Is Lou Dobbs forming a Populist Party for the president?

Who is Lou Dobbs
Lou Dobbs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lou Dobbs
Born September 24, 1945 (1945-09-24) (age 62)
Childress, Texas, U.S.
Occupation CNN News Anchor
Managing editor
Website Lou Dobbs Tonight

Louis Dobbs (born September 24, 1945), is the CNN anchor and managing editor for Lou Dobbs Tonight. He is also an editorial columnist and syndicated radio show host. Lou Dobbs Tonight attracts CNN's second-largest audience after Larry King Live, with about 800,000 viewers per night. Dobbs also lectures widely.[1]

Early life

Dobbs was born in Childress, Texas, the son of a co-owner of a propane business and a bookkeeper. When Dobbs was 12, his father's propane business failed and the family moved to Rupert, Idaho.[1] He attended Minico High School in Minidoka County, serving as student body president in 1963.[2] He earned a degree in economics from Harvard University, graduating in 1967.[2]

After graduating, Dobbs worked for federal anti-poverty programs in Boston and Washington, D.C. and as a cash-management specialist for Union Bank in Los Angeles. He married his high school sweetheart in 1969 and in 1970 his first son was born. Dobbs moved to Yuma, Arizona and got a job as a police and fire reporter for KBLU-AM. By the mid-1970s he was a television anchor and reporter in Phoenix, and he later joined Seattle's KING-TV. In 1979, he was contacted by a recruiter for Ted Turner, who was in the process of forming CNN.[1]

Career

CNN

Dobbs joined CNN when it launched in 1980, serving as its chief economics correspondent and as host of the business news program Moneyline on CNN. Dobbs also served as a corporate executive for CNN, as its executive vice president and as a member of CNN's executive committee. He also founded CNN fn (CNN financial news), serving as its president and anchoring the program Business Unusual, which examined business creativity and leadership.[1]

Departure and founding of Space.com

Dobbs repeatedly clashed with Rick Kaplan, who became president of CNN in 1997. Dobbs said Kaplan, noted friend of then president Bill Clinton, was "clearly partisan" and "was pushing Clinton stories," while Kaplan said Dobbs was "a very difficult person to work with."[1]

In May 1999, CNN was covering a speech by President Clinton in Littleton, Colorado, following the Columbine High School massacre. Dobbs ordered the producer[citation needed] to cut away from the speech and return to broadcast Moneyline, feeling it was a staged event and not newsworthy. Dobbs was countermanded by Kaplan, who ordered CNN to return to the speech. Kaplan later said, "Tell me what journalistic reason there was not to cover the President at Columbine soon after the shootings? Everyone else was doing it." Dobbs announced on the air that "CNN President Rick Kaplan wants us to return to Littleton." A few days later, Dobbs announced that he was leaving the network to start Space.com, a website devoted to astronomical news.[1] Dobbs was subsequently replaced as host of Moneyline by Willow Bay and Stuart Varney.[2]

Return to CNN

Kaplan left CNN in August 2000, and Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Reporting, which later became CNN News Sunday Morning. He also regained the helm of the newly renamed Lou Dobbs Moneyline (which became Lou Dobbs Tonight in June 2003).[3]

Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and he is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News.[1]

Radio

Dobbs currently hosts the Lou Dobbs Minute on United Stations Radio Networks. He auditioned for the slot vacated by Imus in the Morning on WFAN on May 14 and May 15, 2007.

Political views

Originally fiscally conservative, Dobbs' views have changed over time, and he now describes himself as an "independent populist" critic of the "excesses of capitalism," which he identifies as globalization, offshore outsourcing, runaway film production (the outsourcing of Hollywood jobs),[4] [5] illegal immigration, free trade deals, corporate/big business influence in government and the Bush administration's tax cuts. He describes himself as an advocate of economic populism, warning that outsourcing and the U.S. trade and budget deficits threaten the American middle class. Dobbs tends to agree with economists who oppose long-run trade deficits and outsourcing for the sake of labor arbitrage to obtain cheap labor as an example of absolute advantage which does not produce mutual gain,[6] and not an example of comparative advantage which does.[7][8] China's current currency peg to the U.S. dollar would be an example of this. Lou Dobbs has featured and cited economists who share his views on trade.[9][10][11][12]

In the 2000s, Dobbs has used CNN programs and columns to express his strong personal views on several subjects. He has become particularly noted for two positions: Concerning international trade, his critics say he leans toward isolationism and is particularly wary of outsourcing and offshoring in light of the increasing U.S. trade deficit, particularly with China. On November 15, 2006, Dobbs described himself as a populist.[1][13]

Illegal immigration and border security

Dobbs is opposed to illegal immigration, amnesty for illegal aliens, abuses of the H-1B visa program and premature guest worker programs.[14][15] Along with this, he has been a critic of the Mexican government's apparent lack of willingness to change its laws to help the poor and of church leaders in Mexico for not criticising the Mexican government's policies.

He supports enforcement of U.S. borders, whether by federal or state action, or by private groups like the Minuteman Project. Dobbs has said that the United States is becoming balkanized and that many immigrants and illegal aliens are not assimilating as prior generations of immigrants did. He has been critical of demonstrations which fly the flags of other nations in the United States, stating, "I don't think that we should have any flag flying in this country except the flag of the United States", and "I don't think there should be a St. Patrick's Day. I don't care who you are. I think we ought to be celebrating what is common about this country, what we enjoy as similarities as people."

Lou Dobbs Tonight frequently features related issues under the themes "Exporting America," "Broken Borders," and "War on the Middle Class". The newscast often describes illegal immigration as an "invasion." Dobbs dismisses concern for language seen by many as excessive or misguided "political correctness" in the segment billboarded "P.C. Nation".

In his "Broken Borders" segments, Dobbs focuses primarily on the southern border with Mexico and the drugs and illegal aliens that cross it. As of the end of May 2006, some 829,109 illegal immigrants had been apprehended crossing from Mexico into the United States that year. Illegal immigrants apprehended crossing from Canada to the U.S. during that same time period are a tiny fraction of that amount - 4,066. [16] Dobbs also has lauded the Canadian government for cooperation in securing the border with their American counterparts.

In an interview with Lesley Stahl, Dobbs spoke about his meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus saying they implied that he was anti-Hispanic by asking him, "if I'd ever eaten a taco before, for God's sake".[17] Representative Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, later wrote to CBS insisting that the group did not meet with Dobbs to discuss whether he'd eaten Hispanic food, "but to respectfully recommend that he cease the negative portrayal of Hispanics...and treat the issue of immigration in a responsible manner." [18]

Dobbs has criticised local officials for taking what he considered a lax approach to border security. In October 2007 he labeled New York Governor Eliot Spitzer an "idiot" for advocating the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. [19]

Other views

Dobbs once described himself as a "lifelong Republican,"[20] but has stated that he has switched to being an unaffiliated independent populist, as he no longer openly supports any party.[21] Though he made a donation of $1,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign in January 2001, he often has described the administration of George W. Bush and the then Republican-controlled Congress as "disgraceful." At the same time he has argued that voters have very little choice under the U.S. two-party system, as both parties are controlled by big business and corporate interests, making them almost one and the same and thus do not offer real debate or policy alternatives to ordinary Americans.

Dobbs is pro-choice, anti-gun control, fiscally conservative, and supports government regulations, as revealed in a 60 Minutes interview.

Dobbs' stance on trade has earned plaudits from some trade union activists on the traditional political left, while his stance on immigration tends to appeal to the right.[1] In an interview with Larry King, Dobbs revealed that he is now "an unaffiliated independent" due to dissatisfaction with both the Republican and Democratic parties. Dobbs was a strong supporter of John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election.

Dobbs has been generally supportive of gay civil rights. In June 2006, as the U.S. Senate debated the Federal Marriage Amendment, Dobbs was critical of the action. He asserted that traditional marriage was threatened more by financial crises perpetuated by Bush administration economic policy than by gay marriage.[22]

In July 2006, Dobbs criticized U.S. foreign policy as being disproportionately supportive of Israel, pointing out the U.S.'s rapid recognition of Israel in 1948, foreign aid to Israel, and other policy choices in the past and present.[23]

Lou Dobbs is the author of War on the Middle Class, which describes what he sees as failure of the two-party system, and claims that both sides are harming the middle class. In it, he comes out strongly against the Bush tax cuts, which he argues favor the wealthy, and argues for raising the U.S. minimum wage from what was then $5.15 an hour.[24]

Controversy

Dobbs' critics, including columnist James K. Glassman of the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, have accused him of inciting xenophobia[25] Others have accused him of anti-Hispanic racism, a charge he denies[26] and one which he has said offends him deeply, as his wife, Debi, is a Mexican American [27]

Dobbs' critics have at times accused him of presenting unclear or inaccurate information on his program to buttress his reporting on illegal immigrants. One particular criticism involved a CNN report, filed by CNN correspondent Christine Romans for Dobbs' April 14, 2005 program, on the carrying of diseases across the border by illegal immigrants, . The Romans report cited an article in the Spring 2005 issue of the non-indexed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, written by the late medical lawyer, Madeleine Cosman, which made the statement that 7,000 cases of leprosy had emerged in the United States within the previous three years (2002-2005), an increase attributed mostly due to an influx of immigrants into the country. [28][29][30] Critics of the program argued that, in fact, the actual number of leprosy cases had reached 7,000 in the registry over thirty years, not the previous three years, with 137 cases reported in 2006.[31][32] In addressing the leprosy issue, Dobbs compared his critics from the left and right political spectrums to "commies" and "fascists."[33]

On the May 23, 2006 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs' program displayed a map of Aztlán sourced to the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens. CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson apologized for the graphic's use saying: "A freelance field producer in Los Angeles searched the web for Aztlan maps and grabbed the Council of Conservative Citizens map without knowing the nature of the organization. The graphic was a late inclusion in the script and, regrettably, was missed in the vetting process." [34]

Awards

Dobbs has won numerous major awards for his television journalism, most notably a Lifetime Achievement Emmy Award and a Cable Ace Award. He received the George Foster Peabody Award for his coverage of the 1987 stock market crash. He also has received the Luminary Award of the Business Journalism Review in 1990, the Horatio Alger Association Award for Distinguished Americans in 1999 and the National Space Club Media Award in 2000. The Wall Street Journal has named Dobbs "TV's Premier Business News Anchorman". In 2004, Dobbs was awarded the Eugene Katz Award For Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration by the Center for Immigration Studies and in 2005 he received the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Statesmanship Award.[35][36] Dobbs was named "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Committee in 1993 [37]

Associations

Dobbs serves or has served on the boards of the Society of Professional Journalists Foundation, the Horatio Alger Association, the National Space Foundation and the Imaginova Corporation, formerly known as Space.com, in which he owns a minority stake, as he does in Integrity Bank. He is a member of the Planetary Society, the Overseas Press Club and the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

Family life

Dobbs resides on a 300-acre horse farm in Sussex County, New Jersey[38] with his wife, her parents and his mother. He is married to his second wife, Debi Segura, a one-time CNN sports anchor with whom he has two daughters, Hillary and Heather. They have been married for 25 years as of 2007.[39]

On CBS' "60 Minutes," Lesley Stahl interviewed Lou Dobbs and it was revealed that his wife Debi is actually Mexican-American. [3] His wife, twin daughters, Mexican in-laws, and his mother all live on his horse farm.
He also has two sons, Chase and Jason, from a first marriage.

Books

Lou Dobbs, Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (2004). ISBN 0-446-57744-8.
Lou Dobbs, Space: The Next Business Frontier (2005). ISBN 0-7434-2389-5
Lou Dobbs, War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back (2006). ISBN 0-670-03792-3.
Ron Hira and Anil Hira, with foreword by Lou Dobbs, Outsourcing America: What's behind Our National Crisis and how we can reclaim American Jobs. (AMACOM), American Management Association, (May 2005). ISBN 0-8144-0868-0.

Quotes

"I don't know about you, but I can't take seriously anyone who takes either the Republican Party or Democratic Party seriously?-in part because neither party takes you and me seriously; in part because both are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests. ... Political, business and academic elites are waging an outright war on working men and women and their families, and there is no chance the American middle class will survive this assault if the dominant forces unleashed over the past five years continue unchecked." - CNN commentary (18 OCT 2006)

"Tonight, an amazing development in banking directly benefiting illegal aliens in this country. Bank of America is now issuing its credit cards to people with no Social Security number, who have broken the law, and who are in this country illegally. To Bank of America, apparently, they are simply a new market " - CNN Aired February 13, 2007

What is Populism?
Populism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Populism is the use of discourses, ideas or policies which try to appeal to "the people" by setting up a dichotomy between "the people" and "the elite". This populist appeal to "the people" has often been associated with an emotional appeal to identities, including national, class, ethnic and regional ones. Populism may involve either a political philosophy urging social and political system changes - as used by various populist parties - and/or a rhetorical style, deployed by members of the political class competing for advantage within the existing regime. Today the term "populism" is often used, especially outside academia, as a vague, frequently pejorative description, whether to describe vote-grabbing measures and rhetoric used by mainstream parties or in connection with new right-wing nationalist movements.

Academic definitions

Academic definitions of populism vary widely. ?'To each his own definition of populism, according to the academic axe he grinds' wrote Peter Wiles in the first major comparative study of populism by Ernest Gellner and Ghita Ionescu, Populism. Its Meanings and National Characteristics (1969)[1]. In fact, among both journalists and scholars, the term is often employed in loose, inconsistent and undefined ways to denote appeals to ?'the people', ?'demagogy' and ?'catch-all' politics or as a receptacle for new types of parties whose classification observers are unsure of. Another factor held to diminish the value of ?'populism' is that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study, unlike labels such as ?'socialist' or ?'conservative', the meanings of which have been ?'chiefly dictated by their adherents', contemporary populists rarely call themselves ?'populists' and usually reject the term when it is applied to them by others [2]. Nonetheless, in recent years, scholars have made advances in defining the term in ways which can be profitably employed in research. One of the latest of these is that by Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell who, in their volume Twenty-First Century Populism, define populism as pitting "a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ?'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice" [3].

Recent scholarship has also discussed populism as a rhetorical style; as such, the term "populist" may be applied to proponents of widely varying political philosophies. Leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, while some populists claim to be neither "left wing," "centrist" nor "right wing."[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

A third group of recent scholars beginning with Lawrence Goodwyn's Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America argues that populism is a "movement politics" of organizing for popular empowerment, including many elements beyond formal political parties such as cooperatives, community organizations, trade unions, and popular adult educational and cultural activity. Scholars writing about European populist movements in this vein have described connections between populism and Scandinavian folk schools or folkbildning. Harry Boyte and other scholars in this tradition have traced connections between the populist farmers' movement of the late nineteenth century, the "popular front" movement of the New Deal, the Southern civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and recent examples of community organizing descended from the self-declared populist Saul Alinsky. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Lately, populism has been defined in an ideology sense in American politics as a person who is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Often, liberals such as the US politician Michael Dukakis will call themselves populists to avoid using the term liberal.

Leaders of populist movements have variously tried to stand up to corporate power, remove "corrupt" elites, fight for the "poor people of the country", "put people first," and "build a cooperative commonwealth." Populism incorporates anti-regime politics, and sometimes espouses nationalism, jingoism, racism or religious fundamentalism, [4]but also sometimes more inclusive views and definitions of "the people" than prevailing ones [17][18][19]

Often populist movements employ dichotomous rhetoric, and claim to represent the majority of the people. Many populists appeal to a specific region of a country or to a specific social class, such as the working class, middle class, or farmers or simply "the poor".

[edit] Populist styles and methods

Populism is characterized by a sometimes radical critique of the status quo, but on the whole does not have a strong ideological identity as either a left-wing or right-wing movement. Some scholars argue that populist politics as organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelean" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving [20]. Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views. [21] In recent years, conservative United States politicians have begun adopting populist rhetoric; for example, telling people to stand up to "the powerful trial lawyer lobby," "the liberal elite," or "the Hollywood elite." Also in recent years, "left-wing" United States politicians have increasingly begun adopting populist rhetoric; the use of the term "two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards is an example of an attempt to employ Populist themes to persuade voters. In some contrast to both, Barack Obama, whose references to popular empowerment may reflect his experiences as a community organizer in one of the schools of organizing (the Gamaliel Foundation) descended from the late Saul Alinsky, also articulates populist themes. Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, even while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide ?- agrarian and political ?- and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:

Agrarian populism

Commodity farmer movements with radical economic agendas such as the US People's Party of the late 19th century.
Subsistence peasant movements, such as the Eastern European Green
Rising militias, which followed World War I.
Intellectuals who wistfully romanticize hard-working farmers and peasants and build radical agrarian movements like the Russian narodniki.

Political populism

Populist democracy, including calls for more political participation through reforms such as the use of popular referendums.
Politicians' populism marked by non-ideological appeals for "the people" to build a unified coalition.
Reactionary populism, such as the white backlash harvested by George Wallace.
Populist dictatorship, such as that established by Juan Perón in Argentina. (Canovan, 1981)

Populism and Fascism

Mass based right-wing populist movements be a precursor for and building blocks of fascist movements. Both often share elements of anti-elitist conspiracism and ethno-centric scapegoating.[22][23][24] Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various right wing populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism."[25] One way this can happen is in protest movements against globalization on behalf of corporate interests.[26]

Right-wing populism interacted with and facilitated fascism in interwar Germany.[27]. In this case, distressed middle-class populists during the pre-Nazi Weimar period mobilized their anger at government and big business. The Nazis "parasitized the forms and themes of the populists and moved their constituencies far to the right through ideological appeals involving demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracism".[28] According to Fritzsche:

The Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle-class constituents and at the same time advocated a strong and resolutely anti-Marxist mobilization....Against "unnaturally" divisive parties and querulous organized interest groups, National Socialists cast themselves as representatives of the commonweal, of an allegedly betrayed and neglected German public....reaking social barriers of status and caste, and celebrating at least rhetorically the populist ideal of the people's community... [29]

History in Europe

Classical Populism

The word populism is derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of "nation," as in: "The Roman People" (populus Romanus), not in the sense of "multiple individual persons" as in: "There are people visiting us today"). Therefore, populism espouses government by the people as a whole (that is to say, the masses). This is in contrast to elitism, aristocracy, or plutocracy, each of which is an ideology that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses.

Populism has been a common political phenomenon throughout history. Spartacus could be considered a famous example of a populist leader of ancient times through his slave rebellion against the rulers of Ancient Rome. In fact, such leaders of the Roman Republic as Gaius Marius, Julius Caesar, and Caesar Augustus were called populares, as all used referendums to go over the Roman Senate's head and establish the laws that they saw fit.

Early modern period

The same conditions which contributed to the outbreak of the English Revolution of 1642-1651, also known as the English Civil War, also led to a proliferation of ideologies and political movements among peasants, self-employed artisans, and working class people in England. Many, possibly most, of these groups had a dogmatic Protestant religious bent. They included Puritans and the Levellers.

Religious revival

Romanticism, the anxiety against rationalism, broadened after the beginnings of the European and Industrial Revolutions because of cultural, social, and political insecurity. Romanticism led directly into a strong popular desire to bring about religious revival, nationalism and populism. The ensuing religious revival eventually blended into political populism and nationalism, becoming at times a single entity, and a powerful force of public will for change. The paradigm shift brought about was marked by people looking for security and community because of a strong emotional need to escape from anxiety and to believe in something larger than themselves.

The revival of religiosity all over Europe played an important role in bringing people to populism and nationalism.

In France, Chateaubriand provided the opening shots of Catholic revivalism as he opposed enlightenment's materialism with the "mystery of life," the human need for redemption.

In Germany, Schleiermacher promoted pietism by stating that religion was not the institution, but a mystical piety and sentiment with Christ as the mediating figure raising the human consciousness above the mundane to God's level.

In England, John Wesley's Methodism split with the Anglican church because of its emphasis on the salvation of the masses as a key to moral reform, which Wesley saw as the answer to the social problems of the day.

All of these were united by a search for something to believe in, divine certainties in an increasingly uncertain age.

Rejection of ultramontanism

Chateaubriand's beginning brought about two Catholic Revivals in France: first, a conservative revival led by Joseph de Maistre, which defended ultramontanism, also known as the supremacy of the Pope in the church, and a second populist revival led by Felicite de Lamennais, an excommunicated priest. This religious populism opposed ultramontanism and emphasized a church community dependent upon all of the people, not just the elite. Furthermore, it stressed that church authority should come from the bottom-up and that the church should alleviate suffering, not merely accept it, both principles that gave the masses strength.

Elitist nationalism

Nationalism turned in the second half of the 19th century and the nationalist sentiment was altered into an elitist and conservative doctrine.

Power-state theorist and multi-volume historian Heinrich von Treitschke's Politics talked about top-down nationalism in which the state is the creator of the nation, not a result thereof. His state's power fashions political unity because, as he asserts, the national unity was always in place. For von Treitschke, the state is artificially constructed by the elite who know that power counts, but who also form myths such as racism for the comfort and control of the nationalistic masses.

Von Treitschke's nationalism had a dark side. The eternal struggle of nations exposed the weakness of confederated states, via war as social hygiene, culminating in the thought that all nations are egoistic, but their struggles embody morality and embrace progress. Such notions would later be proliferated in the tenets of National Socialism, with strong "races" and states dutifully conquering, and even exterminating, the weak.

Populism in various countries

Populism in Latin America

Populism has been an important force in Latin American political history (see José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia). In Latin America, many charismatic leaders have emerged since the 20th century, such as Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, Getúlio Vargas, Lázaro Cárdenas, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Juan Domingo Perón, Abdala Bucaram and recently Alan Garcia, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales and Néstor Kirchner.

History

Populism in Latin America has been traced by some to concepts taken from Perón's Third Position.[30] Populist practitioners in Latin America usually adapt politically to the prevailing mood of the nation, moving within the ideological spectrum from left to right many times during their political lives. Latin American countries have not always had a clear and consistent political ideology under populism. Most of these countries cannot be as clearly and easily divided between liberals and conservatives, as in the USA, or between social-democrats and Christian-democrats as in European countries. Nevertheless, the more recent pattern that has emerged in Latin American populists has been decidedly socialist populism that appeals to masses of poor by promising redistributive policies and state control of the nation's energy companies.

Populism has been fiscally supported in Latin America during periods of growth such as the 1950s and 1960's and during commodity price booms such as in oil and precious metals. Political leaders could gather followers among the popular classes with broad redistributative programs during these boom times. Populism in Latin America has been sometimes criticized for the fiscal policies of many of its leaders, but has also been defended for having allowed historically weak states to buy off disorder and achieve a tolerable degree of stability while initiating large-scale industrialization. Thus though specific populist fiscal and monetary policies may be criticized by economic historians, populism has also allowed leaders and parties to co-opt the radical ideas of the masses so as to redirect them in a non revolutionary direction.

Often adapting a nationalist vocabulary and rhetorically convincing, populism was used to appeal to broad masses while remaining ideologically ambivalent. Notwithstanding, there have been notable exceptions. 21st Centur Latin-American populist leaders have had a decidedly socialist bent.

When populists do take strong positions on economic philosophies such as capitalism versus socialism, the position sparks strong emotional responses regarding how best to manage the nation's current and future social and economic position. Mexico's 2006 Presidential election was hotly debated within Mexicans who supported and opposed populist candidate Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Inequality

Thus populism in Latin American countries has both an economic and an idelogical edge. The situation is similar in many countries with the legacies of poor and low-growth economies: highly unequal societies in which people are divided between a relative few wealthy families and masses of poor (with some exceptions such as Argentina, where strong and educated middle classes are a significant segment of the population).

Other perspectives trace inequality to the formation of Latin America's governments and institutions, which were shaped by the Spanish crown upon the conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards. Latin America was not meant to be a colony for the settlers to live in and develop, like the United States, but a source of resources for the Spanish crown. After the nations obtained their Independence, many colonial legacies survived.

Populist can be very successful political candidates in such countries. In appealing to the masses of poor people prior to gaining power, populists may promise widely-demanded food, housing, employment, basic social services, and income-redistribution. Once in political power, they may not always be financially or politically able to fulfill all these broad promises. However, they are very often successful in stretching to provide many broad and basic services.

The Economics Debate on Populism and Socialist Populism

In Mexico, Brazil and Argentina in a relatively short period of time, populist leaders were perceived to have delivered more to their lower class constituents than previous governments. Critics of populist policies point to the infamous consequences of spending and lack of reform on these countries' respective finances involving growing debt, pressured currencies, and hyperinflation, which in turn led to high interest rates, low growth, and debt crisis. The 1980s in Latin America became referred to as a lost decade during which the region experienced low economic growth and few if any reductions in poverty while the Asian Tigers have been consitently developing through high rates of savings, investments, and educational achievements. Supporters of past economic policies would point to the uncontrollable economic consequences of high oil prices to much of the world economy during the 1970s and the unanticipated fall in commodity prices that would later complicate financing past spending.

Reacting to the legacy of the debt-crisis and slow growth during the 1980s, many Latin American governments privatized state-owned enterprises, such as electricity and telecommunications during the wave of privatizations that occurred in those countries in the 1990s, and opened to trade. This has also been done outside Latin American from the US and England (during the Thatcher / Reagan years) to Russia and China's (accelerating economic liberalization during the 90's) to speed economic growth and employment.

Populists with socialist bents maintain clear support in many cases.

In the Argentinian Corralito crisis, the government was forced to withdraw after three days of popular riots. In Mexico, tortilla price increases have sparked protests demanding price-controls which the leadership instead handled with a gentleman's agreement with major manufacturers capping prices for a fixed time period.

The economic debate continues as reforms to weak and closed Latin American economies opened up to external shocks and competition such as through privatizations and NAFTA in Mexico and other trade agreements and privatizations throughout Latin America. While orthodox economics point to longer term gains for quickly modernizing countries like Chile, slower moving countries have considered retracting from the initial shocks. Some blame a "neo-liberal" economic model favored by an unpopular US government. The "neo-liberal" name, along with the "Washington consensus" have been used to criticize harsh economic policies on the one hand, and on the other hand some have used to demonize modern economic science and policies by tying them directly to the unpopular US government which faces widespread distrust in Latin America. Indeed throughout the world, economists generally agree that the older socialist policies favored by many populists have hindered Latin American economies and that today further economic reforms would be needed to compete in the international arena for more jobs and faster growth. Support for socialism continues within economic circles that rely on pro-socialist works such as "Whither Socialism" by Stiglitz.

US Policy

US international policies have intervened in Latin American governments in many occasions where populism has threatened its interests: the interventions in Guatemala, when the popular Arbenz government was overthrown by a coup backed by the American company United Fruit and the American ambassador in 1954, and Pinochet's Chilean coup in 1973 are just two cases of American intervention responding to American interests. Daniel Ortega's Sadinista government in Nicaragua was also viewed as a threat to US foreign policy during the Cold War, leading the United States to place an embargo on trade with the Sadinista's Communist regime as well as support anti-Sadinista rebels.

Populist Strength and Current Socialist Tendency

Populism has nevertheless remained a significant force in Latin America. Populism has recently been re-appearing on the far left with promises of far-reaching socialist changes as seen in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. These socialist changes have included policies nationalizing energy companies such as oil, and consolidation of power into the hands of the President so as to enable a socialist "transformation." The Venezuelan government often spars verbally with the United States and accuses it of attempting to overthrow its president Hugo Chavez after supporting a failed coup against him. Hugo Chavez himself has been one of the most outspoken and blunt critics of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, the Venezuelan and US governments continue to rely on each other for oil sales from Venezuela to the US.

In the 21st Century, the large numbers of voters in extreme poverty in Latin America have remained a bastion of support for new populist candidates. Populist candidates have been defeated in middle-income countries such as Peru and Mexico, in part by comparing them to Venezuela's controversial Hugo Chavez, who's socialist policies have been used to scare the growing middle classes and who verbally criticed and belittled the popular Mexican president Vicente Fox. Nevertheless, populist candidates have been more successful in poorer Latin American countries such as Bolivia (under Morales), Ecuador (under Correa), and Nicaragua (under Ortega).

Wherever governments in Latin America maintain high rates of poverty and yet support unpopular privatizations and more orthodox economic policies without quickly delivering gains to enough people, they will continue to come under pressure from populist politicians who accuse them of focusing on securing more benefits for the upper and upper-middle classes rather than the people as represented by those in poverty and extreme poverty, and for being allied to foreign and business interests.

Mexico: A case study of populism in political campaigns

In Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's candidacy sparked very emotional debates throughout the country regarding policies that affect ideology, class, equality, wealth, and society. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's most controversial economic policies included his promise to expand monthly stipends to the poor and elderly from Mexico City to the rest of the country and to re-negotiate NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) to protect the Mexican poor. The ruling party in Mexico, known as the PAN (Spanish acronym for the National Action Party) portrayed him as a danger to Mexico's hard-earned economic stability. In criticizing his redistributive promises that would create new entitlement programs somewhat similar to social security in the US (though not as broad in scope) and his trade policies that would not fully uphold prior agreements (such as NAFTA), the economic debate between capitalists and socialists became a major part of the debate. The PAN candidate portrayed himself as not just a standard-bearer for recent economic policy, but rather more fully as a more pro-active candidate so as to distance himself from the main criticisms of his predecessor Vicente Fox regarding inaction. He labeled himself the "jobs president" and promised greater national wealth for all through steady future growth, fiscal prudence, international trade, and balanced government spending. During the immediate aftermath of the tight elections in which the country's electoral court was hearing challenges to the vote tally that had Calderon winning, Obrador showed the considerable influence over the masses that are a trademark of populist politicians. He effectively led huge demonstrations filling the central plaza with masses of sympathizers who supported his challenge. The demonstrations lasted for several months and eventually dissipated after the electoral court did not find sufficient cause from the challenges presented to overturn the results.

Populism in Russia and the former Soviet Union

The Narodnichestvo movement in Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century could be described as a populist movement.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky in modern Russia is another good example of populist politician.
Natalia Vitrenko of Ukraine is also sometimes characterised as left-wing populist politician.

Populism in the United States of America

The United States saw the formation of such political parties during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as the Populist Party, the Greenback Party, the Single Tax movement of Henry George, the Progressive Party of 1912 led by Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party of 1924 led by Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and the Share Our Wealth movement of Huey Long in 1933-35. Some left-wing populist parties advocated socialism, while other populists rejected both socialism and capitalism, notably Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin.

George Wallace of Alabama led a right-wing populist movement that carried five states and won 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 presidential election. Campaigning against intellectuals and liberal reformers, Wallace gained a large share of the white working class vote in Democratic primaries in 1972.

Populism continues to be a force in modern US politics, especially in the 1992 and 1996 third-party presidential campaigns of billionaire Ross Perot. The 1996, 2000 and the 2004 presidential campaigns of Ralph Nader had a strong populist cast. The 2004 campaigns of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton also had populist elements.

Comparison between earlier surges of Populism and those of today are complicated by shifts in what are thought to be the interests of the common people. Jonah Goldberg and others argue that in modern society, fractured as it is into myriad interest groups and microgroups, any attempt to define the interests of the "average person" will be so general as to be useless.

Over time, there have been several versions of a Populist Party in the United States, inspired by the People's Party of the 1890s. This was the party of the early U.S. populist movement in which millions of farmers and other working people successfully challenged much of the social ills engendered by the "Gilded Age" monopolists.

In 1984, the Populist Party name was revived by Willis Carto, and was used in 1988 as a vehicle for the presidential campaign of former Ku Klux Klan leader, and later member of the Republican Party, David Duke. Right-wing Patriot movement organizer Bo Gritz was briefly Duke's running mate. This incarnation was widely regarded as a vehicle for white supremacist recruitment.

In 1995, the Reform Party was organized after the populist presidential campaign of Ross Perot in 1992. After a disputed takeover of the party in 2000, Patrick J. Buchanan received the party's nomination for president.

In the 2000s, new populist parties were formed in America, including the Populist Party of Maryland, which ran candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. Senate and state delegate in the 2006 elections, Populist Party of America in 2002, and the American Populist Renaissance in 2005. The American Moderation Party, also formed in 2005, adopted several populist ideals, chief among them working against multinational neo-corporatism. Within the American media, CNN's Lou Dobbs and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly espouse themselves as voices of populism.

Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) was elected in 2006 over incumbent George Allen. Webb held prominent offices in the Republican party during the 1980s, but became a Democrat in part because in his opinion, as he stated in a January 2007 NPR interview, the Democratic party seemed more aligned to his populist beliefs. This illustrates that populism can and does span the American political spectrum.

Populism in Europe

Further information: Radical right-wing populism

Germany - See: Völkisch movement

Fichte began the development of nationalism by stating that people have the ethical duty to further their nation.

Herder proposed an organic nationalism that was a romantic vision of individual communities rejecting the Industrial Revolution's model communities, in which people acquired their meaning from the nation. This is a philosophy reminiscent of subsidiarity.

The Brothers Grimm collected German folklore to "gather the Teutonic spirit" and show that these tales provide the common values necessary for the historical survival of a nation.

Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, a Lutheran Minister, a professor at the University of Berlin and the "father of gymnastics," introduced the Volkstum, a racial nation that draws on the essence of a people that was lost in the Industrial Revolution.

Adam Mueller went a step further by positing the state as a bigger totality than the government institution. This paternalistic vision of aristocracy concerned with social orders had a dark side in that the opposite force of modernity was represented by the Jews, who were said to be eating away at the state.

France

In France, the populist and nationalist picture was more mystical and metaphysical in nature.

Historian Jules Michelet fused nationalism and populism by positing the people as a mystical unity who are the driving force of history in which the divinity finds its purpose. For Michelet, in history, that representation of the struggle between spirit and matter, France has a special place because the French became a people through equality, liberty, and fraternity. Because of this, he believed, the French people can never be wrong. Michelet's ideas are not socialism or rational politics, and his populism always minimizes, or even masks, social class differences.
In the late 18th century, the French Revolution, though led by wealthy intellectuals, could also be described as a manifestation of populist sentiment against the elitist excesses and privileges of the Ancien Régime.

Jean Marie Le Pen can be characterised as right-wing populist.

Dobbs is an ass.

Yes he is.

He offers absolutely no coverage of the otherside of the coin. He played the biggest role in over turning Spitzers plan by not covering the otherside of the coin.

But on what grounds exactly...

"He said giving driving credentials to people now "living in the shadows" would make traffic safer, shrink auto insurance premiums by insuring more drivers and boost security by identifying more immigrants.

But opponents in Albany and around the country have countered that there are security risks in giving government identification to as many as 1 million illegal immigrants in New York state. Some have also said the plan will encourage illegal immigration to the state.

Amid the outcry, Spitzer made a deal with federal homeland security officials last month to create three New York State driver's licenses: one as secure as a U.S. passport for crossing the Canadian border, another for boarding airplanes, and a third that will not be valid federal identification but will be available to illegal immigrants and others for driving.

But criticism has continued....Republican candidates tried to capitalize on the issue in local elections around the state."

What exactly was wrong with Spitzers current plan? He addressed the criticisms. The IDs they would be getting would be worthless for any purpose other than driving. So all he would be doing is "make traffic safer, shrink auto insurance premiums by insuring more drivers and boost security by identifying more immigrants."

The IDs would even be clearly marked "not valid for federal identification" purposes. They would be useless for anything other than driving.

So what exactly is so horrible about that that Dobbs had to attack it for two hours every day for a full month on the fake argument that the ID could be used for illegals to pass for legals, when it clearly is a seperate ID useless for anything other than driving.

Besides, all Lou Dobbs would do is siphon votes from Democrats. Few republicans are as antitrade as Lou Dobbs is.

P.S. I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat. Thankfully, he shares very little with Lou Dobbs. Bloomberg actually believes in free trade.

P.P.S. Other than Bloomberg, the only third party candidate I would want to see is Pat Robertson or some other religious nut to siphon away votes from Giuliani. What can we do here to make sure that happens?

Re: Is Lou Dobbs forming a Populist Party for the president?
[quote="BumbleBeeBoogie"This will be interesting to watch developments.BBB[/quote]

I'm watching for Lou Dobbs to announce his own candidacy.

Re: Is Lou Dobbs forming a Populist Party for the president?


I'm watching for Lou Dobbs to announce his own candidacy.[/quote]

If he does, wouldnt he have to give up his show?

More than likely. And he's such a blowhard (although i thoroughly agree with much of what he says) that his love to hear himself talk every night might be the only thing to stop him.
But don't think he's not toying around with possibility...

Dys
What I find most interesting is that CNN is allowing Dobbs to do his thing and doubling his show's time and moving it to prime time.

The only benefit to CNN that I can find is an increase in ratings equals high ad rates - it's always about money.

BBB

Always.

BBB
When Lou Dobbs recently had his tonsils removed, I think the surgeon made a mistake and removed Dobb's over-active rabid control gland. This left him in love with the sound of his own voice and self-importance.
At least, Ross Perot was funny.

Dobbs is so obsessed, I've started switching to the Food Chanel to watch Rachel Rae cook her 30 minute meals. It's easier to digest.

BBB

Re: BBB


Plus, she is better looking.

I told you so
Dobbs Is Advertising for Himself
By JOHN FUND
Wall Street Journal
November 15, 2007

Lou Dobbs for President? Don't laugh. After months of telling reporters that he "absolutely" would not consider leaving his highly-rated CNN show in which he crusades against free trade and illegal immigration, Mr. Dobbs posted a commentary on his Web site last week predicting a surprise new presidential candidate in 2008. The mystery candidate is an "independent populist . . . who understands the genius of this country lies in the hearts and minds of its people and not in the prerogatives and power of its elites."

Friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously contemplating a race for the first time, although it's still unlikely. They spin a scenario under which the acerbic commentator would parachute into the race if Michael Bloomberg, the New York billionaire and favorite of East Coast elites, enters the field as an independent. With Hillary Clinton continuing to score badly in polls in the categories of honesty and integrity, and with the public's many doubts about Rudy Giuliani and other GOP contenders, Mr. Bloomberg may well see an opportunity to roil the political waters by entering the race late. If so, Mr. Dobbs then sees a niche for a "fourth-party" candidate who could paint the three other contenders as completely out of touch.

His playbook would be similar to that of Ross Perot in 1992, who didn't enter the presidential race until the major parties began holding their primaries but quickly shot up to 25% in many polls.

Similarly, Mr. Dobbs could leverage his name ID and popularity to secure a place on 50 state ballots and generate a mountain of free publicity.

"No one, seemingly, is listening to the average-but-angry voter," notes the Boston Phoenix. "So an independent populist-style candidacy could fill a huge vacuum." Mr. Dobbs, who has written best-selling books deploring the government's "war on the middle class," would be a natural fit in this campaign playing the role of the anchorman in the 1970s movie "Network," who bellowed, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Mr. Dobbs himself once told me that "Q" ratings that measure the popularity of media personalities found that no other media figure was more respected across the board by Democrats, Republicans and Independents. He claimed he was striking a chord with the broad middle class that transcended ideology. I think his ratings may also have something to do with picking a couple of hot-button issues that are easily demagogued, but don't be surprised if you hear more rumors about a Dobbs candidacy. Even if he doesn't enter the race, any such discussion would serve to boost his ratings.

told ja

He's lost ground with me already going about it so sneaky.

Hagel and Bloomberg
Does Lou Dobbs and CNN know something we don't know? Is he greasing the skids for Independent Party candidates Michael Bloomberg Chuck Hagel? ---BBB

Hagel: Bush Administration Is "Incompetent" and He Would Consider Joining a Dem Ticket
By Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence
USA TODAY
Thursday 29 November 2007

"This is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen personally or ever read about," the always blunt and frequently quotable Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said yesterday during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

"This administration in my opinion has been as unprepared as any administration I'm aware of," Hagel added, "not only the ones that I have been somehow connected to and that's been every administration - either I've been in Washington or worked within an administration or Congress or some way dealing with them since the first Nixon administration. I would rate this one the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus - almost every area, I would give it the lowest grade. ...

"And you know, I think of this administration, what they could have done after 9/11, what was within their grasp. Every poll in the world showed 90% of the world for us. Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran supporting America. They squandered a tremendous amount of opportunity."

Hagel, who toyed with the idea of running for president himself, also said:

He would be open to the idea of either working in a Democratic administration or even running as the vice presidential nominee on a Democratic ticket - though, he conceded, "I probably won't have to worry about it" because he's unlikely to be asked.

"If there was an area that I thought I could make a difference and influence policy, leadership, outcome ... then I would entertain" those possibilities, Hagel said.

He called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "capable." As for the speculation that he and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg might form an independent ticket, Hagel joked that "Bloomberg's got the money. I think it'd be Bloomberg-Hagel" ticket.

The council has posted a transcript of Hagel's remarks here.

Hagel has already announced he won't seek re-election to his Senate seat next year.

Some things are so obvious, they're funny.

Hagel at CFR: Would Consider Running on Dem Ticket
Hagel at CFR: Would Consider Running on Dem Ticket, Calls Hillary 'Capable'
by Niall Stanage
New York Observer
Published: November 29, 2007

Maverick Republican senator Chuck Hagel raised his criticisms of the Bush White House to a new level in New York yesterday, holding open the possibility that he could serve in a future Democratic administration or even run on a presidential ticket headed by a Democrat.

Mr. Hagel, who has become increasingly estranged from his party over the Iraq war, said that he would give the current administration "the lowest grade" in "almost every area."

He added: "I have to say that this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen."

Mr. Hagel's scorching attack came during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations. He accused the administration of having "squandered" the international sympathy and support for the United States that arose in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I think of this administration and what they could have done after 9/11, what was within their grasp," Mr. Hagel said. "Every poll in the world showed 90 per cent of the world for us. Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran, supporting America. [The administration] squandered a tremendous amount of opportunity. There's where they have failed the country."

Mr. Hagel's dissatisfaction with the Bush administration is well known?-he even made a sarcastic crack yesterday about the frankness of his opinions being the reason "why I'm so highly regarded at the White House"?-but the comments may have been his most trenchant to date.

Mr. Hagel will retire as the senior senator from Nebraska when his current term ends next year, and he announced in March that he would not seek the presidency. But when Ted Sorensen, the famed speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, yesterday asked from the floor whether Mr. Hagel would consider an offer to run as vice-president on a ticket headed by a Democrat, the answer was intriguing.

"I think this is one of those years where anything is possible," Mr. Hagel said. "I don't think that question is going to be posed to me, so I probably wouldn't have to worry about it. But if there was an area that I thought I could make a difference in… then I would entertain these kinds of serious questions. We are living through this remarkable time in history. Everything's possible."

The notion of Mr. Hagel as the vice-presidential nominee on a Democratic-led ticket currently seems a little far-fetched. But he seemed just as inclined to respond warmly to a more likely scenario?-the offer of a position within a Democratic administration if that party takes the White House next year.

"I would consider a serious offer in any administration if it comes from a serious president who wants to do something to make our world better and our country stronger," he said.

There was little comfort of any kind for Mr. Hagel's party colleagues in his remarks. He opined that it was "likely" that Democrats would "add to their numbers" in Congress and in governors' mansions across the nation next year, and suggested his party could experience "one of the great political defeats of our time."

Asked which of the presidential candidates of either party came closest to his own thinking on foreign affairs, Mr. Hagel mentioned only Senator John McCain among Republicans, and even then stopped well short of full-throated endorsement.

He merely said that Mr. McCain was "the only one of the candidates I've worked closely with, of the Republicans."

He continued:

"Now, Joe Biden: I'm very close to Joe Biden's philosophy about foreign policy. I suppose of all the candidates out there, including McCain, I'm probably closer to Joe Biden. I think Biden would be a very good president."

During these ruminations, Mr. Hagel also complained about the brevity required of the candidates during debates and about the media's concentration on the presumed front-runners.

Deriding the style of the debates as resembling a "poor man's Gong Show", he asserted that the candidates "haven't had the chance, most of them, to articulate the depth of a philosophy about foreign policy.

"On the Democratic side, the media just pays attention to three candidates?-Hillary and Obama and Edwards. So guys who actually have something to say, like Biden and Dodd?-not that the other three don't?-but those guys get shoved off into the background and they are lucky to get 30 seconds of anything."

But when asked whether he saw dangers in the possibility that two families, the Bushes and the Clintons, could hypothetically occupy the White House for a continuous 28 years, Mr. Hagel demurred.

"That's up to the voters, actually," he said. "If the American people decide to elect Hillary Clinton, they elect Hillary Clinton. She's certainly capable."

Returning his attention to foreign affairs, Mr. Hagel gave the administration some credit for organizing this week's Middle East summit in Annapolis, Md. He described the gathering as "helpful" but also wondered, "Are we going to build on this, more than a photo op?"

Speaking briefly to the Observer after the event, Mr. Hagel bemoaned the Bush administration's failure to build on the work undertaken by the Clinton White House in trying to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

While he said, "I don't blame all of what has happened in the Middle East on Bush", he added, "I do think it would be a different situation today if we had taken initiatives, and we took no initiative."

During the event, Mr. Hagel also addressed the situation in Iraq:

"The military has done a magnificent job," Mr. Hagel, himself a decorated Vietnam veteran, declared, "but we have not seen that translate into political progress, which is in the end all that counts."

Referring to his colleagues on Capitol Hill, Mr. Hagel also predicted that if there were no clear signs of political reconciliation in Iraq by January or February "then even some of the strongest advocates of the war are going to move in a real different direction."

The lesson of Iraq, Mr. Hagel contended, was "that you can't unilaterally, arbitrarily march into a country, invade a sovereign nation, regardless of the dynamics or the reasons…without alliances, the strengths of those alliances."

Despite the harshness of Mr. Hagel's criticisms and the seriousness of the subjects being discussed, the mood of the event was not unremittingly grim.

One question from the floor asked Mr. Hagel to consider the possibility of an independent "Hagel-Bloomberg" ticket in next year's election.

"Bloomberg's got the money. I think it would be Bloomberg-Hagel," Mr. Hagel shot back to laughter.

The Dubious Mr. Dobbs
The Dubious Mr. Dobbs
Posted on Dec 4, 2007
By Amy Goodman

Truth matters. History and context count. "You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts," the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed. CNN's Lou Dobbs has migrated to a pre-eminent position in the debate on immigration in the U.S. Since he identifies himself as a journalist, he has a special responsibility to rely on facts and to correct misstatements of fact. CNN, which purports to be a news organization, touting itself as the "Most Trusted Name in News," has an equally strong obligation to its audience to tell the truth.

Dobbs was best known for anchoring CNN's "Moneyline," an early and influential program that helped create the televised financial-news genre. On "Moneyline," Dobbs featured corporate CEOs and generally lauded them. About five years ago, Dobbs began changing his line, invoking populist rhetoric and championing the cause of the middle class. He thematically titled his coverage "War on the Middle Class" and "Broken Borders." Dobbs' signature issue of undocumented immigrants, or, as he calls them, illegal aliens, has tremendous influence on the debate nationally. So it matters if he is wrong.

On March 28, 2006, Dobbs said on his show, "And it's costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens." As it turns out, the number of noncitizens incarcerated in the U.S. federal and state prisons is closer to 6 percent, not 33 percent. Note that the 6 percent includes legal immigrants as well.

On April 14, 2005, Lou Dobbs opened his show by saying: "The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans. Highly contagious diseases are now crossing our borders decades after those diseases had been eradicated in this country." CNN correspondent Christine Romans filed a report, then told Dobbs, "There have been 7,000 [cases of leprosy] in the past three years." CBS' "60 Minutes" later challenged the fact, pointing out that there had actually been 7,029 cases reported over 30 years. When Lesley Stahl confronted Dobbs on the statistic, he defended it, saying: "Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it's a fact."

Dobbs' reporter, Romans, said her source was "Dr. Madeleine Cosman, a respected medical lawyer and medical historian." Cosman, who died in March 2006, was a medical lawyer and staunch anti-immigrant activist. She was recorded saying publicly of Mexican men: "Recognize that most of these bastards molest girls under age 12, some as young as age 5, others aged 3, although, of course, some specialize in boys, some specialize in nuns, some are exceedingly versatile and rape little girls aged 11 and women up to age 79."

After I played the tape of Cosman for Dobbs, he conceded to me that his reporter's source, Cosman, was a "whack job."

On May 23, 2006, Dobbs aired a report on a state visit by Mexican President Vicente Fox. His correspondent, Casey Wian, called it a "Mexican military incursion" and displayed a map of the U.S. with the seven Southwest states highlighted as "Aztlan," which, Wian reported, "some militant Latino activists ... claim rightfully belongs to Mexico." The graphic came from the Council of Conservative Citizens, which the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks hate groups, points out is the current incarnation of the old White Citizen Councils of the 1950s and 1960s, which Thurgood Marshall referred to as "the uptown Klan." The SPLC has reported that several of Dobbs' guests and sources have had links to the CCC, such as Joe McCutchen of Protect Arkansas Now, part of the Minuteman vigilante movement, and Barbara Coe of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform. Another guest, Glenn Spencer, head of the anti-immigrant group American Patrol, speaks on the white-supremacist circuit. When CNN's Wolf Blitzer had Spencer on, he told his audience that the SPLC had designated American Patrol as a hate group. When Dobbs had him on, he never identified the connection.

In our conversation with Dobbs, "Democracy Now!" co-host Juan Gonzalez raised the issue of history, of how immigrants have been scapegoated: the Irish in the 1860s, the Chinese in the 1880s and, later, Southern Europeans. Dobbs rolled his eyes, saying, "Are you holding me responsible?" No, and Dobbs knows better. But he must be held responsible for not bringing a historical context to this crucial discussion of immigration reform. The immigration issue will not be solved by vilifying a population. The SPLC has just released a report on the upsurge in anti-immigrant, anti-Latino violence in the U.S.

United Stations Radio Networks has just announced that Dobbs will soon be hosting a three-hour daily talk radio show. The Web site claims, "It's not about what's right and left ... it's about what's right and wrong." Let's hope that Lou Dobbs follows his own advice.
---------------------------------------------------

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.