Populism?

The campaigns of Sanders and Trump has led the mainstream media (msm) to a frequent use of the term "populism" to describe them--they are the "populist" candidates. But true to form, the msm are good at injecting a new idea into the media mix, but they do little to inform the audience as to the meaning of "populism." So we will give it a try.

The early moments of populism was experienced through the People's Party at the end of the nineteenth century and found expression in the twentieth century in different bases of discontent shared by different groups. Throughout the twentieth century, populist rhetoric and movements have embraced an array of moral and political crusades, beginning early in the century with the prohibitionists' war against alcohol and closed out the century with the religious Right's attacks on the amoral elites, who, it was claimed, were undermining the core values of the majority. The targets of populist attacks are superficially the same: entrenched irresponsible elites. But for the early leftist populists, elite targets were symbolized by "fat cat" and "plutocrat" labels, whereas for contemporary rightist populists, evil is represented by "cultural elites," as represented in Hollywood, the media, and governmental elites who administer the growing bureaucratic state.

The most recent examples of populism in presidential campaigns  may be found in the efforts by Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Pat Buchanan who managed to attack immigration, trade agreements like NAFTA, and groups like the national Association of Manufacturers and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. They were not treated kindly by the corporate media. Ralph Nader was dismissed as unrealistic, and Perot and Buchanan were presented as "traitors" to the interests of the privileged class that was embedded in the corporate and political worlds. Perot was given the persona of a quirky, eccentric millionaire who had nothing better to do with his time and money, while Buchanan was vilified as a crypto-racist, anti-Semite, and general all-around loose cannon. The media did little to recognize the role of economic change in these populist moments.

Populist rhetoric has been used by labor organizations, social movement leaders, and mainstream politicians to shape and mobilize public discontent. In its classic form, populist messages seek to simultaneously elevate the masses and attack the privileged for their undeserved rewards. But the rhetoric of economic grievances and the defense of small farmers, wage earners, and small business owners were usually not aimed at the overthrow of capitalism, but called for a fair share of the fruits of workers' productive labor. As a noted historian of populist movements Michael Kazin has stated: "Early populist critiques of American society attempted to build new bonds among people by returning to the core beliefs of the new American nation--rule by the people, reward for hard work and diligence, and faith in God." 

As history illustrates, the American populist tradition has been both a powerful and ambivalent instrument for reform. Many real or aspiring leaders have picked up the populist instrument hoping to play a tune powerful enough to stir the sleeping masses into sweeping away corrupt elites. The power of that tradition rests in its roots in the early American experience, stressing the dignity of the common man and a rejection of the "foreign" influences of aristocracy and elitism. The ambivalence associated with the populist tradition stems from its majoritarian beliefs, reflected in its support for direct participatory democracy. The majoritarian emphasis does not sit well with members of religious or ethnic groups that are numerically small and therefore feel that their interests will be ignored by the usually white and Christian majority. The majoritarian emphasis also does not sit well with "privileged leftists" who support populist ideology but whose education and credentialed-class privileges make them wary of "marching with the people."

Free Hard Drugs

In the spirit of the new openness on "soft" drugs and the Colorado experiment, we would like to revive an old proposal we once made about hard drugs. Since the attempt to fight the "war on drugs" on the supply side has not worked, we propose to make hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, or whatever, to be made available free to all users. There would be Federally funded and operated drug centers where any user could obtain as much of a drug as they wish with no time limit. The objective of the plan is to make it very clear to users that they can speed up their most certain deaths with little or no collateral damage. This should result in a decline in most anti-social behavior that is used to support a drug habit (e.g. theft, robbery) and the life style of an addict will not be hampered. The creation of Drug Centers in most large cities would be a job creator for the operation of clinics and would cost fewer tax dollars than are currently spent on the war on drugs. 

Update 1/29/18: It has been a long while since posting this item and during that time the "opioid crisis" has taken over the drug crisis-centered news. Estimates of "opioid addiction" in 2016 indicate that there are 11 million "addicts" (compared to 1 million heroin users). This estimate of opioid addicts far exceeds the estimated number of persons with medical conditions that cause great pain. This suggests that opioid users/addicts are choosing to use the drug when they no longer have a medical condition that requires the pain amelioration drug. So, the bottom line for this post is to welcome the opioid addicts to our government-sponsored drug clinic where they may obtain opioids in amounts sufficient to speed up their most certain deaths. Therefore, our proposal of free drugs until "death do us part" remains in place.  

War Drums and Defense Budget

This post is an early-warning feeling, but we can't shake it and so we say it. It appears to us that an increasing number of political types, in and out of Congress  and the Presidential races, are sounding more bellicose in their statements about potential threats to the U.S. from other nations. The media appear to be featuring stories about possible threats from North Korea associated with claims about their nuclear developments, and the U.S.-Iran agreement on nuclear weapons. (Admission to the Nuclear Club is a very sensitive matter.) And what about those tiny islands in the South China Sea?The media are also doing high-profile stories on Russia and the evil Putin that have the strong odor of the old Cold War days. The latest concern, coming from one of the Congressional Super Hawks, is about the hidden danger of increased cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in areas related to space exploration and the hardware used for such explorations.


Our feelings may be nothing more than the Hawks and their media allies running out of threatening scenarios so they have to do the best with what they have. However, we suspect that it may be a "pre-emptive" strike against the possibility that the current attempts to awaken Americans about our economic problems may lead to efforts to make cuts in a $600 billion defense budget.

Left-Right Attacks

We have long ago concluded that extreme right-wing, left-wing attacks on each other have little to do with what is in the best interest of most Americans in the lower segment of the income distribution. These attacks have only one purpose--to dislodge the opposition and take control of a political office, an administration, or any other political unit that is in a position to distribute "goodies." The goodies mean different things to different people. For some, they are emotional feelings associated with being part of a group that is in charge (an X or Y administration or some Congress person). For others, the goodies may mean an appointment in a local, state, or federal agency. And for the "big hitters" the goodies are lucrative government contracts, with some of the money being returned to the official or the party in the form of contributions.


So, extreme left-right partisan attacks are mostly emotional nonsense for the large majority of the partisans, while those who will belly-up to the bar for the politically-linked dollar benefits sit in the background and wait for their goodies.


The only genuine critiques of this form of "cronyism" are found in the Tea Party and Occupy Movements. The former are more organized than the latter, but what they have in common is a critique of the current political system, although they often have different targets. Moreover, they have been led to believe that they have reason to fear and hate each other. What they also have in common is that they are manipulated by segments of the national political parties (Republicans and Democrats) that use them for their own purposes. But as we have predicted elsewhere, the TP and OM will one day join together. Why? They are unified in their opposition to defense spending, to business as usual when it comes to spending tax dollars, and they agree on the need for term limits. That is a good basis for a unified movement, assuming that they can smell the "bullshit" associated with most "social issues."


So, extreme left-right ideologues are "whistling past the graveyard" because they have little to offer the bottom 50-80 percent of Americans who sit on the sidelines while nothing happens to benefit them--except for the promise of a $12 an hour minimum wage, a path to citizenship, or federal social welfare benefits---which will keep them in the same places they currently occupy.

Class and Immigration

The United States should welcome immigrants from the Middle East who are fleeing war-torn regions or political persecution. This should be done with appropriate vetting of the claims of asylum seekers. But the issue is not whether to accept them but where they should be located after their arrival. The best locations should be where they might have the most supportive communities. Thus, they should be located in communities adjoining elite colleges and universities, and in the high income communities in cities like Washington DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

Academe: Then and Now

CONTEXT:
                    A Purdue University faculty member was criticized in the local newspaper for his "radical" political views. The then President of the university, Frederick L. Hovde, made a public statement about "academic freedom" that prompted my letter to the President.






















President Frederick L. Hovde
Office of the President
Executive Building
Campus       
                                                                                     May 7, 1966




Dear President Hovde:


  
      Your recent statement on the importance of academic freedom of expression in the university made me proud to be a member of this academic community. Your views contained the elements of a philosophy which is essential for the growth and maintenance of a great university. I sense a renewed spirit and strength among my colleagues in having heard you express something publicly which they so firmly believe in as academics.



  I would also like to take this opportunity to express my strong disagreement with a view you expressed at a recent faculty convocation. You stated, as I remember, that "the professional schools are the heart of the university." I know that this view is shared by many who see the decline of the liberal arts college which cannot  compete with the professional schools financed by Federal, corporation, and foundation money. And I see no necessary reason to lament the passing of the liberal arts college, for the changing world has put science and specialized education at the center of the university. What I take issue with is that the professional schools are so heavily tied and connected to the production of specialists for consumption by business and government. What disappears in this atmosphere is the humanism of independent scholars in both the liberal arts and the professions.     




    The heart of any university is to be found in the strength of the spirit of free inquiry among a community of scholars. While such a spirit is not tied to any particular school or college in a university, it has traditionally been found to flourish best in the liberal-humanistic studies.




    I hope that you will have some occasion in the future to present your views on the meaning of education and the university in American society. The faculty, students, and community would prosper by having the opportunity to hear you speak.


         
Sincerely,


                Robert Perrucci,  Associate Professor of Sociology

Identity or Biology?

The re-appearance in the news of Elizabeth Warren as a possible Presidential candidate has led me to uncover an old message that I sent to colleagues. It was written on May 26, 2012.


After reading today's Journal and Courier story about Liz Warren's struggle with her identity or biology (she just discovered she was 1/36 American Indian) I was reminded of a long-standing question from my youth. I had a observed as a young ethno-demographer that almost all the Italians I knew had much darker skin than anyone else except neighborhood Negroes (the term used in my youth). In fact, I had darker skin than one of my Negro friends, Junior Emerson. As I matured and read more widely (the New York Daily News not the NYT) I discovered that almost all Southern Italians were darker than those from the Florence area. How could that be? Was Sicily closer to the sun? Were Sicilians or Barese (that's my family, from Bari) too poor to afford sun screen
and sun hats? No, the question required a deeper understanding.


It wasn't until my college days and my first course in biology when I learned of Mendel and theories of plant genetics and its link to human genetics. The plot thickened when I took a medieval history course and learned about the Mameluke people from North Africa. Yipes! In my neighborhood we called kids we thought were dummies "mamelukes." How can that be? Later in the history course I read about a Sultan named Mingooch. Holy cow! May father's nickname was Mingooch. What the hell is going on?


If Liz Warren has identity with out biology, I have biology without identity, and I am totally confused. Am I really African American (1/36)? Could I have gone to Harvard instead of Cortland State? Has my career at Purdue been limited by the missed opportunities enjoyed by Warren? Should I tell my kids that they may be descendants of Sultan Mingooch? Would that do them any good?


I am also saddened by the fact that I may have unintentionally misled my friends, who have white identity and may start to think of me in a new way. I think that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Liz Warren for coming out and telling the world that she was the first Native American at Harvard. Who knows, Purdue may have to acknowledge that I was the first African American to get a PhD in sociology from Purdue, and my life will be used to counteract the bad publicity from the Higginbotham years.