Fri 26 Feb 2010
Populist? Don’t make me laugh.
Posted by USA / proudlib under Balkers
[3] Comments
There’s been a lot of discussion of “populism” in American politics recently, particularly when it comes to the corporate media covering for the Tea Baggs. It seems all of the current populists are pissed-off Republicans and people on the left calling for the Democrats to be more populist. Pop-pop-pop-pop-ulists!!
There’s only one problem with all this new-found populism – it doesn’t exist because we Americans don’t do populist. We all love our elites too much to go for that kind of stuff. That’s right, I said ELITES and I mean left and right too.
What got me started on this was a movie trailer online I stumbled across a while back and the populist talk brought it back to mind. The movie being advertised was one of those rightwing ‘documentaries’ that was supposed to mock Michael Moore’s methods in his films. The point the movie was trying to make is that liberals are hypocrites because they are concerned about the poor and middle class…as they climb into their limosines and private jets.
OK, let’s get past the conservatives’ odd view that being a liberal Democrat concerned about the less privileged and middle class means that they have to become monks who take a vow of poverty (guess they never heard of noblesse oblige). The Republicans, in their way, lay claim to those same concerns and none of their supporters hold them to the same standards as they do for wealthy Democrats.
The point is that movie could have just as easily been made by a liberal about conservatives and both would still miss the real issue by a mile which is, down deep, we REALLY like rich and powerful people a lot and we keep voting them into office.
Blame it on American guilt over being thrown out of all of the good countries when we were founded and that we really do miss royalty. Lord knows we try hard to create our own – singers, actors, athletes – but they come up short and are discarded as quickly as they were crowned. See, the thing about royalty is that they are what they are no matter what. A Duchess doesn’t lose her title because she loses it in a beauty salon and shaves her hair off. A Baron can go out drinking heavily and trying to take all the drugs nightly then go in and out of rehab like he has his own personal revolving door and he’s still a Baron. American royalty substitutes don’t get that kind of a break – go a little too crazy in public, start to lose your voice a bit, be unable to hit those homers or make those touchdowns anymore and it’s the French Revolution again and off goes your head.
So where do we go for our royals? Why, politics of course.
I’m not talking about any individual here, individual politicians are often subject to the same rules that all of the other royalty substitutes rise and fall by. The royalty I’m talking about is who we always look to as ready to either represent us or lead the nation. Who are our populists, our kings and queens? Rich people, plain and simple.
You may be brilliant but if you don’t have the bucks, either earned or inherited, kiss off politics. Look around: Sarah Palin and her family are worth at least a million dollars. The last nominee for President for either major party that didn’t come to the race already wealthy was Bill Clinton but he wasn’t exactly hurting either and he’s made up for that since. Ross Perot ran for President as an independent with tons of coin in the bank to back it up. More examples abound and we even do the jobs of fooling ourselves about these people by dressing up our worship of the wealthy in the words like ”success” i.e. successful business man/woman etc. etc.
Our self-delusion is so complete that we consider these people “populists” and “ordinary folks who understand our problems.” Then we act surprised when they act for their interests and not ours as if it wasn’t as obvious as hell that’s exactly what they were all about from the get-go.
So please, don’t talk to me about today’s populism until you’re ready to elect that intelligent janitor and send that mediocre-minded CEO packing. Until then, GOD SAVE THE KING!!
http://ranting-liberally.blogspot.com
Another well-done Balk, proudlib.
I would say that given the hegemony that money has over the U.S. political process – the sheer amounts of it required to even get on the map for media exposure of your candidacy – we choose wealthy from limited options / mostly wealthy ones.
Yet both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama climbed the entire political ladder from modest beginnings. To me that is a very, very important example to keep younger prospects of all social strata, in the game of public service. That said, both those presidents had to attract major wealth interests to back them. And most Progressives could easily point to compromises they made therefrom…
But I would agree that if you want a leader “of the people”, that would be the janitor before it could ever be Ross Perot.
I marvel at the present argument in favor of Wall Street banker mega-salaries: “why, we’ve got to pay that to get the best talent!”
Hell, a guy at the bus stop would have run those firms better the last few years… ;^)
Everyone knows about the British crown, but did you know Canada has it’s own royal family?! Here it is on Wikipedia
A sidelight on the issue of the British royal family which is also a good read is Nevil Shute’s ‘In the Wet’. (A bit pro-Royal for me, but it raises some points.)