Populism, Palin, and the Plumber
So I just finished watching a Sarah Palin rally and what was striking to me was the reception every mention of Joe the Plumber got. The cheers for this guy, who has come to represent the quintessential everyman, are positively greater than the cheers for Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And this has been somewhat puzzling to me.
But I think I understand it now.
Republicans have been using populist rhetoric to great effect since the days of Joe McCarthy. The success of these appeals to the common man from the party of big business has flummoxed some liberals and disheartened others. Many progressives see in it a disingenuous rejection of 'liberal elitism' and a manipulative attempt to prove that Republicans understand average Americans in a way ivory tower Democrats don't. And of course Republican populist rhetoric does both of those things -- which has spurred many a liberal to hide from his Rhodes scholarship and tell folks he feels their pain.
But this is a misunderstanding, or at least an incomplete understanding. Populist rhetoric is not a simple rejection of pointy-headed Ivy Leaguers; it is an affirmation of the greater wisdom of the people. When Sarah Palin talks about Joe the Plumber's response to Obama's plans to 'spread the wealth' she is not just attacking the skewed values or intellectual elitism of liberal types. She is telling the people in the audience that Joe -- the everyman, the audience itself -- is damned smarter than all the liberal think tanks in Washington combined. When it comes to what's right for the nation, truly Joe knows best.
Plenty of liberals, in the shadow of Richard Hofstadter, think that this conservative anti-intellectualism springs from economic insecurity or status anxiety or the politics of resentment -- that people are, to use Barack Obama's unfortunate phrasing, 'bitter'. And there is some truth in that. But it doesn't give the coherence of populist sentiment, which has run long and deep in American politics, its proper due.
Populism envisions the problems facing society holistically: big government and big business and big labor are all variations on a theme. It is The System that poses a threat to liberty and well-being, and since elite educational institutions are well ensconced within The System, the graduates they produce are by their nature System Men. Only the wisdom of 'real' people can properly reform government; this therefore requires a rejection of the product of America's finest schools.
Republicans have drawn on populist rhetoric for decades but have never exactly been a populist party. Mike Huckabee was the first major Republican candidate in recent memory (possibly ever) who was a true populist with a truly populist program. Sarah Palin is cut from the same cloth. Unlike previous Republican lights she is not a System Man with a better than usual understanding of, and appreciation for, common wisdom. She really isn't a product of those elite institutions. She really did begin her political career in the PTA. She really is a hockey mom.
The possibility of a populist takeover of the Republican party has probably increased since the collapse of the banking industry. Certainly the McCain campaign has made much hay out of populist rhetoric in recent weeks. Of course, McCain's platform -- and McCain himself -- is decidedly not populist, but Sarah Palin represents a possibility for 2012. A populist GOP would stoke the fires of the culture wars, adopt a more aggressively anti-big business stance, grow increasingly critical of free trade, and emphasize anti-immigration and low tax planks in its platform. It would, as I have suggested before, create a new Small Tent coalition of Dobbsicrats and Limbaughblicans.
I doubt it would be a winning strategy, but that might change depending on the length and severity of the coming recession and the (perceived) effectiveness of an Obama administration's efforts to combat it. Regardless, it could provoke a significant shift in American politics. Democrats could pick off disaffected pro-business and libertarian Republicans by reorienting the party pragmatically and technocratically: return, in a way, to the party's Niebuhran skepticism in the 1940s which proffered big government, big business, and big labor as essential checks against one another. Conversely, if such a Republican strategy proved successful, it could provoke a further rightward drift in American politics over the longer term.
I want to assert emphatically that I'm considering hypotheticals here; I'm not suggesting any of this will happen. And it's honestly not something I've pondered at great length. In a way I'm thinking out loud. But it's a topic I expect I'll return to in the future, and in the meantime I'd appreciate your thoughts in the comments below.
Photo provided under a CC license by Rona Proudfoot
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
Advertisement
Joining you in thinking out loud.
What made the Republican party such a force after Goldwater was the fusion of the traditionalists and the libertarians, and the common bind of anti-Communism that kept the fusion in place.
Even if we substitute the 'Islam menace' in place of the Communist menace, the traditionalist part of the fusion has gone so far to the right that the Libertarians are turned off. (And it's not clear to me that Libertarians are all that subscribed to the Islam menace, either. Are they?)
All of which you said in The Republican Realignment, (only better). But I can't see where the latest in the politics of populism and exclusion is going to help the Republican party regain power. So I agree it's not a winning strategy on its face, but who knows what can happen.
November 3, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to predict what will happen -- what the next threat will be, the next cause to rally around. But I suspect that if the Republican party does take a rightward or populist turn it will remain in the wilderness for some years. Perhaps a generation.
I am confident, however, that the party which eventually emerges, whenever and however it emerges, will be a better party. America is becoming a more diverse nation and the Republican party has a choice: accept that reality or get left behind by it. And there are plenty of conservatives of conscience who understand this: a successful GOP twenty years hence cannot be an exclusionary GOP. Xenophobia and culture war will eventually have to be left aside.
Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later. American politics is better served by two strong parties in political clash than one party, even the Democratic party, holding unfettered sway.
November 4, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to predict what will happen -- what the next threat will be, the next cause to rally around. But I suspect that if the Republican party does take a rightward or populist turn it will remain in the wilderness for some years. Perhaps a generation.
I am confident, however, that the party which eventually emerges, whenever and however it emerges, will be a better party. America is becoming a more diverse nation and the Republican party has a choice: accept that reality or get left behind by it. And there are plenty of conservatives of conscience who understand this: a successful GOP twenty years hence cannot be an exclusionary GOP. Xenophobia and culture war will eventually have to be left aside.
Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later. American politics is better served by two strong parties in political clash than one party, even the Democratic party, holding unfettered sway.
November 4, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Sorry, hiccup in internet = double-post! I'm new here; is there a way to delete the other?)
November 4, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post. Well written. Lots of food for thought.
I'm a psychologist. So of course I tend to think of people's reactions from a psychological perspective. Not only that. But I can't ignore that. So I'm trying to think through how this populist idea works psychologically. And I too am thinking aloud here. the greater wisdom of the people.
Hmmmm.... ok seems to me we're talking about some kind of "group think" in a way. Where we all agree to "think like this everyman." So that right away makes me concerned about a sort of mob mentality that can break out. Because we're talking as if the "everyman" already possesses all this innate "wisdom." As if it's not necessary that there be some kind of "reality testing" - based on past history, for example, where learned people or elders carry a tradition and wisdom and pass it on. Or where people need to stay on top of things, to really delve into them, especially in our complex world. Where no one person (or mob) can be counted upon to do this digging and sorting and decision-making.
So... that's kinda sorta where I end up. That this myth of the innate wisdom of your ordinary "Joe" is insufficient unto a huge nation in an interconnected world, which is fast heading toward so many disasters.
Palin is the everywoman. And Joe the Plumber is the everyman. And as a psychologist, I simply can't buy that we'll get the best "reality testing" and "wisdom" from any old random person at the PTA or the local union or non-union, as our everyman seems to be.
I'd make a strong case for history and education when it comes to running a country and doing diplomacy.
So I see the republicans as cynically choosing "front people" - the apparent everyman or everywoman - but marketed and sold to the public, while behind the scenes the real power brokers cynically rule and steal - as happened these past 8 years.
Make of this what you will. But I will run screaming from this country if we get Joe or Sarah in the future. (I'm 63 and I hope to God I don't have to do that when I'm 71.)
November 3, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks for the kind words! Really interesting to read this from your perspective. And I think you're right, it is a sort of groupthink -- but it can also work in sort of the opposite way. It can allow people to impute their own values on this talismanic Joe the Plumber: because he's an everyman he must believe what they believe, whatever it is they believe. It works both ways; people's views are molded by populist rhetoric, but people also interpret populist rhetoric to fit their views.
The more important point, though, as you point out, is that the 'wisdom of the common man' is frankly insufficient to a modern, complex state. It can be adequate to the running of a small community or a church group. The world's only superpower? Don't think so. Now, there can be problems with technocracy as well, and sometimes a little common sense -- and a genuine effort to understand and involve people in the political process -- is an important check against and rejoinder to detailed schemes and models that maybe work better on paper than in real life. The trick is in finding the balance, and in an extraordinarily complex world the balance will probably (and ought to) be tipped more toward the, dare I say, ivory tower types.
November 4, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks for the kind words! Really interesting to read this from your perspective. And I think you're right, it is a sort of groupthink -- but it can also work in sort of the opposite way. It can allow people to impute their own values on this talismanic Joe the Plumber: because he's an everyman he must believe what they believe, whatever it is they believe. It works both ways; people's views are molded by populist rhetoric, but people also interpret populist rhetoric to fit their views.
The more important point, though, as you point out, is that the 'wisdom of the common man' is frankly insufficient to a modern, complex state. It can be adequate to the running of a small community or a church group. The world's only superpower? Don't think so. Now, there can be problems with technocracy as well, and sometimes a little common sense -- and a genuine effort to understand and involve people in the political process -- is an important check against and rejoinder to detailed schemes and models that maybe work better on paper than in real life. The trick is in finding the balance, and in an extraordinarily complex world the balance will probably (and ought to) be tipped more toward the, dare I say, ivory tower types.
November 4, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If an Obama administration/Democratic congress can make good on populist-style programs such as affordable healthcare and raising the standard of living in ways that are actually palpable to Joes everywhere, perhaps they will be less likely to take out whatever "frustrations" they have left by scapegoating others.
If I'm understanding you correctly, this scapegoating, as you have alluded to, resembles a McCarthyist, Nixonian, fear-based type thinking. Surely, if Republicans wish to hold onto a Populist mantle, they would have to broaden their definitions of it.
I'm doubtful given the Republican Party's history (with maybe the exception of Reagan's early pres. campaign rhetoric) that they could manage to achieve what Obama has.
That is: to run against the incumbent Party as insurgents without resorting to character attacks, fear-mongering and divisiveness. In other words, could the Republican Party *ever* be considered a party of "hope", inclusion and appeals to the "better angels of our nature"? (not to over sentimentalize Obama...)
November 4, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, hopefully THIS time I won't double-post my reply. . .
That said, I'm not sure that populism is quite as simple as scapegoating, but in some ways it can come close. I think that the populist vision sees the world in fundamentally moral terms, which means that people or institutions are either doing good or doing ill. Populists don't have a monopoly on this kind of essentialist thinking; many on the left approach modern capitalism or the conduct of American foreign policy in the same way. In fact there are many similarities between populism and the far left -- not surprising since, in its original form, populism was a movement of the left. The difference is that populists restrict their scorn for capitalism to what they see as manipulative big business and then include government and labor in the same category. And city life, and secularism, and anything else that alienates modern life from the 'reality' of the people.
That said, I don't doubt the ability of any political party to transform itself -- I just doubt it could happen very quickly. The electoral map in 1896 was almost the reverse of what will likely be today's; fitting, since that election pitted a populist Democrat against a (proto-)progressive Republican. And it would have been inconceivable a few generations ago that the Democratic Party would be the party of tolerance and inclusion.
I hope that Republicans will listen to their better angels. Many do, including at least one in this very thread. I just don't think there will be enough of them to save their party for some time to come.
November 4, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is ... we are all everyman. Even me. And, although I consider myself to be slightly higher than average in intelligence, I know I am not competent to run this country. The same goes for a hockey mom or plumber. Neither are qualified to run this country.
Genuine leaders are not average people.
I have never understood making someone president because you'd drink a beer with them. We've all seen where that leads us. A crashed ecomony and worse.
I guess what it boils down to is ... I want my leader to understand the issues people face but he or she must have the brains to implement the solutions. Otherwise, we all just spin down the drain together. And if we do that, what good was the damn beer? The logic simply escapes me ...
November 4, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quite true. The people with which I drink beer would be some of the last people I would want as a President. I am also sure that they would not want me as President either. I want someone that is a great deal more intelligent than I and who can lay claim to leadership skills far above average.
November 4, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure this is the destination of the republican party as it rises from the ashes of defeat today. We already see a split in the party along ideological lines - Nixon and earlier/Reagan and later - that could dramatically change the GOP in coming years.
I think Palin will be a footnote and not an ongoing subplot to the story of republican rebirth. An ascendant democratic party is sure to drive more moderate dems and independents toward more centrist solutions. We have seen this overreach before as the pendulum makes its ponderous swing across the American political spectrum.
I think what moderate democrats and republicans and independents should work for is a rebirth of the party in the image of Teddy and Abe. We should look to Ike for inspiration or even Nixon on his good days. It is not a forgone conclusion that the GOP of the last 30 years is the one that will emerge from this drubbing.
Neoconservatism dies a much-deserved death today, making way for a more classically conservative opposition party to lend a bit of nuance and stability to the coming progressive revolution America is embarking on.
At least, that is this republican's goal. I can't speak for the David Brooks and Bill Kristols of the world, who are obviously still blinded by their bankrupt ideology based on their two most recent columns.
November 4, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you for whatever you can do to renew your party. And thanks for your words here.
November 4, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, Thera!
I joined the republican party this past August as a statement that one must choose sides in a two-party system to make a difference. It was my stubborn cussedness that had me join the party on its way down, but it is really more in keeping with the idea that we must transform all of our political institutions from the inside out.
I have been called worse things in my life than a republican! :O)
November 4, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, but I doubt it. Some of the folks that I've spoken with that follow such matters way to closely viewed the Congressional election of '06 as a license to purge the moderates. "Conservatives" (and by this I mean knuckledraggers along the lines of Michelle Bachmann [sic?] ) were re-elected. The response to this is, therefore, to propose more conservative house candidates.
Good luck with the rebuild. In order for it to really be successful, you're going to have to overcome a substantial group that believes that the problem was that they just didn't hate enough. It's gonna take about a decade.
November 4, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're a credit to your party, and I sincerely hope you're right. I'm a progressive and a Democrat but I've said before (and will say again) that politics works better with two strong parties that present clear contrasts but share enough common interests to make real compromise possible.
With that in mind, as much as I love TPM and all of the other progressive blogs in the series of tubes, I'm really fascinated by the conversation ongoing amongst moderate and 'reform' conservatives -- Rod Dreher, Ross Douthat, Daniel Larison, the folks at Culture11, even David Frum. For all of the defeats in the offing I think it is, intellectually, a great time to be a young Republican. Seriously. For all that they would later do wrong, conservative thinkers of the 1940s and early 1950s, when the movement was arguably at its lowest ebb, became the founders of a re-energized and extremely successful intellectual and ideological movement.
It's been perverted in many ways in the decades since, and it might zombie onward for another couple of election cycles. But whatever replaces it, whatever new Republican Party emerges, now is the vital time of its formation.
November 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sort of why I joined the party despite my progressive leanings. If enough reasonable and forward-thinking "conservatives" (whatever the hell that means anymore) can begin working from within, then perhaps things can be different. With only 11 percent turnout in primary elections, it wouldn't take much to dramatically change the face of the republican party.
November 4, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe the Plumber represents the quintessential Republican idea of heroism, someone who whines about taxes.
Palin is as dimwitted s they come as was amply demonstrated in her 6 minute phone call from the Canadian duo pretending to be Sarkozy. They literally ran out of clues they weren't the French president and had to tell her it was a joke.
I would agree with Krugman that the Republican Party will continue to be dominated by its ignorant, intolerant and delusional 'base'.
November 4, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The joe the plumber rhetoric works with Joe, and many like him, because we'd all like to believe we'll be wealthy one day. It's the republican way of selling hope. It's the same hope that keeps kids playing football or baseball, or any sport in the hopes they'll make the pros. And it keeps many of us watching sports, reliving those hopes and glory memories. It feeds the ego, rather than the heart.
Some of us wake up, and take a realistic look at our lives and what we can truly do to help our fellow citizens and the world.
"Of course, McCain's platform -- and McCain himself -- is decidedly not populist, but Sarah Palin represents a possibility for 2012." Yes, she is, and she's certainly not a patrician. What remains to be seen is whether or not her perception in the public sphere can be changed and whether or not she has it in her. She had nearly no time to prepare for this, and she wasn't vetted.
It would have taken me major performance enhancers and doping to make me Lance Armstrong, and probably would have cut 10-15 years off of my life. I knew that, and chose a conventional career instead of racing. I don't have the genes for it. The question with Palin is whether or not she has the gravitas and intelligence to pull it off; the time is now there.
But based on what I've seen, she doesn't have the DNA for it. And if asked, she might say she's glad, because she doesn't want anything to do with those democrats. She's an RNA girl.
November 4, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would love to see the independent who lost the governor's race challenge her in Alaska's primary. He is super smart and seems progressive, at least from what I saw in their debates, and a former republican state senator. Exactly the type republicans need to compete for positions of power in the party. Like Patrick Mara here in DC, who was the first republican I ever voted for today, even as I cast my ballot for Barack.
November 4, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink