|
Post by bubbamn on Oct 17, 2007 19:09:29 GMT -6
Here's a proposal, how about a Populist Topic on the Populist Forum?
Conservatism has failed, liberalism hasn't the courage to try so perhaps it is time for a new approach in America. Populism is probably the only political philosophy which originated in America and it's time we tried it at the national level.
Instead of ceding the country to the Country Club set, China or to the special interests, Populism rests on the people --- the broad middle and working class --- reasserting itself.
A Populist America would:
--- reform taxes with fairness in mind, no more tax cuts for the rich, and perhaps a tax cut for working people --- fight wars if in the National interest but not to spread democracy or pad Halliburton's profits --- share the wealth: private property is a "good" let's enable everyone to have a little of it --- avoid hyphenating Americans, we're all in this together, and if we live here we're "Americans" first --- provide healthcare for children (we already provide healthcare for the elderly, let's extend our care for the kids) --- throw all of the rascals out! Let's remove every politician from office and start over again: only those who have not held office may be elected
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Oct 18, 2007 4:09:27 GMT -6
Sounds good to me. Populism spans party lines and does not fit into the mainstream left and right labels. True conservatives and some libertarians share much common ground with moderate and labor democrats on most of these issues. I say let the loony lefties and neo-CONS and religious whack jobs break off into the democratic and republican parties respectively and form a new populism party making a coalition of the disaffected folks mentioned above.
I would add fair trade and some speed bumps in the race to the bottom to the list. Also illegal immigration enforcement and border security - these are two key pieces of the populist movement. Fiscal responsibility as well - no more ear marks and pet projects and "pay as you go" rather than "borrow and spend"
Removing career politicians is no minor point - the founders intended for the people to be represented by citizen public servants - not puppets of special interests. I like the "throw the bums out" lets keep doing it till they start to get it right
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 19, 2007 4:16:18 GMT -6
Blueneck,
I completely agree with that. There is nothing I can add to it.
I'm in favor of some really big speed bumps regarding trade.
I think you've described the view of an overwhelming number of Americans. It seems like many Republicans are ready to jump ship regarding the unrestricted free trade and Corporate welfare programs favored by the NeoCon wing of their party.
If voters would start voting on issues, instead of party, we could take back the government. Most people of the rank-and-file of both parties now oppose unrestricted free trade and illegal immigration. Few of either party support further tax cuts for the top 1-2%. Few support a phony-bailout of defaulting home buyers. Many see this as a bailout of crooked banks and investors. Others see this as a bail-out of people who made inexcusably poor decisions--and should not be bailed out as a result. The majorities in both parties want an end to Corporate welfare.
Though there are differing opinions on social issues, many are realize these are not the major issues of the day. Many realize social issues are best addressed by families and private individuals. Meanwhile, many are starting to understand the dire economic straits we are in, and are willing to put economics above social issues.
There are far more grounds for agreement than disagreement, once party affiliation/loyalties are removed.
We definitely need a Populist Party. Currently existing 3rd parties, like the Reform Party or the American Independent Party are possibilities. There is even a Populist Party that has a very "Populist" platform. Unfortunately, these parties are not recognized in many states.
I very much like the positions of the Populist Party of California and the Reform Party. Unfortunately, neither party has enough membership in California to appear on the ballot-- though they do in other states.
We need a 3rd Party-- a populist-oriented party as you've described.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Oct 21, 2007 5:01:53 GMT -6
I am wondering if this topic should be bumped up to the 3rd party section?
|
|
|
Post by bubbamn on Dec 18, 2007 16:27:14 GMT -6
No, let's not bounce this to the Third Parties section.
Although many topics here at the forum are populist in orientation, there is no single section devoted to talking about "Populism" as a viewpoint or philosophy (if you prefer, "ideology"). When I first suggested this topic this is what I had in mind.
To a greater or lesser extent, there are philosophical stances which are "conservative" or "liberal" or "socialist", populism as a coherent approach lacks definition. Yet I think we can identify certain principles which are uniquely populist which are the basis of a populist philosophy.
Here are several, and I don't claim to have cornered the market,:
1) Populism seeks government by the people, public participation is to be encouraged not just democratic rhetoric but democracy in action. Populists would look with favor upon initiatives, recalls, referenda and the like. Furthermore, perhaps we could begin at the local level to elect by lot. Election by lot would be a way of selecting city council members or county commissioners the way we select juries, random selection of any citizen on the voting rolls who would then serve for a limited period of time. No elections to the highest bidder and greater participation of the widest possible number of people.
2) Populism is opposed to the concentration of property ownership in government or in the corporate elite. Private property is a "good" but it is such a good that everyone should have some of it.
3) Preservation of a variety of values: family, faith, community, thrift, work.... without subordinating these values either to the State or to the Market, both of which are, if uncontrolled, destructive of our common values.
Well, there are the first 3 of what I anticipate could be a considerable list of Populist principles.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 19, 2007 4:47:49 GMT -6
In general, I'd say that populism focuses on what's in the best interests of the people as a whole, and in the best interests of the largest number of people. It might even be construed as what is in the best interests of the aggregate, or sum total of Americans.
For example, unrestricted free trade is in the best interests of only the richest few, at the expense of the many. The benefits of the labor cost savings of replacing American workers with foreign workers are split between profits for the multinational Corporate elite, and American consumers. But the income loss from outsourcing is born exclusively by American workers and the American middle class. The aggregate price reductions are far less than the aggregate wage loss that occurs from outsourcing. As a result, increased free trade and outsourcing is anti-populist, pro-Corporatist, and pro-plutocracy.
Exactly the same thing is true about illegal immigration. Increasing the supply of labor to American companies through illegal immigration increases the labor supply, reduces wages, and reduces production costs. But only a fraction of the production cost savings are passed on to American consumers. But the ENTIRE aggregate American labor income loss is born by American worker-consumers. Once again, the aggregate American citizen wage loss is far greater than the aggregate price reduction. Thus, pro-amnesty & open borders advocacy is anti-populist, pro-Corporate, and pro-plutocracy. Those at the top benefit, while everyone else pays the price.
Those advocating open boarders, amnesty, or "earned amnesty" are not serving the cause of populism, or the American people as a whole. They are serving the interests of the rich and Corporate elite. They are serving the interests of those who want to drive American wages downward--to increase the profit margins of those at the top.
Immigration and Free Trade are just 2 examples of major Populist Economic issues.
In my opinion, the Presidential candidate who would best serve the cause of populism is Ron Paul. Despite his campaign rhetoric that might suggest some advocacy of free trade, Paul has voted 100% against free trade agreements.
Paul's critics often cite his "I'm for free trade" statements as evidence that he's a free-trader. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Again, his voting record confirms this. Furthermore, Paul also repeatedly stresses adherence to the Constitution, and the Constitutional obligation of Congress to regulate trade. This includes Congress's right to put tariffs on the goods of any foreign country, if it serves the best interests of the American people. Last but not least, Paul favors withdrawal from the WTO and NAFTA, and has sponsored bills for such withdrawal.
|
|