Populism is rampant in this country right now. It's not the first time that populism has emerged in political seasons, but it is particularly strong right now as a reaction to an administration which has challenged the status quo in a serious manner.The economic crisis which affected the United States and the entire world this past 18 months brought with it massive unemployment, business failures, loss of housing, and near-Depression statistics. The Bush and Obama administrations both instituted huge, costly stop-guards which prevented the economy from slipping over the edge into a replication of the Great Depression. The populists jumped on this as unnecessary, big government, socialist behavior and began to utilize fear and anger as responses to a difficult situation.
The Obama administration's push for health care reform at the same time only further incensed the populists, and the Republican conspiracy to undermine President Obama at every turn fueled the fires of populism. The so-called "Tea Party" demonstrations this past summer encouraged the anti-government, anti-incumbent mindset that is showing itself in the lead-up to the 2010 mid-term elections.
Today the preliminary bout of that boxing match takes place in Massachusetts, where a lively, well-organized populist,Republican candidate Scott Brown, is waging a battle against Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, whose campaign has been rusty. Last minute infusions of energy from President Obama and Vicki Kennedy, the late Senator's wife, may be too much too late for Coakley, who has missed signals and failed to connect with the voters.
A victory by Brown, who has sworn that if elected he will be the 41st, crippling vote against the proposed Health Care legislation, would be a new blow to the Obama administration. Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey have signaled a political distrust of the current administration. It also signals an anti-incumbency threat for the 2010 elections.
There is no question that the Coakley campaign left much to be desired. And the Obama administration has tripped over the rug a number of times recently in missing political signals. But a Brown victory would re-inforce the anti-intellectual populist movement and jeopardize a progressive, important agenda which is necessary to meet current domestic and international demands. The focus would shift from the "long term" to the "short term," a shift that so frequently brings immediate relief to the public but fails to reinforce the foundation that will be required down the road.
Seldom has a 24 hour period in mid-year carried such a significant political impact.
Dictionary Credit: Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Photo Credit: crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/right-wing-p...
a serious post on a VERY serious day in a SERIOUSLY distressing time. i, too, fear it was too much too late. and there has been an alarming amount of tripping on the rug lately. but it's HARD to combat someone/anyone who invokes the power of teabag imagery in this country. and therein lies the problem (doesn't it?): imagery. that and the wonderful/awful political, vote-getting reality that ENSURES we never (or very rarely) get beyond short-term thinking and posturing. a well-said and insightful post, as always.
ReplyDeleteGee, it seems that your own VERY liberal leanings have clouded your judgement. Scott Brown has won the election because the voters of Massachusetts beleived the he best represented their cases in Washington PERIOD. Not because he was anti-establishment or as a message to ANYONE. Please, don't speak for us. Don't over annalyze us. Don't read between the lines. Scott won BECAUSE HE WAS THE BETTER CANDIDATE.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your last point. Scott was the better candidate. I think I made that point throughout. And he ran a superior campaign. Coakley was a flawed candidate and never should have been nominated.
But, having said that, it does not take away the fact that Brown ran on a populist platform which depends upon anti-intellectual, simplistic concepts. Incidentally, analysis and "reading between the lines" is a legitimate enterprise for an enlightened voter...on either side of the aisle.