Disclosure/background notes to start:

• David is a friend, and I like him.


• When TPM asked me to review it, so I figured I'd better read it (already had a copy, but hadn't started). I figured I'd do it a bit at a time, posting after I'd read a good chunk. So far, I really like the book.


• I share the bias that we are potentially entering a new political era. (Many have been pushing for/predicting this for a handful of years--our contribution was the convention-winning video we submitted in 2004 suggested a new progressive era.) Discussions like this are important sparks.

Sirota makes the case for populist politics. Many readers of TPM self-describe as progressives. I address the intersection.

Populism and Progressivism: Sirota aptly defines populism as politics that have popular support but get short shrift from elites. For purposes here, I'll define progressivism as forward-eyed championing of the public interest through common action (with a healthy recognition of the marginal utility of wealth--that is, a dollar for someone without is worth more than another person's millionth dollar). We can quibble on definitions; hopefully these'll work for now.

My hypothesis here--lacking sufficient data to call it a full-blown theory--and a theme for my posts this week, is that a new progressive era will arrive when populism and progressivism meet. (Whether to call this "crossing the streams" ala Ghostbusters or "the perfect storm" a la Clooney I haven't decided yet.) I read yesterday's comments suggesting that those twain shan't meet. But my own sense is that they can, perhaps must, and even have.

Some History of Populists and Progressives: At the end of the 1800's, a battle between the populists and progressives waged. The populists grew from working farm communities and "tended to hate Wall Street and bank interests." "Progressivism was a movement of the college-educated urban middle class, which valued expertise and efficiency and favored government regulation and foreign affairs." For people who like names: Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were progressives; William Jennings Bryan (earlier) and Huey Long (later) were populists.

Historical precedent: My own historical interpretation is that the Progressive Movement (~1900-1917) can be defined as an era where populism and progressivism merged--particularly around economic fairness, such as progressive taxation, trust-busting regulation (Sherman Act), and the estate tax. Progressive movements became popular movements; Women's Suffrage failed, failed, failed, then swept the nation. The anger of the working farmer and factory worker met the legal tinkering of Learned Hand. The voice for much of this became the sickly-patrician-turned-robust-rabble-rouser Teddy Roosevelt, who included environmentalism in this platform of popular progressivism.

Current government: My critique of the system now is not merely that elites aren't sufficiently paying attention to the will of the people, but that too many elites aren't paying sufficient attention to the best interests of the people either. Our current government is neither progressive nor populist. Not only are our betters not of the people, nor are they for the people. Either might be better. Both might be necessary.