Populist Dem Message Replaces Progressive Message

Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2010 | Salena Zito

[Kaslin]

Fair or not, voters have distaste and distrust this year for any candidate running under the “progressive” banner that was so wildly popular just last year.

“I essentially believe that ‘progressive’ is the wrong “P” to be describing yourself as this cycle,” said a Democratic strategist working on congressional campaigns across the country. “ ‘Populist’ is the way to go.”

Candidates, he said, should appear as an outsider who will fight for Main Street, not Wall Street.

Because the concerns of independents will continue to dominate the electoral landscape, the best that progressive candidates can do is to emphasize the overlap between progressive thought and populist ideals, such as reining-in corporate greed and influence.

In 2008 Barack Obama and Democrats won a sweeping victory through a somewhat uneasy coalition of progressive Democrats and a large wave of independent voters seeking populist change.

But President Obama and Democrats in Congress have not delivered to either group, which has tarnished their brand, especially the progressive label.

The progressive base, along with independents and Republicans, are angry.

Obama and the Democrats have not delivered, either, on the populist change they promised over and over during the campaign. They promised an era of bipartisanship. They promised an era of fiscal responsibility. They promised a government given back to the people, a government not beholden to special interests and corporate greed.

Independent voters who gravitated toward Democrats have seen none of this come to fruition but instead have witnessed bitter bipartisanship, soaring deficits and legislation plagued with special and corporate interests. Independents have lost their patience and become disenchanted; if they stay that way, a power shift truly will occur in Congress this fall.

Any politically expedient shifts will only further frustrate progressives and make it even more difficult for a liberal candidate to be successful in the coming mid-term elections, particularly when running against a more pragmatic, populist candidate.

To hold onto their majority, Democrats must focus on a populist message with real appeal and appear to be concerned about the voters’ angst.

Successful candidates will convince voters that they want to go to Washington to solve real issues, not to be part of a broken process. Voters don’t much care for either party; they want people who will address their concerns.

Will this year be like 1984, a wave election driven by the need to have balance in government? Or will it be like 1992, when people were hurting economically and wanted something new versus the staleness of President George H. W. Bush?

Or will it be more like 1994, when a new President Bill Clinton hadn’t got his footing yet and the signs of economic recovery were unclear?

Keep in mind that 1984 was not a great economic period in terms of the numbers. What President Ronald Reagan had in excess was optimism and a clear agenda: He wanted to lead America, his “shining city on a hill.” That is why his “Morning in America” commercial resonated; it gave people hope and played on the sense that the economy was turning up.

We probably are closest to 1992, in which incumbents need to beware, outsiders have real appeal and the man in the White House seems to lack vision. Voters likely will gravitate to candidates who show vision with enthusiasm and appeal, regardless of ideology.

Democrat Creigh Deeds lost Virginia’s gubernatorial race because he had no message or agenda; Republican Bob McDonnell won there because he did have those – and voters saw it.

Democrat Martha Coakley lost Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate race because she had no message on fixing voters’ problems; Republican Scott Brown won because he spoke like someone who wants to fix problems. (His challenge going forward is to lead the effort and to be for something real on health care reform, not just the Senate’s 41st “no” vote.)

Voters have become much more fickle because of a rapidly changing world. We once feared change and, therefore, it occurred slowly, incrementally. Wave or change elections were generational: FDR in 1932, Kennedy to a lesser degree in 1960, Reagan in 1980. Then we started to see them in shorter, back-to-back periods: Clinton in 1992, balance in 1994, Democrats in 2006, Obama in 2008.

Many people still like Obama personally because they don’t see him as corrupt – but the way health-care reform proposals moved through Congress has angered them. Obama must be careful or he could turn out to be like fish and visitors – unwelcome after three days.

In his case, it will be three years.

[LibLieSlayer]

No, she would not care what my opinion is and I just wanted to make my opinion known. Few beyond myself care of where my opinions lie... so thanks anyway.

LLS

[DGHoodini]

DemoLiberals are “populists” in the same way that drug dealers, pimps, and union bosses, are “populists”.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

He met with George HW Bush,(41) not GWB (43). Old George was attending a dinner in Washington. (Probably the GOP elite, Free Masons, etc,,.)

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

“Corporate GREED”= profits to a “Progressive/Populist”.

It all boils down to a much more sinister ideology, the likes of which slaughtered a royal family out of rhetorical hatred. (The Romanov's) Mao also used the “Populist” mantra to gather his Red Guard together. Millions of people died as a result of the blind hate they created.

Now I understand why the Democrats think the term is so “cool”.

[ozark hilljilly]

Huey Long was a populist.
That alone soured me on the phrase for good.

[CapnJack]

“Do these Democrats actually believe they can fool enough voters this time around to survive?”

Yup, and November is a LOOOOONG time from now.

[FrankR]

“I essentially believe that ‘progressive’ is the wrong “P” to be describing yourself as this cycle,” said a Democratic strategist working on congressional campaigns across the country. “ ‘Populist’ is the way to go.”

A turd by any other name.....

[pepsi_junkie]

They couldnt call themselves liberals anymore because everyone knew what that was and didn't like it, so rather than change their policies, they decided to change what they call themselves, dusted off the 'ol "Progressive" label. It took just a few years for everyone to figure out that just means "liberal", so they can't use that anymore. Now they want to change again, call themselves "populist" but it's the same 'ol stuff. After 2010 when they lose big, they'll have to come up with another fake label.

The Democrats are a fundamentally dishonest party that has to lie to get elected because if they said what they really stand for, they'd never win and they know it.

[MrB]

Nothing but elitist scumbags that think they’re somehow better than “the masses” and seek different rules for themselves than the masses.

They keep it up and we’ll have a modern Bastille day here in America.

There is no way they can be honest with the people, and there is little chance that the people aren’t seeing through their snobbish elitism and desire to oppress and subject the “serfs” to their elitist whims.

[Mobilemitter]

I'm a Communist

I'm a Socialist

I'm a Populist

I'm a Progressive

I'm a Liberal

I'm a Democrat

I'm a Progressive

I'm a Populist

That is worth repeating!!!!

[FatherofFive]

“I essentially believe that ‘progressive’ is the wrong “P” to be describing yourself as this cycle,” said a Democratic strategist working on congressional campaigns across the country. “ ‘Populist’ is the way to go.”

Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
We won't get fooled again!

The new theme song of Independents may be sung at the SuperBowl!

[mplsconservative]

He didn’t meet with President Bush #43. He met with President Bush #41. It probably had something to do with Haiti.

[Constitutional Patriot]

Makes sense — Thanks for the info.

[screaminsunshine]

Take your money and give away to someone else after keeping half. I would call that....Rationing. They are Rationists. Social Engineers and we are the Laboratory Rats for their insane experiments.

[ripley]

“Do these Democrats actually believe they can fool enough voters this time around to survive?”

The Democrat propaganda machine is going full tilt. It is looking for ways to lull those “brilliant” independents into pulling the lever for their “brilliant” Democrat comrades. (Just how “brilliant” can an independent be?
Just how above the fray can a “brilliant” independent be?)

Watch them this fall.

IMHO

[RU88]

It’s pretty hard to reinvent yourself to counter voter angst when it’s your signature issues that are causing the anger. The bottom line is this: any one who wants to carry Obama’s water will drown in it come November.

[ChrisInAR]

Fair or not, voters have distaste and distrust this year for any candidate running under the “progressive” banner that was so wildly popular just last year.

Does anyone ahree w/ me that Gkenn Beck's discussion about progressives & their history in the US might have anything to do w/ it?

[23 Everest]

I disagree. We need the “C” word. “CONSERVATIVE” voted into office.

[sportutegrl]

Candidates, he said, should appear as an outsider who will fight for Main Street, not Wall Street.

Playing 'Populist' only works when you are an outsider, underdog, against the entrenched majority. The Dems are very clearly the party in charge. And, after the bank bailouts, stimulus, cap and tax, and health care, done over the screaming protests of 'the people', they can't play populist now.

[loveliberty2]

Those who wish to bypass the severe limitations on their power imposed by the U. S. Constitution must find innovative ways to "fool" voters.

Using tricks with language has worked to their advantage in the past. They believe it will work now.

Just as the real history and meaning of the word "progressive" is being discusssed, the word "populist" is coming into vogue.

Have Americans wised up? Or, will they see through the semantics employed by this president and his power brokers--he who loves to use words, because they "matter."

Bad ideas masked in misleading semantic terms are still bad ideas.

Make a list of your own examples of such manipulation of the minds of citizens by mislabeling and share with the young people you know. Watching for and identifying the trickery is the key to rebutting and defeating it.