Progressive Populism, or Nativist Populism


Populism can go nasty nativist, or it can go progressive. But there /is/ going to be a middle and working class backlash in the US. It is going to be driven by paycheck issues. And if our side (as represented by all the bloody neoliberals) don't get off their asses and stop saying bullshit about globalization being good for ordinary people, right wing populists will ride the wave instead of us. People like Lou Dobbs (who is a genuine populist) and Buchannan will pick this is up and run with it, and the rage and pain will focus thorugh them, and on their solutions.

Krugman gets this - he has stated that if the US cannot turn around things so that BS like Delphi (cutting wages by a third to a half) doesn't happen regularly, then workers are absolutely justified in demanding the end of globalization. If the response of neoliberals is “well, this is what happens in a globalized world” then workers have a right to say “to hell with globalization then!” The less bright neoliberals don't seem to get it - people are getting screwed hard, and at some point, and it isn’t that far out, they are going to elect people who promise to do something about that.

That can be Democrats - with a real progressive agenda, including health care, progressive taxation and cracking down on international financial flows (not trade, finance flows) or it can be crude and nasty protectionism and nativism.

A country's first job is to look after its own citizens. If it isn't, it doesn't have a right to exist. If liberals don't want backlash against immigrants and against free trade, they'd better figure out how to give people another solution. Because if the choice is "education" (which we don't do, we just talk about, but it wouldn't work even if we did it and everyone knows it) or slamming America’s doors shut, the choice will be the latter.


Ian Welsh October 20, 2006 - 10:17am

are you tired of continually having to bend over while getting that large shaft from the effects of globalization?
Well, we can't claim to make globalization go away but at least the globalization grease might easy that pain!

Lasthorseman October 20, 2006 - 11:47am

I have tried to float the argument that the people who benefit from globalization ought to - at least in part - compensate those who are hurt by it. People to my political right keep chanting "free trade .. free trade" like the religious mantra that it is, while people to the left change the subject "less bread, more condoms."

Now, I am all for condoms. And I occasionally am led to believe that thw world really would be better off if they were more available. But occasionally I like to take a break and eat.

I agree that there will be a point when the vast majority of people in the bottom 80% of the income brackets will wake up and realize that the country was sold a bill of goods with globalization.

I happen to believe that it could have been much less bad than it has turned out to be had several things been profoundly different. The first we already alluded to - protections for those hurt by the policies. Differential taxes on returns to certain kinds of overseas investments might have played a roll. And taxes on imported goods made under unfavorable worker conditions. Revenues from these taxes could then have been used to support outsourced workers and to develop competitive industries. America seems to be the only country in the world where the only local industry that gets any preferential treatment is the Arms industry. And ironically, if one had to choose an industry with the lowest internal rate of return, to society, it would be hard to choose one that is worse.

I also agree that the issue is a basic fairness issue and as such it is an issue that naturally belongs to progressives. It is so incredibly phoney to argue that doing the right thing here will make America uncompetitive. France does it; and they have the highest GNP per person-hour worked. To the extent that the US per capita income is higher it is because Americans work more hours. Nor does pointing to unemployment help. France may have an unemployment rate of 10% but America's unemployment rate far exceeds the official 5%. A recent NYT article suggests that when one counts all the middle-aged white males who have simply given up, the rate is more like 12.7%.

Americans have sold everything they value - democracy, jobs, financial security - for 25% lower prices on stuff they will be trying to get rid of at the next garage sale. Its funny, its pathetic, and it makes me very angry.

mtspace October 20, 2006 - 4:02pm

The logic of globalization has been this - if you or someone you cared about wasn't the person to lose their job, you were better off as a result of globalization. And odds were high that you specifically wouldn't be that person.

But as price decreases driven by labor and taxation arbitrage start to end, and as the wage losses and job losses spread, that equation is looking more and more dubious.

Ian Welsh October 20, 2006 - 4:37pm

I'd lean heavily on Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs for my immigration/border control plan. The two main issues I disagree with a lot of so called liberals and Democrats on is our crazy border and exodus of illegals into our country, and public education, which I don't support either.

Nominay October 20, 2006 - 11:19pm
canuck October 21, 2006 - 9:33am

Education is the only path out of slavery. If you do not wish slaves to come into existence, you have to educate everyone. Doing it well is important -- public education could use a lot of reform in many places -- but abolishing universal public education will make everyone's life measurably worse.

lpetrazickis October 23, 2006 - 10:34am

you make it virtually certain that different groups of your population will grow up accepting different information as "fact". That's not working out so well.

Escher Sketch October 23, 2006 - 12:13pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.