with the consequences of their own decisions? Contra Miller, development in foreign countries is not something the American government is well suited to promote. And contra the Post, the U.S. cannot save people in other countries from themselves, no matter how bad their choices.