The Power Of Populism

Reynolds points us to this KausFiles critique of Nicholas Lemann's profile of Senator John Edwards (is that a worthy blog line or what?):

The basic case against Edwards, as he's presented by Lemann, is that he's fallen whole-hog for Bob Shrum's "full-throated, us-against-them populist" line. Populism appeals, in large part, because of its emphasis on social equality. ('My parents would know in five minutes if you were treating them with respect -- whether you were looking down on them," says Edwards.) When practiced by Shrum, however, it seeks to cast all America's domestic problems in the us v. them mode, in which "powerful forces" -- as Al Gore, under Shrum's tutelage, put it -- "stand in your way" and "keep you from having a better life."

But the problem in the lives of most individual Americans today isn't that "big guys" (Lemann's phrase) are standing in their way -- and populism's comforting scapegoating in this regard is one of its most unattractive features.

Kaus, of course, is right to think that in a decent and rational world, such divisive populist rhetoric would be seen for what it is. But in a piece a few weeks ago that didn't get nearly the web attention it deserved, Patrick Ruffini pointed out that in the last election, Al Gore had some success with that same style of populist rhetoric:

There�s another set piece of Gore�s all-but-settled 2004 strategy that was manifest in his Florida speech over the weekend: a reprise of Gore�s �people vs. the powerful� theme from 2000. The effectiveness of this strategy has been the subject of considerable subterranean debate in Democratic circles, with DLCers arguing vigorously against and Stan Greenberg, the pollster who masterminded Gore�s populist sloganeering swearing that it drove the ex-Veep�s numbers up. A year ago, Franklin Foer made a somewhat coherent argument for why such a strategy might work in 2004.

I�ve reviewed the evidence on both sides of the argument, and Greenberg is right about one thing: Gore�s popularity did go up whenever he used grating, class-warfare rhetoric. The trouble is that Gore�s standing rose among the Powerful he railed against, and not among the People he repeatedly championed. By every measure, Gore ran unexpectedly well among the well-to-do in America. The 4% of Americans who described themselves as �upper class� went for Gore by 56% to 39%.

As a Senator whose home base is in the South rather than D.C., Edwards remains more in touch with those middle-class voters than Gore was in the last election, and should fare better with them. If the populist rhetoric were as successful for Edwards as it was for Gore last time among upper class voters, he could be a formidable candidate. I'm not ready to write off that possibility just because in a decent society it would be otherwise.

[Posted at 20:29 CST on 04/30/02] [Link]