The Problems of America
Can there be real Populism?

Christopher Lasch called for a revitalization of politics in the 1980s. He believed the “left” was finished as a viable option and the “right” was warned over liberalism. This seems to be the chord Barack Obama [BO] is trying to strike with his call for “change”. I have previously posted about the issue of “change”. As the primary season winds down, I would like to examine the “new populism” that seems to have emerged.

Populism has always been a viable force in American politics. Jefferson was a populist as opposed to the federalists. He favored the exercise of power by the farmers and laborers of the countryside with their regional interests. Obviously, he lost that debate to the centralizers, whose position was solidified during the Civil War. The 10th Amendment of the amendments required by the Virginians for their Constitutional support reserved to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. This was to be a check against centralized power. It did not work! So, there has been populist appeals over the years to counteract Big Brother.

This populist impulse is always rumbling just below the surface of political America. During the Gilded Age, the economic condition of all was improving, nevertheless, the rich became very rich and the regular populace felt threatened by collusion between business and government. We have a similar situation today. The first 3 months of 2008 have seen a “correction” in the stock market, the credit crisis and the highest gasoline prices in history. The conjunction of these things has created great angst among the populace.

In little cities and towns around America, “Ma and PA” businesses are disappearing. They have been Walmarted! And, up until recently, folk have been satisfied as long as they are comfortable. Now they are feeling uncomfortable, so a desire for change. They see their conventional institutions and structures disintegrating…schools that cannot keep order let alone teach; local government dependant on the federal government for dollars to provide services; service clubs [Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions] losing membership; churches more interested in therapy than God. It takes all a man’s efforts to keep up with the economic demands of our society.

This brings us to another of Lasch’s problems…….progress for progress sake. For the new world wide economy to work, all men must be sold out to produce wealth and prosperity for the whole world. A sort of new “We are the World”. And, that takes a toll on kin, place and community all of which takes intentional, directed effort to maintain. My mother, not a cultural pundit, used to say many things are done for the “almighty dollar.” Joseph Schumpeter believed that capitalism leads to “creative destruction”. That is, the social institutions that fostered it are devoured by it. To stay ahead of the Joneses means our relationship with the Joneses suffers.

In the political culture of today, nanny statists and free enterprisers are both in favor of an economy that continues to pump out goods and services that promote our comfort. For Bill Gates and welfare programs to be successful, the world wide economy has to continue to grow. We are all progressiveists…we have to be. Real populism would reject continued superhighways, foreign entanglements, global economics, mass media and unfettered technological development. That is not going to happen.

So, the American public seems to be captivated by BO as the “new populist” alternative. It is hard to believe that a Harvard educated lawyer is a populist leader. He is a privileged person; he is “the man”. But, strangely, he has a populist appeal. As an African-American, he stands as outside the “dead white man” structural control. He is an orator of no small talent. He can energize a crowd and he has involved the under 30s like no other in recent memory. He is not anti-modern, however. He may want to redistribute income, but he still favors a system that produces income to redistribute. And, if he does not embrace progressive, world wide capitalism, as some on Wall Street fear, he will be a failure to those who backed this “new populist”.

These are strange times in America. We want change and our prosperity too. Whatever one thinks of the War on Terror, it is clear no one wants to sacrifice to win it. We want “peace at any cost”…or rather at NO cost. We have lost Eliot’s “permanent things” that were once our shared beliefs. The “little platoons” of Burke are no longer the active protectors and promoters of virtuous living that holds a society together. What we have is our “stuff”, very little of which is produced in the USA. China and India are sucking up the excess oil in the world because they want to keep making and selling us “stuff”. And, we are willing participants. Real populism necessitates the taking back of our culture and economy. Real populism requires sacrifice that halts the unbridled consumption that marks our dependency on unfettered international economic growth and technological progress. Is BO such a populist? Can BO deliver such populism? That would require a real change…a return to Jeffersonian populism that was long since buried by conspicuous consumption, globalization and self-absorption. What are the chances of that happening, regardless of the President? Slim and none.