What is a Populist?

All of a sudden, Populism has become a popular term. But like so many political labels representing some sort of philosophy, the word is already being co-opted to mean something else.

From Progressives to Corporate representatives, everyone wants to be a Populist these days. Now John McCain is supposedly touting a Populist Message....in the form of corporate tax cuts.

Let's be clear here, more giveaways to the super rich and multinational corporations is Corporate Corrupt and most assuredly not addressing the needs of working America.

Then, we have those claiming Barack Obama is a Populist.

No, putting other nations ahead of US citizens, believing that trade policy raises up other nations, ignoring the costs to US workers and refusing to revamp trade policy in favor of US workers is more of a globalist position and most assuredly not a Populist one.

Many believe Hillary Clinton has turned into a Populist. Well, lately she has certainly issued a series of policy positions that will indeed help working America, but still she has promised Corporations more guest worker Visas and the biggest complaint are the ties to people behind the campaign (lobbyists).

So, don't let candidates, pundits or the main stream press steal your Populist agenda and spin it to whatever special interest wants it to be.

It's your definition, your terms and the word is owned by working Americans to define policy and legislation in their interests and in the national interest.

Populism means WE THE PEOPLE of the United States.

We are what Populism means, it's our movement, by us.



Well said Robert.....

........and since you're speaking on you own blog you can't be banned for saying so!

Obama is total disaster for the progressive wing of the party. No surprise there as he is a Liebercrat, not a Democrat. The really sick part is they don't even know it. With people like Kos and Bowers trying to 'lead' from ignorance it's no wonder.

Hillary has been making better speeches about what she would do; read my post:


Your point about her past history is well taken by me. Perhaps she's 'seen the light' this is possible and we can only hope.


The real problem lies in the heart of the DLC which long ago sold out to corporatist America....for not much.

Until we can clean house of the likes of Hoyer, Emmanuel, Schumer, DiFi all the rich, money-grubbing vermin which infest the party no change will take place.

I'm optimistic as the populace seems to be 'getting it...' at last. Obama helped tremendously with his classist comments on Billionaire's Row. If I were the DLC I'd be really worried if he won the GE.

He'd surely do for what currently passes for 'liberalism' what Bush did for 'conservatism'.

I'm trying to build up a head of steam to blog more about what populists or 'progressives' should stand for rather than waste time discussing the horse race. None of the candidates have any solutions to our economic crisis although as I said Hillary is stating tto say the right things.

'When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.'

just read your blog

I'm seeing really good speeches, in depth policy understanding and more policy positions that really are Populist coming from Hillary. I never have seen them from Obama.

So, while I can understand the distrust, especially considering Bill's administration pushed through so many bad trade agreements and other corporate sponsored agenda and so on, I can't understand what is the belief that Obama isn't more of precisely that sort of policy. His rhetoric is ok but his votes, his actual position statements,proposals ...well, they are not the policy everyone has been trying to get for so long.

So, I don't get it. I haven't been for either of them but when someone presents really good policy, such as what Hillary did on keeping critical manufacturing technology, know how that is in the national interest in the US and performed by US citizens, I was really impressed.

It's like it cannot even be acknowledged when these policy statements are really good.

I believe the answer to your mystification is....

....to be found in the proselytizing, from such as Kos, Bowers, and Marshall...and others, indeed others in the 'Democrat' Party, of ID politics.

That is, the politics of identification. Women will vote for HIllary, blacks for Obama and as you get more fine grained populists for populists. Only, you never get to the lever of 'populism' as this is next door to policy. And discussions of policy are not what most members of the corporate state, corporatist press nor corporations themselves want.

The last thing the CEO of GE wants to have to do is defend his company's shameful record as the the amount of taxes it has paid while extracting billions and billions from the commons. So we get....

See the black man run....

See the uppity woman....

I've posted about this quite a bit and talked myself hoarse about it.

ID politics is a tool of the existing hegemony to thwart needed change and those who engage in it are no more than willing flunkies with nothing to offer but....

'More of the same'.

I believe until Obama is utterly destroyed by McCain or cast aside by the Democratic Party to avoid that happening we will see nothing but ignorant bloviating by our 'leaders'. The self-appointed ones anyway.

You don't see Krugman or John Dean or Angry Bear, nor Bonddad falling for this tired line of bs. So there is hope for real change once folks rediscover.....

What matters in a politician is the policies they want to implement; not...

Who they say they are.

'When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.'

What is populism

A populist would represent the people rather than big government or big corporations. A quick look at which candidate had zero bundlers would tell you who the populist is in the Presidential race. (Ron Paul)

what is populism