Temporary And Structural Angst Brew Up a Tempest

TW: I think Cassidy hits the nail pretty squarely here. The above graph shows regardless of the to and fro about individuals, any POTUS suffers or flies high depending upon economic circumstances. Then when one overlays economic angst with a strategic shift in America's role in the world (see below) one gets the tempest currently brewing in the U.S. Furthermore, this strategic shift goes beyond matters of international power and prestige but encompasses evolving demographics as well, which leads cultural attributes previously taken as a given being questioned. The incumbents are fighting like hell for the "good old days". Although why those at the CPAC conference would suddenly feel good about dragging the still cold political corpse of Dick Cheney out of his figurative casket surprises me.

From John Cassidy at New Yorker"
"...Another factor, which rarely gets mentioned, but which appears obvious to people who didn’t grow up [in the US], such as myself, is that many Americans reach adulthood with a set of values and sense of self-identity that is historically inaccurate and potentially dangerous. If you have it banged into your head from the cradle to adolescence that America is the chosen nation—a country built by a rugged and God-fearing band of Anglo-Saxon individualists armed with pikes and long guns—you are less likely to embrace other essential features of the American heritage, such as the church-state divide, mass immigration, and the essential role of the federal government in the country’s economic and political development. When things are going well, and Team USA is squashing its rivals, this cognitive dissonance is kept in check. But when “the Homeland” encounters a rough patch and its manifest destiny is called into question, the underlying tensions and contradictions in the American psyche come to the fore, and people rail against the government.

Not all Americans are subject to this unfortunate mental condition, of course. Many, perhaps most, of our citizens are pragmatic, open-minded, and justifiably proud of the nation’s cultural and ethnic diversity. But at any period of time, there is a certain segment of the population—a quarter, perhaps—that provides fertile ground for what Richard Hofstadter, back in 1964, called the “paranoid style” of American politics, which trades in “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.”

All countries have some disaffected folk, of course. But the real danger to any democracy comes when military conflict or economic dislocation swells the ranks of the permanently alienated with legions of people who are temporarily disadvantaged or angry. And that, I think, is what is happening now..."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/02/tea-party-usa.html

Net net this fresh Toles cartoon sums up much of the current political realities:

Populists As Saps

From David Brooks at NYT:
"...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..."

TW: Populists are saps for both parties.

Is Populism a Good Thing?

TW: Some folks regard populism as a great thing and a pure manifestation of "democractic ideals". To me populism is an angry, somewhat incoherent reflection of frustration whose cures would in most cases be worse than the diseases. Yet when normal political structures atrophy and begin to sputter, populism emerges as a key dynamic.

From Paul Kedrosky's blog:
"To me the popular will is like the ocean. It may carry you far. Ignore it - its currents, its lulls and its storms - at your peril. But always distrust it. Learn when to fight it, when to run with it and when to stay in port when a storm blows over."
-- Mathew Paris (The Times, May 26, 2007)

The New Populism

TW: Populism always flourishes in challenging economic times. Overlay our economy with a rapidly evolving international landscape whereby the U.S. and Europe no longer rule the roost without close peers, and it is bar the door Katie the woofin' is just startin'. The Republicans with their oppose Obama everyday on everything whilst whipping up the populist rage are now beginning wonder exactly where the rage will lead.

From Jon Alter at Newsweek:
"With unemployment surging and the public mood souring, populism is in the air. Sarah Palin, flattered in recent days by a comparison to William Jennings Bryan, is a plausible presidential candidate, according to George W. Bush's pollster. Lou Dobbs, the modern incarnation of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, is dropping hints about running for the White House in 2012, presumably without the benefit of the Hispanic vote. And Glenn Beck is planning a huge rally next summer in Washington dedicated to "Re-founding America." If Beck pulls a big crowd and wins some credit for decimating Democrats in the midterms, it's not hard to guess what he might try next...

We haven't elected a populist president since Andrew Jackson 180 years ago. But we haven't had a black guy with no experience and a Muslim name as president either. Our omnipresent mediacracy makes a lot of unthinkable things thinkable...

The resulting Tower of Babel has good news and bad news for would-be populists. The good news for them is that the dissemination of outlandish ideas is easier than ever. Where cranks were once limited to red-ribbon typewriter rants or maybe a radio show, they now have unlimited potential to get their message out. The bad news for them is that they have nothing to say. They say nothing loudly, colorfully, and sometimes even charmingly, but it still doesn't amount to a new vision for the country. If their means of communicating are dramatically enhanced, their ends are hopelessly conventional.

Populism has been expanded to include anyone on the side of the people against the elites. But the word once had a more particular meaning. The anger had content. Populists of the past like Bryan in the 1890s, Huey Long and Father Coughlin in the 1930s, and even Pat Buchanan in the 1990s were angry about East Coast capitalists who were hurting the little guy in the heartland. They were anti–Wall Street, strongly protectionist, and committed to economic justice, even when some of them descended into racism and anti-Semitism.

Today's faux populists also feast on emotions—anxiety, anger, resentment—that intensify in hard times. But they are more accurately described as plain old reactionaries, a wonderfully precise word that has gone out of common usage. They're reacting against the pace of change and feeding right-wing nostalgia for a bygone era... Palin might try to echo Bryan, but she would consider Bryan's Populist Party platform of 1896 communistic were she to add it to her famous reading list...Beck said recently that his reading of history suggested it was in the progressive era that the United States first started going to hell. He wants to make the country safe for the 1880s.

...Populism—reactionary or progressive—is disruptive of the social order at a time when most people crave some sense of control over fast-moving events. Sure we want someone to give voice to our frustrations. But from the heart and head, not the spleen."http://www.newsweek.com/id/224672

Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)

"Next to kidnappers, politicians seem to be the most unpopular men in this great Republic. Nobody ever really trusts them. Whatever they do is commonly ascribed to ignoble motives. The country is always glad to see them humiliated. . .

As for the governors, they are so low-down that 2 or 3 of the 48 are always being impeached and there is always at least one who is on his way to the hoosegow. During the past 15 years no less than 20 governors have been charged with downright felonies, and 4 or 5 have actually gone to prison. The rest, though maybe honest enough, are mainly only demagogues and mountebanks. It would be hard to find any other class of presumably reputable men who show so high an average of rogues and charlatans."
---HL Mencken 1934
(via Floyd Norris at NYT)

TW: As I mention frequently, democracy is flawed just better than the alternative. Our system breeds hypocrisy and those comfortable with it. To run for office is to be an egotistical freak. But if we as voters acted differently, rewarded better behavior then perhaps the politicians would act differently. Or maybe those more pure would be even less effective...

The Cost Of Populism

TW: I am not posting much on AIG, as there is so much out there on the topic I have little to add. Net net, the entire affair is not helping anyone achieve solutions, it is mere venting. I strongly doubt (and certainly hope not) a 90% tax on any bonuses will be enacted. The House of Representatives is designed to be more populist (re-elections for everyone every two years), they had their spasm last week. The Senate is designed (staggered elections for the 6 yr terms) for a more calm assessment of matters, I assume they will slow things down.

That said this spasm of populism is counter-productive. Populism and elitism are frequently at odds, the sometimes ignorant, overly emotional populism clashing with the self-aggrandizing, arrogance of the elites makes for fun times. Their respective positives- common sense/egalitarianism versus professionalism/broad-mindedness- get lost amidst mutual recriminations.

We remain long on frustration and short on solutions. Some on the left are pounding on Obama for not being more punitive (see Frank Rich and M. Dowd at NYT this morning). The Republicans keep angling for electoral gain by pushing Hooverite fiscal policies while flailing in all directions on the issue of "Wall Street/AIG/bonuses". The climate is quickly degenerating into the dysfunctional. I ask the lefties, are pitchforks really the answer. I ask the righties, Hoover failed once do we really want to give him another go? And if you were to cut off Obama's knees then what?

My biggest concern remains my skepticism that our leaders (and leaders worldwide) will be able to balance the often conflicting pulls of the populace and the elites, while fashioning actually useful policy. Last week was not encouraging. As Reich points out misguided populism may merely opens the door for elites to perpetuate policies likely to create more populist backlash, a vicious circle indeed.

From Robert Reich:
"When the public isn't looking, Congress reverts to its old ways. The Obama-supported plan to allow distressed homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages under the protection of bankruptcy has run into a Wall Street wall. Although Citigroup temporarily broke ranks a few months ago when it was receiving one of the most generous bailouts, the rest of Wall Street has remained adamantly opposed, and apparently Democratic leaders have decided not to push back.

Meanwhile, Obama's plan to limit itemized deductions for the richest 1.2 percent of taxpayers (including the top 1.9 percent of small business owners) to 28 percent, starting in 2011, is also in trouble on the Hill. Wealthy contributors and friends of congressional leaders involved in setting tax policy have balked. So Congress is telling the White House to look elsewhere for the $320 billion it needs over ten years to finance half of the tab for health care reform.

Congressional leaders have also informed the White House that they don't have the votes to pass Obama's proposal for treating the earnings of hedge-fund and private-equity managers as income rather than capital gains.

Angry populism thrives on stories about the rich and privileged who use their influence to get cushy deals for themselves at the expense of the rest of us. AIG's bonuses provide a perfect example. It's too bad the same populist outrage doesn't extend to issues involving far more money, affecting many more people, and entailing far more insidious abuses of power.

Congress's potemkin populism over AIG's bonuses disguises business as usual when it comes to the really big stuff..."
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/03/congresss-fair-weather-populism.html

Economic Pornography

TW: Not surprisingly I find Glenn Beck repulsive. But he has anchored prominent shows now on two separate major networks, CNN and now Fox. This recent clip to me is the height of irresponsibility and speaks to the depths MSM will sink in pursuit of ratings. Does he represent a segment of our population, probably. A segment we would want governing our nation, I sure hope not.

Btw, the Steven Roach character puking about 90% tax rates works for the Wall Street Journal and appears regularly on CNBC. My guess is his brilliant analysis assumes to trying to pay down all the recent expenditures over a very short time period as opposed to over many years which will be the case (just like we paid for WWII etc.). Mike Scheuer is a very controversial former CIA analyst aligned with Ron Paul.

The gap between certain conservatives and quackery is narrowing.