Someone asked me once what my politics were and my stock reply, which I thought a lot about beforehand and worked on, is that I don’t have politics… I have principles. That may seem a bit pretentious, but I mean it. To me, the current two-and-a-half party system offers almost nothing principled. Republocrats, Democritans, it’s all the same. Neither party can claim any real coherency in their principles. I’ll save for another post, my thoughts on the internal illogic of both parties. As a primer, just on the issues of civil liberties (Republicans: heavy on 2nd Amendment (guns-guns-guns!), light on 1st – except corporate “free $peech”!! Democrats: Heavy on 1st Amendment (except corporate free $peech), light on 2nd Amendment – as in, give me your gun – big on… whatever Amendment gives us a freedom to abortion).
But the issue du jour for me is populism. Specifically, both parties routine use of populist politics in their most vile forms to win an election. The fractures in the party itself are illustrative of the worst parts of populism – their reliance on populist sentiment, and frequently emotions of the time, to generate political will. This can turn populism quickly into not much more than a lynch mob. Populism (The People’s Party was the official name of the original Populist Party of William Jennings Bryan back in the ’20s) devolved because they had strong racist elements within the party, trying to reconcile themselves to the women’s movement and the temperance movement. That’s quite a combination – yet they were all united, at least for a brief time, against “the man,” as it were – both political and corporate entrenched interests.
Populism (more generally) is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes”. It is essentially any political discourse that appeals to the general masses – the “people” – regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship. As one author noted, it is “a folksy appeal to the ‘average guy’ or some allegedly general will”. Remember “Joe the Plumber” from the 2008 elections?
As Yale law professor J.M. Balkin has astutely pointed out:
“An excellent study of the Republican strategy and its consequences is found in THOMAS B. EDSALL WITH MARY D. EDSALL, CHAIN REACTION (1991), which describes how pathological populist tendencies towards racism have been manipulated by the Republican party. A blueprint of how conservative Republicans might be attacked by an economic populist is offered in KEVIN PHILLIPS, THE POLITICS OF RICH AND POOR (1990).”
Populism in its best form is nothing more than a demand for greater political input by the majority of the people, a little “more” democracy. But in its worst forms, it can produce intolerance against unpopular minorities, have a very strong (and sometimes fanatical) religious overtone, and infuse economics with morality.
This last version of populism is the one heard most often today by our own President, who continues to rail against the boogeymen of “the rich.” (Cue the Snidely Whiplash music).
The top 10% of wage earners in America pay 70% of the federal income taxes. Just think about that for a moment. 10% of the income earners are paying 70% of the federal income tax collected.
While 46% of the people who filed returns paid ZERO taxes. Zero. So… (ahem), who’s getting a free ride? Who’s not paying their “fair share” again? Last I checked, although I did leave Engineering after 4 semesters, I remember from Calc. 3 that a positive number (70%) is more than ZERO. So, those complaining about the “millionaires and billionaires” who aren’t paying their “fair share” – I have a very simple question that needs only a number for an answer? How much is “fair share” for the top 10% to pay of the taxes? If 70% is not enough (and thus not a “fair share”, how much is?) This is a very simple, mathematical (and philosophical) question – is it 75%? 82%? 92%? Fuck ’em, make those “rich” bastards pay the whole thing? 100%? Would that be “fair enough?”
One other worthwhile note – Penn Jillette wrote one of the greatest OpEd pieces for CNN – EVER. Here’s the salient part from it – though it is all great (even the parts I disagree with – because I am not an Atheist, but I respect his reasons for being one).
“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment — suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I’m a nut, but I’m not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force — literally, not figuratively.
I don’t believe the majority always knows what’s best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don’t believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up against the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.”
Bravo, Mr. Jillette. And dude’s a pretty fucking good magician, too.