White Collar Populism

White Collar Populism

By Andrei Cherny

(Posted on TPMCafe.com, May 3, 2006)

Hostile Takeover

By David Sirota

In 1992, Donald Barlett and James Steele's America: What Went Wrong was a surprise sensation. A compilation of a series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, it became a bestseller. Running for President, Bill Clinton held the book up at rallies and said it was "must reading for any student of politics, ethics, or business -- and it holds important lessons for politicians and voters alike." In fact, late in his second term, Clinton would say in speeches that the journey of his presidency was that from the book's title to "America: What Went Right?" Grounded in hard facts and a sense of moral outrage, the book crystallized for many why change was needed.

If Democrats do well this November, it is entirely possible that David Sirota's Hostile Takeover will be seen as the America: What Went Wrong of 2006.

The differences between the two books are telling. First is their tone. America: What Went Wrong was written straight and dry. David Sirota's rhetoric is, to put it mildly, heated (which writing this post from my home in Phoenix on a 100 degree day is a topic I know something about). This is perhaps less a commentary on Sirota than on the political moment where he has thrived and made his name - one where both party's activists see demonization as their daily contributions to the Lord's work.

The second telling difference between the two books is their subjects. America: What Went Wrong was about the fear of economic decline; about a nation selling off its assets, laying off its workers, refusing to invest in its future, falling behind its competitors, and listlessly moving into an uncertain period of transformation. In short it was a perfect description of the problems with George Bush I to which Bill Clinton sold himself as the solution.

Yet those are not the issues animating passions in 2006 (though maybe they should be). Instead, this election is about the corruption of the Republican Party's principals and their principles. Hostile Takeover is primed for importance this year because it is a systematic description of that corruption and its very real costs.

Sirota is wise and honest enough to avoid falling in the partisan trap of blaming all and only Republicans for a Washington system that sells out the interests of ordinary Americans to the special interest that can afford to be the highest bidder. At a time that Democrat leaders and activists seek salvation in party unity and many bloggers fiercely attack Democrats like Joe Lieberman for occasionally criticizing others in his party, Sirota feels no compunction in gleefully going after fellow Democrats.

Maybe that's because he sees himself as more a populist than a Democrat. In Hostile Takeover and other writings, Sirota has laid out the case for why a hard-hitting populism is the right reaction to the Bush conservatives.

In certain circles, populism has acquired a bad name. It is seen as anachronistic - and bad politics as well. In fact, as Ruy Teixeira points out, just last week the DLC-associated Progressive Policy Institute put out a paper called "The Trouble With Class-Interest Populism" where they criticize a populism built on "an outdated concept of workers' interests - a holdover from the New Deal-to-Great Society era, when a large blue-collar class was fighting for a fair share of the industrial economy's rewards." But the fact is that every successful Democratic campaign of the last century (including Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and Bill Clinton in 1992) was built on a populist - us against them - appeal. It all depends on the kind of populism.

The DLC is right (hold your fire!) when they say that the blue collar populism they describe is outdated. But that's not the populism that animates Hostile Takeover. What Sirota is writing about is what we might call "white collar populism" - a populism for people who relate more to the evils of Bill Lumbergh in the movie "Office Space" than the stern taskmaster on the factory floor. Sirota begins the book describing how he was shafted by an airline on his way home with his wife. His is a populism for the service economy - for an America that works in cubicles and is sick of arguing with the "customer service representative." Despite what Teixeira implies, Sirota does not pitch his populism at government beneficiaries, but at corporate customers. And while Teixeira is right that people aspire for better, they're still frustrated with what they're stuck with for now.

When populism has worked in the past, it has had two features that make it different from the populism that fails. One feature is of the most successful populist appeals - and, overall, Sirota nails this - is that they are uttered through a moral voice. "Values-oriented populism" says America is divided not by rich vs. poor or (with great, great respect for my former boss) the people vs. the powerful but by those who are doing right vs. those who are doing wrong; the moral vs. the immoral. The most powerful parts of Hostile Takeover are those where Sirota eschews broad stroke corporate-bashing and instead tells specific stories of corporate-wrongdoing: buying special favors, polluting the environment, mistreating their workers while giving top executives unconscionable bonuses.

If one feature of successful populist appeals is that they are "values-oriented," the other is that they are "future-oriented." This means they draw a bright line between those standing on the side of building a brighter tomorrow and those defending the ways of the past. Think of how Clinton ran against both Bush and Dole and the tired ideologies they represented. It is on this count that Sirota's brand of populism falls short.

Because one of the things "future-oriented populism" allows you to do is bridge between populism and progressivism. That Sirota sees himself as the former and not the latter is important. Because while there is much that is noble in the populist tradition, it is one that does not put much emphasis on problem-solving. Populists point out where things have gone off course, progressives channel anger into action. This is not to say that Sirota's book does not propose answers - it is full of important, and often innovative, policy proposals that Democrats would be wise to pay attention to. But what Sirota and other populists tend to do is look at the current state of affairs and point out how to fix the places it is broken. Progressives, at their best, look to what is coming and want to build a new order. The fact is, however, that populism comes before progress and so for that reason, if no other, the appearance of Hostile Takeover is one we should welcome.