The Progressive and the Populist

FOCUS | Facebook Is Using You

White Supremacists Love Ron Paul

FOCUS: The Cancer in Occupy

FOCUS | Madonna, Like a Man, and Hated for It

Things Are Not O.K.

Populists emerge during panics and depressions. And since we're not living in a time of prosperity for most Americans, it's not surprising that a Populist like Perriello seems to have his fingertips on the pulse of public feeling more surely than a Progressive like Obama.

File photo, President Barack Obama speaking, 02/25/10. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty)

Open Article On Originating Site

Comments

+5 # Guest 2010-03-13 11:38

One problem with this article--Obama is no progressive, not with war on the table, nuclear power, health-care without a public option, "clean coal," and his slip-sliding on the constitutional lapses (to put it genteelly) of the past.

+6 # Guest 2010-03-13 12:11

Your argument is negated ab initio by your premise that Obama is, or ever was, a progressive. Not the case. He is a new Democrat, a DLC choir boy. And the DlCers only have the pulse of the money people in their attention span, and not the pulse of all of us.

A false argument at best.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-13 13:32

Packer is speaking historically and in a way consistent with political theory, using the term "Progressive" in a specialized and technical sense. It should be remembered that historically speaking, many Progressives were Republicans. The commentators above are using the term in its current colloquial sense, as a near-synonym for "liberal" (which also had a different meaning in prior historical discourse). No wonder there is no meeting of the minds. It might help if commentators actually read the article they are purportedly commenting on before posting.
I say this as an Obama supporter in 2008 who has been more than occasionally critical (from the left) of his performance in office thus far, including his reluctance to act on the recognition that Congressional Republicans are uninterested in playing nicely.

0 # Guest 2010-03-14 11:24

Very few Republicans were ever "Progressives even a century ago, and Obama certainly does not qualify either today or in days of yore.

I read the article and found it unpersuasive at best given the noted premise.

But since Obama is a contemporary in this era, does it not make sense to define him in current terms?

Your argument is as specious as Packers.

0 # Guest 2010-03-15 19:21

No offense. You seem like a decent fellow. Yet as for whether "progressive" meant something different 100 years ago or not, I must admit to finding the topic of only trivial interest. I think people know what it means today and the truth is that we only have a handful of them in Congress. The same can be said for actual "populists" (not the image of cynical ideologues depicted here). Ask the ghost of Mussolini for a definition of fascism and you'll find out very quickly which political persuasion holds the majority of seats. Hint: It's not progressive populists. I say this a McKinney supporter in 2008 who found the false progressive populism of Obama to be transparent, the adulation of his fans to be ridiculous, their "hope" to be pathetic, and the results to be quite predictable. Before he was elected he supported the bailout ripoff with McCain, and before he took office he remained silent while the our munitions rained down on Gaza. Since then, it has been business as usual in Washington, D.C..

0 # Guest 2010-03-16 21:37

Interesting. I am also a Green, 2008 supporter of Cynthia.

Nothing changed. Bait and switch from the Obam/DLC Dems.

+2 # Guest 2010-03-13 13:54

Let's make it three. I agree
totally with Messrs Delaney and
Harrington, the first two
commenters. Mr Perriello has
my admiration, as do Dennis
Kucinich and Alan Grayson.

Best wishes to all

Alan McConnell in Silver Spring MD

+2 # Guest 2010-03-13 14:30

I don't like agreeing with the two earlier comments, but at this point, I must. I see little left in Obama -- after his immediate kow-towing to Wall Street and the Banking System, despite a few hand-slappings since then, and his giving up on a Public Option for health care, not to mention his (oh, god, no!) continuing the Bush regime non-transparency regarding our attitude toward torture, Guantanamo and the stances of our Justice Department -- to classify him as Progressive. But I hope this will change. Is Mr. Packer simply relaying the New Yorker- or the Democratic Party-line? I hope not, as Packer is too smart a man for that. At least, I thought he was.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-13 15:57

Congress and the President are out of touch with the ordinary citizen. Never have the thrift shops been so full of customers!!!

Vietnam Era Veteran

+1 # Guest 2010-03-14 05:01

Could it be that the real difference between Messers Perriello and Obama is that Perriello is really in no position to take actions that we can see. But he can continue to talk. Obama is stuck with having to act.

+3 # Guest 2010-03-14 05:04

Perriello doesn't belong in the same category as Kucinich & Grayson. He just voted with the majority and against Kucinich in the recent Afghan war debate. He also voted for the Stupak amendment.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-15 06:46

I feel I must speak out in defense of the Progressives of 100 years ago. In addition to being concerned about working class members of society they were fiercely opposed to the evils of big business. It was the Progressives who pushed Congress to pass anti-trust laws and then clamored for Presidents to break up the trusts. They also are the people who pushed through the progressive federal income tax. On this very centeral issue, Obama is not a Progressive - he is more comparable to the Mugwumps, Republicans and Democrats from the 19th century who campaigned for "clean" government, but had little time for the problems of average working people. On health care, on climate change legislation, on bank regulations - Obama and his Congress have mostly tried to "buy off" rouge businesses like the drug industry and the giant banks. We are seeing the death of the liberal imagination.

0 # Guest 2010-03-15 19:08

This article attempts to draw a clear line between progressives and populists that doesn't exist. It's basic set theory; there's some overlap but it's not 100%. That is, some progressives are populists, and some populists are progressives. But they're not, as this simple model insinuates, mutually exclusive. Such forced dualism is unhelpful in these times, when we need to look for allies rather than enemies, for coalition rather than opposition. Let the progressive populist majority of Americans stand their common ground rather than be divided and conquered by their differences.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

rsn

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.