Smart Populism, Good Policy
In the Washington Post recently, George F. Will traces historical precedent in Presidential elections to convince his readers that Palin will not be elected president in 2012. Why? Because Populist support hasn’t been large enough to win an election since Andrew Jackson. He concludes:
“Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.”
I understand resentment. People want change because they are dissatisfied with the way things are now; they resent the policies (and the politicians) that led them there; and their resentment makes them speak out. They may even be whiny. All the same, his article is aimed at the wrong target.
Absent is the notion that populism, while not widespread or “serious” enough to win Palin the Oval Office, can still effect a change. Populist ideas can, in fact, present plausible solutions for “serious problems,” even if a “populist” politician will never win the big election.
So what is the populist sentiment today? In the Newsweek Guide to Smart Populism, Michael Hirsh writes a few guidelines:
“The general principles: replace policies that pander to corporations with ones that help people, give companies incentives to be better citizens, finance government operations more equitably, and stop the pernicious practice of socializing losses and privatizing gains.”
Then Hirsh offers his solutions (’Slash Wall Street compensation,’ ‘Fix “too big to fail”‘, etc.), with compelling evidence and support for each — without whining. The article is aptly titled, “The Wisdom of Crowds“.