Dionne says that the decision has brought us to " a true populist moment in American politics." He calls for a populist revolt, or rather, a "populist-progressive alliance."It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It's time for a new populist-progressive alliance.
Dionne is careful in his use of words. He does not include the tea party movement in his understanding which he describes as a "fake populism that disguises a defense of the interests of the powerful behind crowd-pleasing rhetoric against "Washington," "taxes" and, yes, "Obama."
Dionne sees aspects of this alliance already in the works, whether from the words Obama offered in his Saturday address, or in moves to restrict the impact of the Court's decision Thursday. He raises some interesting questions such as this: And shouldn't shareholders have the right to vote before a corporation spends money on politics? Do we want foreign-owned corporations, especially those owned by foreign governments, to exercise an undue influence in our politics? Imagine what an enterprise owned or influenced by the Chinese or Russian governments might try to do to a politician who campaigns too ardently for human rights?
Here I can note ideas can be interesting, and yet still raise concerns, even alarms. Consider the rhetoric opposing allowing foreign owned or influenced corporations to participate as the decision would clearly allow American-owned corporations to participate. First, I am not sure that a Court that would issue this decision is any less likely to include foreign corporations in the political participation that flows therefrom, since we are NOT talking about contributing directly to a campaign. After all, there is nothing now that would prevent a foreign billionaire as an individual from making independent expenditures for or against a political candidate, and if money equals speech - the doctrine from Buckley v Valeo that undergirds the Citizens United decision - it is hard to see how the money of a foreign entity is any less speech than that of a U. S. Citizen.
I think Dionne is correct in implying that the American people would react viscerally against the idea of a corporation owned by a foreign government being able to participate in our political processes. My concern is that this could be a step on a slippery slope - first try to ban political speech by foreign corporations, then political speech by non-U.S. nationals, and then?? After all, populism has had its shadows in the past - one argue that anti-immigrant movements hav always had a populist streak, one that has tapped into fear and thereby into intolerance or even hatred.
We also should remember that the vaunted progressive movement of the early 20th century did not display much sympathy towards the conditions of our African-American population. After all, the 2nd progressive President was the Southerner T. Woodrow Wilson who arrived in a Capital in which the segregation of the Deep South was basically obsolete only to resegregate it, who screened in his residence the D. W. Griffith movie based on a work called "The Clansman" (which was written by a Johns Hopkins classmat and then purportedly said "it is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." While there is some dispute whether Wilson said those words, in his History of the American People Wilson at a minimum excused the KKK so much so that his words of approbation were quoted in the film.
I am no historian, merely a student of the subject, especially as it relates to government, the subject I attempt to help my student comprehend. I have my cautions about the historical impact of both populism and progressivism. Yet having expressed those cautions, derived from knowing aspects of their history, I am nevertheless intrigued by the idea of such an alliance.
There is a visceral feeling that the average guy is getting screwed by the corporations, especially Wall Street, and most want their government to take action. Dionne writes about the average middle-class American unable to understand why the banks get bailouts while millions remained unemployed and others were deeply worried about their own financial futures. He ties that to doubts about the kind of health care planned produced by puffed-up, self-involved U.S. senators who conspired to make the legislative process look as ugly and chaotic as possible.
I am intrigued by the idea of such an alliance, but also cautious. There will be areas of conflict between the two sides of such an alliance. The challenge is how we can hold an alliance together on matters of common concern without areas of conflict and concerns over leadership tearing it apart and making both sides even more reluctant to trust the other.
I recognize the risks inherent in such an approach. I also think they are worth taking.
Dionne concludes with some praise for the President: President Obama was right to invoke Teddy Roosevelt in his radio address on Saturday. American democracy and the square deal in government for which TR battled are in jeopardy.
I think most who will read these words here would agree about the threat to American democracy as we understand it. Some may be inclined to be cynical, arguing that what the Court did was merely make official what has already been happening, the subversion of democracy for the average person by the expansion of power of corporate and wealthy interests.
Above I raised concerns that the two sides of our proposed alliance could find themselves in conflict. I would expect those favoring the Court's decision to attempt to exploit that possible fissure - after all, it is always wise to see if you can turn your opponents against one another. I would add to what Dionne has offered a following thought: we should seek to conquer the threat of corporate domination by dividing the corporations and having them fight one another - perhaps then they will more readily support coming again under regulation for their own well-being and survival.
Let me explain. Manufacturing companies can be set against health insurance companies, because at least potentially their interests are in conflict.
Since some major health insurers are also property insurers, we can set the latter against those in the energy sector who oppose serious action against global climate change - we see already insurance companies abandoning insuring on barrier islands in NC, for example.
In what we do, and how we react, we will have to remember this: so long as there is a 5-justice conservative and pro-corporate majority on the Supreme Court, we may have to fight through the heavy expenditures corporate interests will make to oppose anything that they perceive as limiting their power, wealth, and influence. And if American democracy is truly at stake, we must consider strengthening it by appropriate changes to the Constitution. That will be difficult, but it is also a battle worth fighting, even as I recognize that such an approach also opens the door to the possibility of other amendments that could flow from populist anger - perhaps yet another attempt at the flag protection amendment, or for official prayer and/or bible reading in the public schools.
These thoughts which I offer are as of yet incomplete. Consider this a thinking aloud, an exploration of a topic encountered in my morning reading. I do not have a complete answer.
But this I do know
1. American democracy as we have known it is very much at risk
2. American democracy cannot survive if unbridled corporate influence is not only unchecked at its current levels, but is allowed to grow and dominate our political processes even more
3. There is a palpable anger in the nation, and a hunger for at least the perception that our national government is working on behalf of the ordinary folks, and not just the big corporations and the wealthy and powerful
4. It is has been some time since a truly progressive vision of how our government should act has been given an opportunity to make its case to the people, perhaps because even the Democratic party has listened too much to its corporate supporters
5. The times call not for incremental change, but serious rethinking of may aspect of our government and its policy - this opens the door to some truly progressive ideas
5. the mood is populist, the ideas that can make a difference are largely progressive.
Thus I think I can answer the question with which I began, which comes from Dionne's suggestion. Is it time for anew populist-progressive alliance?
HELL, YES!!! If anything, it is overdue, almost past time.
Let's get to it immediately if not sooner.
Peace. |
