Friday, December 23, 2016

Trump and the Populists – Historical Parallels and Opportunities for the Modern Left

As progressive folks continue to despair at the election of Trump, it’s important to put his upset victory over Clinton into historical context. Ironically, Trump’s win reflects a particular cycle in American history that can be characterized as “reform moments,” or historical eras when social movements arose in response to the excesses of capitalism to demand government action to rectify or compensate for market failures. The Trump presidency may in hindsight be viewed as an echo of this cycle, and represents an opportunity for progressives to shape the forthcoming reform moment.

Prior reform cycles in American history include the Populists (1890-1912), the Progressives (1912-1938) and the New Deal (1938-1945). Of these cycles, the one most similar to now is the collection of social movements and political campaigns broadly referred to as the Populist movement of the late 19th century. Driven largely by farmers in the mid-West and South, Populism was an agrarian revolt against the emerging corporate state of the gilded age and its creed of progress, and had the following characteristics similar to Trump’s campaign for the President:
1.       Economic crisis as antecedent
2.       Conspiracy as diagnosis (with racist overtones)
3.       Nostalgia as solution (through the exercise of state power)

Economic Crises as Antecedent
The period after the Civil War was marked by the expansion of industrialization, the creation of a national market, and the commercialization of the agriculture sector. Most farmers did enjoy a higher standard of living as a result of these changes, but often at the price of becoming heavily indebted to bankers, and farmers soon lost income and livelihood to the vagaries of the natural business cycle. This despondency reached its peak with the silver panic of 1893 when a crash in wheat prices led to a run on gold and then collapse of the financial sector. Thousands of businesses and banks closed, with upwards of 20% unemployment nationwide, and a significant number of farm and home foreclosures (Hicks 1988).

One need not look too hard to see the parallels with the Great Recession of 2008 when an overextended credit market combined with malfeasance led to another collapse of the financial system, followed by 10% unemployment, millions of home foreclosures, and a general downgrade in the standard of living for those most vulnerable to a credit crunch.

Conspiracy as Diagnosis
For those most directly affected by the economic crises of the late 19th century, the reason for the crises was a conspiracy of monied interests (railroads, banks, and trusts) over the common man, leading to “a struggle between the robbers and the robbed.” An unfortunate and often overlooked aspect (Hofstadter 1988) of the Populist’s conspiracy theory was an overtone of anti-Semitism, with many allusions to “greedy Jews” determined to take away the hard-earned income of a struggling working class.

For the downtrodden of today, it is a conspiracy of East-coast elites and the media shoving trade pacts, open borders, and other neoliberal policies down the throats of those least able to withstand the negative effects of globalization. The apparent threat posed by immigrants gives the current conspiracy theory its racist overtones, as displayed in both Trump’s claim of Mexican rapists overwhelming the border or the explicit endorsement of his presidency by white supremacists.  

Nostalgia as Solution
The Populists were generally not looking to the future, but to a past that seemed to be fading away, an agrarian utopia founded on Jefferson’s myth of the moral superiority of the yeoman, and a value system that saw commercialism as a polluting influence on civic society. To get back to this idyllic past, the Populists called for an expansion of government powers to protect the right of laborers to organize, to mandate an 8-hour workday, and to restrict immigration. Populists also called for the adoption of a progressive income tax, initiative and referendum mechanisms, direct election of senators, term limits on the President, and abolishing corporate subsidies.

Trump’s frequent promises to “bring the jobs back” by withdrawing from trade pacts, brow-beating corporations, and other protectionist and anti-market policies are driven by nostalgia for a time after the second world war when most anyone without a college degree could secure nearly lifetime employment in the manufacturing sector, providing a comfortable if not prosperous standard of living. It is believed this “manufacturing utopia” can be brought back through state power to restrict immigration and otherwise disengage from the global marketplace.

The Populists Legacy and Looking Ahead
Though the Populists did not succeed as an independent political force, many of the reforms that originated with them were later enacted, taming some of the excesses of the gilded age. More importantly, the Populists laid the groundwork of a “movement culture” (Goodwyn 1988) that later-day activists across the ideological spectrum would build upon to push for political and social change. On the flip side, the racist parallels between the Populists and the Trump campaign demonstrates that there is still work to be done to overcome structural racism.

The take-home message for progressives today is that all is not bleak. The grievances that propelled Trump to the presidency are real, and even if his proposed solutions are mostly counter-intuitive to progressives, there is an opportunity here to harness these grievances to push for sustainable and effective change that will serve to correct the current imbalances in the system. And as recently pointed out elsewhere, the fight for racial justice can and should be considered a compatible goal with economic and political reforms.

References:
Goodwyn L. “Populism: Democratic Promise.” Conflicts and Consensus in Modern American History. Ed Davis A and Woodman H. 7th edition. DC Heath and Company, 1988. Lexington, MA

Hicks J. “The Farmer’s Grievances.” Conflicts and Consensus in Modern American History. Ed Davis A and Woodman H. 7th edition. DC Heath and Company, 1988. Lexington, MA.

Hofstadter R. “Populism: Nostalgic Agrarianism.” Conflicts and Consensus in Modern American History. Ed Davis A and Woodman H. 7th edition. DC Heath and Company, 1988. Lexington, MA.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

The 3 pillars of the duopoly

After another painful presidential election when voters were given a choice between two shades of the same oligarchy, it's time to revisit what reforms need to happen to dismantle the duopoly and give voters more choices at the polls and more possibilities for our system to better represent its citizens.

After looking through my prior posts regarding softball and hardball solutions, these 3 reforms I believe are the key ones that need to happen:

1. Declare that money is not speech and that corporations are not people. 
This is definitely a hardball solution as it will require amending the constitution. Thankfully, there is already a national, grass-roots organization working on this very idea. Move to Amend is doing a great job laying the groundwork that will be needed to pass an amendment because the only way it will happen is if ordinary people organize to overwhelm the oligarchy.

2. Create choice at the ballot box now
No 2 is between a hardball and softball solution in that it won't require an amendment to the constitution, but will require changes at the state level widespread enough to make a difference. There are many ways to create more choice at the ballot box now, but in my opinion, the quickest and most straight-forward is to push for ranked-choice voting, also called instant runoff voting. I'll let the experts at FairVote explain the concept. There is already movement on this issue as Maine just passed this very reform last month. One state down, 49 to go.

Some may point out that changing the electoral college should be the focus. Yes, changing the EC would create a better sense of fairness, especially as last month was the second election in recent times where the losing candidate won the popular vote. To me, changing the EC is just putting lipstick on the pig and our energy should be more focused on creating choice at the state level and that will percolate up to the EC in due time.

3. Open up ballot access for the long term
This last solution is a softball in that changes to ballot access are controlled through a myriad of state and local laws that can be changed on a local level, chipping away at the duopoly in the process. The high number of signatures required to be put on the ballot, the requirements of having a certain percentage of the vote in the previous cycle to be put automatically on the ballot for the next cycle, and other restrictions need to be fundamentally reformed or simply eliminated to open up the system to alternative parties. Signs of these reforms are sporadic at best and this one will take more time than the first 2 pillars to educate and organize.

The take home message is that stuff is already happening on knocking down these 3 core pillars of the duopoly and it re-energizes me to get back into the fight in the new year.