@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Populists come in several varieties. FDR and Ronald reagan were each, in their own way populists; and each altered the prevailing political landscape in their campaigns.
I agree that the usual prototype is the politician who promises to redistribute wealth and property to the groups to which he directs his campaign. However, this doesn't always neatly fit the contemporary liberal/conservative divide in American politics. William Jennings Bryan, a populist of the first rank, would in many areas align himself with conservatives today.
Again the reality of the situation has degrees of freedom (independent variables) that exceed those in the simplistic model you appear to be applying.
There you go accusing of me using a simplistic model, George. I would suggest you read the book by Alan Greenspan, wherein he talks in detail about populism and populists, particularly in South America. You might think he was also using a simplistic model, but I think he merely observed a very important political phenomena and discussed it for what it was. In general, the kind of populism he talked about was that of politicians gaining power by addressing so-called greviences and promising social justice rather than sticking to constitutional principles. Reagan's message was constitutional principles, smaller government, and other facets of conservatism, and he did not promise people that government would solve all of their problems and bring social justice.
An important point that I think is crucial here George is the fact that the relative popularity of politicians may be more determined by the culture and the population rather than the politicians themselves. Reagan was popular because the people wanted to return to traditional constitutional values, and that is what appealed to enough people to elect him. And Reagan had a skill of communicating those traditional values, he inspired us to believe in ourselves, America, and our American values. In contrast, Obama was elected because more people wanted change and continued breakaway from traditional values, in hopes of more social justice and all of that liberal associated claptrap that surrounds what is defined as political populism. Populism does not always equate to popularity, thankfully, as that depends upon the mood of the people.
So, the definition of populist does not equate to who is popular, because who becomes popular really depends more upon the condition and mood of society and the power of the media than it does the kind of politician one is. I think populism is a form of politics that is played, not how popular somebody is. Popularity really depends upon other factors, largely determined by what the society wants. I think Greenspan's discussion of this pretty much agrees with what I am trying to explain here. He pointed out that some cultures at various times are more ripe or vulnerable to the appeal of a populist message, which in South America was a leftist message of righting wrongs, income redistribution, social justice, and all of that kind of stuff.
So you can see why I think Obama falls into that category as well. Perhaps FDR would also, but I do not think Ronald Reagan fits. Yes, he was popular by virtue of his communication skills and inspirational qualities, but not for a populist message of income redistribution or social justice, blah blah. I don't know about William Jennings Bryan, but that is far enough back in history that our contemporary understanding of populist politics that it would seem difficult to apply to him, maybe not? Frankly, I don't know what his policies were. One that has not been mentioned, Ross Perot, I think he was a bit of a populist, but I view him as a very confused politician, it was not easy to identify what he was, and I am not sure he knew either.
