Nothing But Words

Over the past several days I’ve submitted this article to various publications, hoping that one of them would pick it up. But I didn’t get any takers. So I present it to you here…

You have to hand it to Karl Rove, George Bush’s senior political strategist. He has created a new form of politics, and it needs a name. Let’s call it Neo-Populism. After Kerry’s loss, Democrats have been scratching their heads in bewilderment. They know that if Al Gore had been President these past four years, and the same events had unfolded on his watch – huge job losses, exploding health care costs, ballooning deficits, massive increases in non-defense discretionary spending, a seemingly intractable mess in post-invasion Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Osama Bin Laden still at large – Gore would have been buried in a landslide by almost any Republican opponent. So how did Bush not only survive this election, but win by over three and half million votes?

He won because of Rove’s neo-populist strategy. To understand what that is, a useful point of comparison is perhaps the greatest of all American populists, Louisiana’s Huey Long. As he rose from railroad commissioner, to Governor, and then to Senator, he was repeatedly indicted, impeached, and plagued with corruption scandals. But none of these slowed his rise to power, or dented his popularity. He was so successful because he masterfully exploited the traditional means of populism: in a state that was predominately poor, rural, and under-educated, he provided free textbooks to schools, and employed thousands to pave roads and build bridges all across the state. He also engaged in aggressive class warfare, advocating a “Share Our Wealth” program on the Senate floor and proposing a limit on the size of personal fortunes. With these means he achieved the ends of populism: a large core of unshakable supporters whose personal faith in him was almost bulletproof.

George Bush has achieved the same ends, but through entirely different means. Obviously, Rovian neo-populism has nothing to do with the class warfare associated with the traditional practice of American populism. It is instead a fascinating blend of three emotive elements: charisma, a transformational vision of America, and fear.

An essential ingredient of any populist movement is a charismatic leader. Huey Long was a lawyer and a brilliant orator, yet he cultivated the image of a (drunken) buffoon. His critics mocked this persona and did not understand its appeal. But his followers loved it. George Bush cultivates an image of plainspoken, forthright Texan swagger, mixed with a strong dose of Evangelical faith. As with Long, his followers love it, and his urban, overeducated opponents do not comprehend it. When you listen to ardent Bush supports, their excitement is palpable – one of us is running the White House.

But who is “us”? A populist leader pulls in his supporters with a rousing, bold agenda. Huey Long limited his to class warfare, but Bush’s is multifaceted. He is seeking to transform the role of government, and the place of America in the world, in almost every respect. From massive tax cuts, to a unilateralist and pre-emptive foreign policy, to advancing the agenda of social conservatives, Bush and the GOP have succeeded in stealing the “big tent” label from the Democratic Party. The Pat Buchanans of the party are excited about the social agenda, the Arnold Schwarzeneggers applaud the business-friendly policies, the William Kristols celebrate the foreign policy, and the Rudy Giulianis trumpet the strong leadership imagery. The latter is particularly important – the persona of the resolute, unwavering leader is the glue that holds this coalition together.

In the post-9/11 world, neo-populism replaces class warfare with the politics of fear. The Bush campaign featured repeated reminders that terrorists might explode a nuclear bomb in one of our cities (hint: vote for our guy to keep you safe), and even suggested at one point that voting for the Democrat was tantamount to inviting another terrorist attack. The campaign also rode on the fears of social conservatives – that activist judges and the “liberal elite” are pursuing an agenda that will ultimately lead to nothing less than the destruction of American morality. In both foreign and domestic policy, the politics of fear encourage the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality.

The Democrats have what it takes to successfully challenge neo-populism, but they haven’t realized it yet. After the Democratic primaries, the Bush campaign quietly confessed they were glad John Edwards didn’t emerge as the candidate, because they understood the political power of charisma. After the election, some Democrats have suggested moving to the right on social issues, seeing it as the only way to compete for “moral values” voters. But it is vital to not equate divisive wedge issues such as the recent marriage protection initiatives with the broad values of Christianity. The Democratic Party must reclaim the “big tent” label on an agenda of hope and unity, not fear and division.