Pat ain't no populist
by Mischa Gelman
(published on 10/28/99)

Pat Buchanan has officially left the Republican Party for the Reform
Party, making him a more viable candidate for the office of President.
This has led, and will lead, to an increased tendency in the media to
torture the English language.  You see, the media has this habit of
calling Mr. Buchanan a populist, and while he has some populist views, he
hardly fits the mold.
The ways in which he matches true populist ideas are fairly obvious - he
shows a willingness not expressed by other candidates to stand up to the
elitists and technocrats of the IMF and of Wall Street.  He speaks truth
to power when he says corporations have too much power, hurting workers of
all stripes, family farmers and others who actually do the production of
goods, yet have seen their real incomes fall for the past 25 years.  His
protectionist ideas also match historical populist rhetoric, placing the
rights and needs of American workers ahead of extra bucks for the CEO.
His "Family Farm Bill of Rights" speech showed concern for those who
Thomas Jefferson and other great thinkers have felt most represent the
American ideal.  Said Buchanan, "Washington and Wall Street may believe it
inevitable that the family farm must pass away.  But...I believe that
family farms and rural towns must be conserved."
Populism, though, was highly committed to fighting racism in its heyday.
Its failure in the South can be directly traced to its integrationist
principles that sought to unite the races, unfathomable in the late 19th
century.  Numerous historians have put together solid evidence as to the
high tolerance shown by the Populist Party.  Today, the mass of Americans
is more committed than ever to anti-racism, making it even more of a
populist policy than ever before.  Yet racists such as Buchanan (who wants
a quota on non-whites at major colleges and has praised the segregation of
the Washington where he grew up) and David Duke are being identified as
populists by those in the media.  Libertarian privateers who despise the
religion important to most Americans, like Jesse Ventura, and lunatics
like Joseph McCarthy, have been similarly mislabelled, due to a belief in
the media that the working class pushed their cases.  This is definitely
untrue - Ventura was backed by typically apathetic voters favoring
celebrity over substance, while McCarthy's supporters tended to be
comfortably middle class.  Conservatives have tried to use the term to
mean anti-Communist while lefties have tried to use it to mean Communist.
Obviously, populists cannot be both, and are in fact on neither
close-minded extreme.
So why the misuse of the term?  Ignorance of history is widespread among
the present-day-oriented mass media and could be part of the reason.  A
disconnection between the same media and the normal folks of this country
could be another part.  The absence of a political outlet for today's
populists is much more likely.
Republican strategist Lee Atwater conceded the existance of historical
populism in the present day and for once we were properly defined.  He
recognized that there are a huge number (hence the term populist) of
socially conservative and economically liberal folks out there who are
dissatisfied with the two major parties, given their closer and closer
ties to big business and special interests.  Given this scenario, he tried
to get the Republicans to woo us populists, by emphasizing their social
conservatism.  While some populists did sign on, enough to have helped the
Republicans move from obscurity in the 70s to power in the 90s, many did
not because the GOP ignores the will of its populist branch by refusing to
regulate polluters, sweatshop owners and other corporate criminals. We
continue to grow more apathetic, at least in relation to the two big
parties.
It doesn't help that no think tank or magazine is out there to argue our
view, simply because no one needs to trumpet the will of the majority, and
because that will opposes both the academic political theorists and/or big
money that run such groups - hence we have no Cato Institute, no Dollars
and Sense, no Heritage Foundation, no The Progressive.  We only have real
life.
Given this state of affairs, no wonder a man like Buchanan, who gives a
distorted quasi-populist view, is wrongly identified.  Thankfully, true
populists are starting to speak up again, as they get fed up with the
state of things.  Ronnie Dugger has organized a populist group called
Alliance for Democracy (http://www.afd-online.org) that seeks to form a
new populist voice, to again make the will of the people prominent.  Jim
Hightower, a radio commentator, offers up daily commentaries on the air
that can be found at his website (http://www.jimhightower.com).  Maybe one
day the media will notice the reality of things and start talking about
the public's desires rather than the desires of the Cato Institute or of
some political bigwig.  After all, one can always hope.

Mischa Gelman has, like G.K. Chesterton, been known to write at the
slightest provocation.