The myth of American populism

[Darth Wong]

I often hear Americans talking about how their country is more "populist" than other countries. It certainly seems that way when you look at how intellectuals are sneered at, and a lack of class and composure almost seem to be advantages when running for president (look at how Bush's "down home" style is viewed as a political asset).

But in a real sense, Americans seem to tolerate a great deal of insularity in their aristocracy. Did any of you know that one of the major political stories in Britain is a Labour Party minister (Ruth Kelly) deciding to send one of her children to a private school rather than a public one? Can you even imagine trying to kick up a fuss about an American congressman sending his kids to private school, no matter how far to the "left" he is perceived as being? It would be considered laughable in America to demand answers for why some Congressman is not sending his kids to public school.

So just how populist is America, really? It seems to me that America really has no problem with an insular, arrogant, isolated elite, as long as it's an economic elite and not an intellectual one.

[Surlethe]

I wonder how many Americans actually realize there's an economic elite? I actually hadn't even thought about it until recently; I simply assumed that there was perfect economic mobility: if you worked hard, you could eventually get rich.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder how many Americans actually realize there's an economic elite? I actually hadn't even thought about it until recently; I simply assumed that there was perfect economic mobility: if you worked hard, you could eventually get rich.

The funny thing is that most people do recognize on some level how important connections are in climbing the socio-economic ladder. They know about Skull and Crossbones. They know about how the rich and the poor live in almost totally isolated worlds from each other. But they don't make the connection to realize that there is a power/money elite and that there are many barriers to crossing that line. They point to the occasional person who's done it (even though almost all such people actually start in the upper-middle class) and act as if that disproves the idea.

[Dartzap]

The whole Ruth Kelly affair seems to be more about the hyopcrisy of her government closing down those "special schools" that her kid might have used more than anything else - the more detailed news shows are looking at the policies that effect how a kid with SEN's are taught and how provisions for them are completely fucked up.

[Darth Wong]

The whole Ruth Kelly affair seems to be more about the hyopcrisy of her government closing down those "special schools" that her kid might have used more than anything else - the more detailed news shows are looking at the policies that effect how a kid with SEN's are taught and how provisions for them are completely fucked up.

So? Why isn't anyone pointing out the hypocrisy of "No Child Left Behind" when none of the Congressmen use any of these schools they're fucking up? The "rich boy" lifestyle of the Congressman is simply not political fair game, or so it appears. It's simply taken for granted that they live the way they do, we live the way we do, and never the twain shall meet.

[Stravo]

The whole Ruth Kelly affair seems to be more about the hyopcrisy of her government closing down those "special schools" that her kid might have used more than anything else - the more detailed news shows are looking at the policies that effect how a kid with SEN's are taught and how provisions for them are completely fucked up.

So? Why isn't anyone pointing out the hypocrisy of "No Child Left Behind" when none of the Congressmen use any of these schools they're fucking up? The "rich boy" lifestyle of the Congressman is simply not political fair game, or so it appears. It's simply taken for granted that they live the way they do, we live the way we do, and never the twain shall meet.

Part of it may do with this sort of learned behavior that you do not attack those that 'made it' because you may make it some day yourself (American dream, blah blah) or that its sour grapes and by attacking someone that made it you are in some twisted way attacking the American system. Afterall by suceeding are we not in some way validating the American dream and work ethic? And if you don't succeed the first person that gets blamed is you, not the system, (unless you're a minority)

I see it now with the hand wringing going on by some commentators whenever the issue of CEO Compensation comes up - a current topic with Home Depot's CEO leaving with a $200 million severance package after running Home Depot into the ground. Those few brave souls attacking the ridiculous state of Executive compensation are ridiculed by other commentators with such hackneyed gems as "They're getting paid what the market thinks they deserve" and "You're just jealous and wish you could make the same" (Both heard on Fox News this weekend)

Yet attacking a rich man for being rich is almost seen as taboo - hell look at the Republican attacks against Democrats for any HINT of taxing the rich or big business. And their poorer constiuents go along with this protection for the rich. Why? Because one day they might be rich and why attack someone for doing what you'd like to do in America? Be rich.

[Knife]

Part of it may do with this sort of learned behavior that you do not attack those that 'made it' because you may make it some day yourself (American dream, blah blah) or that its sour grapes and by attacking someone that made it you are in some twisted way attacking the American system. Afterall by suceeding are we not in some way validating the American dream and work ethic? And if you don't succeed the first person that gets blamed is you, not the system, (unless you're a minority)

I see it now with the hand wringing going on by some commentators whenever the issue of CEO Compensation comes up - a current topic with Home Depot's CEO leaving with a $200 million severance package after running Home Depot into the ground. Those few brave souls attacking the ridiculous state of Executive compensation are ridiculed by other commentators with such hackneyed gems as "They're getting paid what the market thinks they deserve" and "You're just jealous and wish you could make the same" (Both heard on Fox News this weekend)

Yet attacking a rich man for being rich is almost seen as taboo - hell look at the Republican attacks against Democrats for any HINT of taxing the rich or big business. And their poorer constiuents go along with this protection for the rich. Why? Because one day they might be rich and why attack someone for doing what you'd like to do in America? Be rich.

Agreed, I've heard simular things with the 'raise in mininum wage' issue. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue; but the doom and gloom of some over the 'collapse of the economy' was laughable.

I'm a capitalist, I believe in free market, yet there is an upper class who set the rules or pay someone to set them.

OT, America has it's sacred cows, filthy rich fucks just seem to be one of em. I think Strav hit it right on the head, in that if you attack the rich you're precieved as attacking the system and want to by pass it in some way. The evils of socialistic Europe and all that.

[SirNitram]

It's because folks born here are, to a degree, batshit insane. I'm sorry, there it is. I got the American Dream drilled into me. The old one. I would pompously call it the proper one.

Work your ass off, and you'll have a better life than the parents who brought you here.

I'll be the first to admit I haven't made it there yet, thanks to a bevvy, nay, a virtual cocktail of genetic setbacks I've been dealt, to say nothing of my occasional bouts of slackerdom. But I'm hauling my weight. Americans seem to have heard of the idea, but they seem to think it's a magic button that wins them the lotto or something.

[K. A. Pital]

Heh. I think I know why this is so. Just my humble suggestions, of course.

The premise "can't attack him because you can make it to there, too" could only be born in a society which never experienced _nobility_ - blood-line barriers to power and wealth. Remember what Europe did to nobles? Oh right... and now we have America. All rich people are "Americans who made it". Even if they start to form some sort of a noble class, an aristocracy which is governed by ties and relations, and people can be born into this wealth and power easily, but to rise there - a few can manage... this is ignored.

Because America doesn't see the elite as evil. "Elite are just us". No distinct separation. No nobles and landlords, who fought in senseless wars where their soldiers, workers, peasants dies. No aristocracy for hundreds of years, when people really understand how _foreign_ and _evil_ to them and their will can an elite person be. The seeds of class warfare, when it is understood that not the individual determines the rules, but the elite as a class.

If America experienced this, I'd suggest the attitude would've changed. The cost, of course, the cost... even the current situation with wealthy elites already has plenty of negative consequences. if it becomes more dire, all the worse. Perhaps it's for the better that America doesn't know what class warfare is. For it is a bloody thing.

[Coyote]

The rich here have done an amazing job of portraying themselves as "part of the crowd" to avoid criticism. They've expertly deflected criticism to the not-rich, and made it "their fault" for not "working harder".

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

America, populist? Who's been stealing my weed again?

Seriously, any time one uses the word 'populist', some stupid busybody quickly chimes in and defines it 'Communism'. Yes, America is quite obsessed with Communism to this day.

[Adrian Laguna]

The rich here have done an amazing job of portraying themselves as "part of the crowd" to avoid criticism. They've expertly deflected criticism to the not-rich, and made it "their fault" for not "working harder".

And it somehow works despite examples like Paris Hilton. I mean, has that woman worked a day in her life? Has she ever had to deal with mind-numbing and repetitive work for a measly salary? I wont pretend to be working class, I'm comfortably upper-middle, but at least I've had a taste of what it's like*. Paris Hilton will likely get to live her entire life partying and doing fun stuff, "working hard" shall never enter the equation.

*Summer job, I'm so getting a college degree so I can avoid doing that ever again.

[Medic]

The rich here have done an amazing job of portraying themselves as "part of the crowd" to avoid criticism. They've expertly deflected criticism to the not-rich, and made it "their fault" for not "working harder".

And it somehow works despite examples like Paris Hilton. I mean, has that woman worked a day in her life? Has she ever had to deal with mind-numbing and repetitive work for a measly salary? I wont pretend to be working class, I'm comfortably upper-middle, but at least I've had a taste of what it's like*. Paris Hilton will likely get to live her entire life partying and doing fun stuff, "working hard" shall never enter the equation.

*Summer job, I'm so getting a college degree so I can avoid doing that ever again.

That is exactly the point made in the show she starred in "The Simple Life." She and... some other girl who I have no idea is related [friend?] were doing farm rancher shit.

The Paris Hilton's and Kevin Federline's epitomize this get-rich-quick obsession, the in-vogue American Dream. What the fuck did Federline do but date a chick in high school who ended up being a teen-pop hit and hooking up later in life?

Most Americans are materialistic. (yes, in spite of what religious loons we have) I don't know exactly when or how, but the dream of owning a huge house, shunning eduction, the Escalade with the bling and extravagant lifestyle is so desired. Ask any American what they'd do with a million dollars, we're not short of answers. (it's not necessary to package every single one of those for my point to hold true; outside of gangsta rap you don't see the shunning education slant as hard)

How exactly that relates to insulating the super-wealthy upper class from criticism? The idea that people don't want the kind of society where if they were rich, they're taxed to hell or something is as good an idea I've seen mentioned.
Although consider also one of the great visions of Conservatism and limited government is that government is inherently wasteful, perhaps evil, and not desirable. Whatever it can accomplish the free market and charity can do better and this point is hammered down our throats by the likes of Cavuto many a day. They conflate wealth with charity, selflessness and an ability, through charitable donation, to effect positive change greater than central government ever can every chance they get.

Take Glen Beck. He dressed the issue of stem-cell research being vetoed by Bush as such: the free market will better and more efficiently fund it's research than central government ever will, so Bush gets a free pass for doing the right thing. Bush framed it in no such way, he was sucking religious cock. That sort of ad hoc and other types of bullshittery though are employed in defense of the wealthy. Wealthy motherfuckers like Bill Gates and ... I can't remember that record donation at the end of last year (I think it was a record) making such donations doesn't help. (funny that they were atheists too )

Less than just insulating the rich, I can see an anti-big government theme and the Conservative slant in American politics. A Conservative slant neatly explains why some .... absolutely ridiculous notions (free health insurance? ) AREN'T EVEN ON THE TABLE!

I also fully agree that these conditions can arise because America hasn't put up with real class warfare, or batshit-insane fascists and religious persecutions -- these and other types of calamitous societal upheavals. We've had the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement but neither hold a candle to 2 World Wars centered in the European Peninsula. Europe's history is far longer and more colored, and not always in shades pleasing to the eye.

[Stark]

Maybe it's the levels of government? For instance, local government in AU is quite transparent, and my family met a serving State Premier some years ago. However, at the highest, federal, most divorced from the electorate level, it's nothing like that and politicians can just do what they want and nobody outside lobby groups cares.

[Medic]

If I had to sum up that whole post, the thing this thread does is touch upon the single thing that puts a sick look on my face when thinking about the red, white and blue: indifference and even eager acceptance of inequity.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, there was a time when populism in this country was not a myth. The Gilded Age of the late 19th century produced a real disgust with the naked plutocracy, the Trusts, and the outright buying of congressmen by the likes of J.P. Morgan and such. Ordinary people by the millions knew they had no real power and knew their economic well-being often turned on a whim of the bankers. There was an actual Progressive Party in the United States which was the only serious third party ever to rise up to challenge the two party system, and even the Republican Party ended up with a progressive wing for a time.

What killed the Progressive Party was the first Red Scare. Using the powers granted under the Sedition and Espionage Acts of 1917, the Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, simply used his office to smash any dissident political movement which had even a hint of socialism in its makeup. The International Workers of the World trade union was all but outright outlawed by fiat —while the Postmaster General took it upon himself to suspend delivery of socialist publications and turned over lists of the mailers and reciepients over to Palmer. The Progressive Party was not directly targeted but the general anti-Red hysteria ended up poisioning the well and it became impossible for any progressive to be elected to office. It was around the same time that "safe" trade unions like the AFL and the CIO were promoted and the Horatio Alger mythology began to be widely circulated in print. To foster that whole myth of the American Dream at the same time that the movies and the new radio media were used to pimp the lifestyles of the rich and famous and of sports stars to the public.

This wave of oppression didn't quite stamp out populism however —it came roaring back with the onset of the Depression and was driven by Louisiana's own governor (and later senator) Huey Long. Ol' Huey was a crook and a dictator in our state, but he also soaked the oil barons who'd been robbing Louisiana blind for decades and created a state university system, the state charity hospital system, the free textbooks programme, and initiated new highway and bridge construction which had been sorely needed. Long became powerful enough to seriously challenge the political viability of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party when the Depression was at its worst and the New Deal had not become effective, and his Share Our Wealth movement was actually the closest this country ever came to real socialism and not the very watered-down bullshit version of it the Republidrones are constantly yammering on about.

Huey's run at the White House got cut down before it could get started when he was accidentally shot by one of his own trigger-happy goons who were shooting Dr. Carl Weiss to pieces when he pulled a gun on Long in the lobby of the state capitol, seeking revenge for his uncle, a judge whom Long had just gerrymandered out of his job. The national Share Our Wealth movement died, but Longism would continue in Louisiana for several decades particularly when Huey's brother Earl became governor in the 50s.

The New Deal, the Fair Deal, and LBJ's Great Society created a nice long period in which the playing field was evened out and as a result the people of this country ended up forgetting the time when things really were skewed in favour of the rich and the working classes could barely hang on to what little they had. Easy credit keeps up the illusion of prosperity as long as you ignore the crushing personal debt too many people in America end up building up. And now you've got a media machine combined with a treadmill-like existence in this country in which people are continually dazzled to keep up with the Joneses and the result is a population who really have no clue that a new plutocracy has arisen under their own noses, who've lost touch with the concept of politics as a tool for change, who've been suckered into disdaining politics all together or otherwise (particularly the religious) are pointed at strawman enemies to hate and fear and bullshit non-issues to get worked up about. And the result is that the populist strain in American political thought has been effectively buried and forgotten.

[Uraniun235]

The seeds of class warfare, when it is understood that not the individual determines the rules, but the elite as a class.

If America experienced this, I'd suggest the attitude would've changed. The cost, of course, the cost... even the current situation with wealthy elites already has plenty of negative consequences. if it becomes more dire, all the worse. Perhaps it's for the better that America doesn't know what class warfare is. For it is a bloody thing.

'Popular culture' is the "great" American release-valve; it helps the working class forget how much they're being screwed over.

With the advent and spread of television, it became even more powerful, such to the point that I suspect the only thing that could ever trigger a revolt in America now would be if the government were to outlaw television.

[Covenant]

Populism in America is not a complete myth, but it seems only to extend as far as the dim understanding of our nation's electoral process as meaning Mob Rule, when in fact this is of course not true. I'd agree that things like the red scare really ruined the feeling of a working man's state, and now attacking the rich for being aloof, detached, and well rich is equated with attacking success and hard work.

We know that's false too. I'm struggling to get out of freelancing and into a 9-5 job, and the only serious breaks I've gotten so far are from connections I have through family friends. If I were in a less affluent community, those are opportunities I would not have had. Same with the public education I got, and so on and so forth. America has no defined nobility, but we certainly have an elite of old money just as powerful as any royalty ever were. We don't need a monarchy--we've got enough unoffical dynasties already, run by the money and power they've built up over the years. By now they function on sheer inertia.

The idea of a populist America isn't dead. George Washington and such were certainly not common men by anyone's estimation, but we've had a Lincoln here and there. The people are just so dead-set against the idea nowadays, and that's just as big of a problem. They're willing accomplices in their own funeral. The idea that all you need is hard work and you'll get anything you want is just a myth. With enough hard work you'll probably get somewhere, but it's such a meatgrinder of ambition out there, and I personally have no desire to fight my way up a corporate ladder or any such nonsense. I'm more of a "Do What You Love" sort of guy, and that's a populist sort of idea. People equate the land of opportunity with the gladiatorial bloodsport of modern employment, and that's a travesty.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, what "success and hard work" really means is that you can technically become a capitalist, then try to get ultra-rich by clever investment and utter annihilation of your competitors.

For a person who doesn't want to do that, but is thralled, for example, with creating steelcutting machines... well, too fucking bad. Can't have your cake and eat it too, worker.

[Stark]

Don't forget: go to business school and get highpaid jobs even when you fail... and then you have the right to complain about stress and stuff. Phew it's hard work making millions of dollars a year, and paltry software engineer or boilermaker wouldn't know shit about stress!

[His Divine Shadow]

I've just been watching SVT (swedish state TV) and there's one populist incident after another, going on there, mostly about nothing.

A few months ago one minister had to resign after only a few days because she hadn't paid her TV license for 16 years, in reality it probably wouldn't have been a big deal at all(only like 2000$ which was paid in full before the story hit the papers), almost half of the riksdag(congress) don't pay their licenses it was discovered later on.

But this new minister was part of the centre-right alliance and really hated the idea of the government running entertainment channels and subsidising theatres and "starving artists" and whatnot. I had real hopes for this one to clean out these leeches on society, but she didn't even get to pack up her stuff before the media storm had resulted in her having to step down.

Populism is as real in america as it is over here.

[His Divine Shadow]

Correction, populism is probably more real over here.

[Sam Or I]

OK, I think there is a big difference between the rich and the ultra rich.

I know to many "rich" people that became rich through smart work. I personally know 3 people who would be considered millionaires. They are also some of the hardest, and smartest working people I know. MY boss, I have seen put in a 80 work week for at least 3 weeks straight. I know at one point in his life he had only $10 to his name. He has found a niche market and is taking full advantage of it. (On the backs of my labor mind you.)

My ex-roomate he is not "rich so to speak, but he is well on his way, he has saved up enough, and invested enough to now start buying a four plex to rent out. Granted he was never poor, but he was lower middle class. It is intresting see him become wealthy.

I definately see a difference between peoples attitudes and drive that become wealthy, and those that do not.

A point about CEO's they are not hired like your average salary employee, but they are contracted, much like a Baseball player. If you contract a great pitcher, and he has a bad season and looses every single game he pitches for, you still pay him. If you hire a CEO, and he sinks the company, unfortunately the company still owes him for doing his job, even if it was poorly. Then his reputation is blown and his career usually ends.

For the ultra-rich it is a different story (Talking billionaires, not even multi-millionares) it is a different story. I have not met any of them personally, so I cannot tell you thier work habits. If they made it from the ground up, they deserve it. If they inherited it, like ms. Paris Hilton, they do not deserve crap. It is very rare for a poor to middle class person to find themselves in the ultra rich catagory in one generation. (It can happen, but rarely) Sometimes family wealth can be built upon in generations.

For K-Fed, he went to a school in my school district, every that I know that knew him says he's an idiot. Some people just get lucky. (He is not from the "streets" he is from Clovis West High School, one of the top 200 highschools in the nation.)

There is definately a huge gap between the rich and the Ultra Rich, and it is rarely crossed. I can see almost anyone becoming rich if they dedicate themselve to it. Rich people that earn it, earning money is thier hobby. They enjoy doing it, they have found the best way to do it that works for them. I mean if I spent as much time trying to make money as I do on this internet forum, I would be better off myself. (Seriously, if anyone regulars on SD.net dedicate this internet time and ernergy to making money, I am sure we would have a couple millionares in 5 to 10 years.)

[Knife]

Actually, my wife has spent the last ten years or so as a executive secretary for such men who started middle class and made it big. Even in this sub-class these people tend (sample sized is roughly six, her bosses and their associates) to become aloof. Expect freebies and hookups when they plainly have the money to buy the object in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

Every "self-made millionaire" I've ever known in real-life was an insular asshole. There may be "self-made millionaires" out there who aren't like that, but the problem is that you need a shitload of ambition in order to climb that ladder quickly, and that usually means you're good at emotionally distancing yourself from the consequences of your actions.

Saying that many millionaires are "self-made" (by which we typically mean that their parents were just shy of being millionaires already and they just took the next step) doesn't refute the argument that they live in worlds which are isolated from the lower classes or that class mobility is shrinking.

PS. To me, one of the most important lines to cross is having personal servants. When you have personal servants, you become one of these pricks.