This is a provocative, must-read article by Barry C. Lynn of the New America Foundation and Phillip Longman, a senior editor at the Washington Monthly. They review the history of Populism and import its essential ideas into the present era.
The… first Populists drew upon a political philosophy with roots back to the American Revolution. Part of this tradition is familiar—a belief that government must be run by the people. Populists called for direct election of senators and led the push for referendums and initiatives to bypass corrupt legislatures. But another part is largely forgotten—that the people are sovereign over the economy and have a responsibility to structure markets to promote the common good.
This was the “democratic republicanism” of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It holds that, just like political power, economic power must be distributed as widely as possible. Thus, the Populists focused much of their energy on combating efforts to monopolize commerce and natural resources, especially land. They also closely studied how to govern large corporations, and strongly supported unionization of workers and farmers to counter the power of concentrated capital.
Read their proposals for restoring power to the people.
This is one I like a lot, and I would add charter schools to their list:
What would a True Populist do today? Insist that the managers of any corporation receiving more than a quarter of its revenues from taxpayers—including defense contractors, universities, and hospitals—work at government wages. And require that the bosses of local public utilities earn no more than the public servants who regulate them.
They also propose breaking up the giant monopolies of Google, Amazon, and Facebook, and localizing retail, banking and other services.
Since the 1970s, both Democrats and Republicans have undone almost all these laws. The result has been a concentration of power and wealth that would have horrified True Populists. In groceries, pharmacies, hardware, and office supply, control has been consolidated in as few as one or two giants. So, too, wealth—the Walton family alone is now as rich as 140 million other Americans combined. And with the rise of online goliaths like Amazon, which aims to be the “Everything Store,” control will only be yet further concentrated.
What would a True Populist do today? Besides neutralizing large online retailers, a True Populist would revive the laws Americans used to localize banking, farming, and retail through the heart of the twentieth century.
About fifteen years ago, the Bush administration dropped the guard against vertical integration. Since then Comcast, which distributes television shows, has been allowed to merge with NBC, which produces shows. Amazon, the dominant retail marketplace for books, has been allowed to go big time into publishing books. And Google, which dominates search, has been allowed to compete directly with companies like Yelp, which rely on Google’s search engine.
What would a True Populist do today? Break up Amazon, Facebook, Google, Comcast, and any other essential network monopoly by banning them from owning companies that depend on their services.
Wow! Now here is some fresh thinking.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
It would look like Democracy …
..and of course, Bernie Sanders has no brain so we need to look to the past to know what populism with a brain is.
here’s what I’d like to see: journalism with a brain.
We’re not going to get any of that from HRC or Donald Trump. It’s absurd to believe otherwise.
HRC = populism without a heart
Trump = populism without a brain
Who’s the one who equals populism without courage?
Where is a wizard when you need one?
I’m pretty sure the name of the pop king without courage starts with “O”.
It would look like democracy. It would look like Bernie Sanders. It would look like a healthy and transformed public education system, which includes civics, ethics, and freedom of play and curiosity.
Diane, thanks for pointing to this article. When we in Europe think of what good American democracy looks like – it’s this that we want to see, this which you guys modeled successfully and defended for a couple of hundred years against the predatory instincts of the plutocrats. One thing missing is the fundamental role of diverse, sustainable local farming and agriculture, where instead I have to look to Wendell Berry or Wes Jackson and the 50-year Farm Bill. If you take the prescription from Lynn and Longman you will fall foul soon of the crazy industrialization of agriculture that affects your nation more than ours with its insistence on massive fuel and fertilizer bills and bigger and bigger farms. You have the thinkers to lead this kind of revolution, which would, as the previous guy said, look like a democracy we would all cherish. But, if we don’t look after the land, the work of localism is only half done.
Thank you for this one, and all the wonderful writing we would miss. I posted a link to the original piece.
Small victories. At least for a few years net neutrality is secure.
Populism with brain would reflect lots of what Sanders supports. It would support government of, by and for the people, not corporations or billionaires. It would support public institutions like public schools in which the governance is generally an elected school board. We would have stricter gun laws because we know the majority of people support gun registration laws. If populism ruled, we would have spending limits on political campaigns so all members of society could run for office. We would also try to limit the access of lobbyists that assert undue influence over policymakers. We would also strengthen our social safety nets rather than rolling them back or privatizing them. In a populist system, the voice of the people would count more, and the wealthy would not get such skewed partiality.
Pulitzer to the authors, please. I hope “Populism with a Brain” is a must read among influential circles. For me, it’s a must read, a must re-read, and a must commit to memory for reference in conversation among my circles, especially the part about privatization of public services. I do not want the kids of today to grow up into a world of monopoly. I hope we can overcome Citizens United and pivot. And then, I hope it’s not too late.
” Insist that the managers of any corporation receiving more than a quarter of its revenues from taxpayers—including defense contractors, universities, and hospitals—work at government wages. And require that the bosses of local public utilities earn no more than the public servants who regulate them.”
Sounds very good. Where is the “more than a quarter” coming from? Why not “more than 10%” or “more than 50%”? Why not say “more than 0%”?
“They also propose breaking up the giant monopolies of Google, Amazon, and Facebook, and localizing retail, banking and other services.”
I wouldn’t omit Microsoft or Walmart. In fact, why not make the statement “any corporation making more than a $1 billion profit in a given year needs to be broken up”. Rationale: a competition needs enough competitors; a competition with 3 participants is useful (and enjoyable) only for those 3.
Populism would have a much better chance without Madelyn Albright. (1) Reportedly, Paul Singer is a client of her PR firm, which critics describe as an influence peddling company. He is heavily involved in the creating the financial crisis that threatens the people of Puerto Rico, He is a charter school zealot. (2) Albright is on the Aspen board with David Koch. Aspen’s education programs, are IMO, evidence that the US Dept. of Ed. is the most fully captured of federal departments. (3) Campaign for America identifies Albright as a member of hedge funder Pete Peterson’s latest attempt to destroy Social Security, After the failure of Fix the Debt, he is now waging the war against working Americans with his Coalition for Fiscal and National Security, with the help of Albright and Henry Kissinger.
It would look like taking obscene money out of elections to restore Democracy . It would look like eliminating the US Senate because the people can be trusted to elect representatives(I think) . Sorry the founders were not exactly populists unless your definition of people ends at the landed gentry . Neither were many that followed . The sordid violent history of Government crushing American labor in service of oligarchs, paints a picture,but not of populism. It would look like Democratic Socialism .It looks like the progressive wing of the Democratic party which has been relegated to the periphery called upon once every four years and ignored in-between by the NDC.
Populism according to Webster “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people”
The guy that believed that ,was getting 27 bucks a head.
No, you don’t want to get rid of the Senate because that is the legislative body that gives equal voice to states irrespective of their size. Without it, the majority rule nature of the House would overwhelm minority rights. States with large populations, all of which also have large urban populations, would control the narrative at the expense of smaller and often more rural states. We already fought that battle back when they were debating the Constitutional provisions.
Then of course you can say that a small part of the population gets a big voice.
We have two Houses of Congress so that everyone gets some voice. The big states have the advantage in the House and the little states have an equal chance of being heard in the Senate. Pure democracy sounds wonderful until you realize that in a straight majority rule system big states would have the ability to routinely disenfranchise small state voters. I’m not sure what the animus toward the Senate is. Bernie and Elizabeth are mighty advocates. Would they have the same voice in the House where their influence could be greatly muted?
Or you could say a massive part of the population has little voice. Effectively disenfranchising hundreds of millions of Americans . California has a larger population than the 20 smallest States 2 votes vs 40 votes . Democracy equals 1 man 1vote
The Senate was not created to be a democratic body elected by the people. Chosen by state legislatures till the 17th amendment 1913 .
The concept taken from the bicameral structure in England where the House of Lords, the Nobility ruled.
So clearly, we have a problem: we cannot have states with small populations decide how the majority of Americans should live, and we cannot have California decide for all the mountain states how they should live.
The problem seems to be with the Union.
Mate
You must be a logician.
the founders were not exactly populists unless your definition of people ends at the landed gentry .’
The reference to the founders also struck me as odd in an article that is supposedly about the history of populism.
Jefferson, a slave operated plantation owner, is hardly the sort of person you can hold up as a representative of the idea that “economic power must be distributed as widely as possible.”
This article seems to be a mishmash of ideas, some of which seem to be valid and others not, but I find the timing (and title) of the article very curious.
“Jefferson, a slave operated plantation owner, is hardly the sort of person you can hold up as a representative of the idea that “economic power must be distributed as widely as possible.”
It is necessary to judge people within the context of their time. We demonize slavery now and rightly so, but we are in big trouble if we try to establish a figure’s worthiness to lead using judgements based outside of their own time period. Jefferson was a force for populism as they defined it.
I actually believe that Jefferson’s ownership of slaves is fair game for criticism because there were abolitionists even back then and Jefferson was certainly smart enough to understand that his ownership of slaves violated the high minded statements in his proclamations: “all men are created equal’, etc
The irony is that what made Jefferson so great is his ability to be a shameless hypocrite. 🙂
But, having said that, my comment was actually not meant to “demonize” Jefferson, just to point out that he was not (at all) a good representation of the idea that “economic power must be distributed as widely as possible.”
Jefferson would not have been a good example even if he had not owned slaves because, as Joel points out above, he was part of the landed gentry.
You have to be careful when saying a teacher should earn the same as the community. When Buffalo teachers wanted a raise there was a backlash from the community, a majority who worked at minimum wage jobs. No sympathy or consideration that teachers needed a masters degree and continuing education hours to remain educators or that similar professionals in the city not only earned a higher salary, but were given bonuses. If they had their way, teachers (often considered glorified babysitters) were not worthy of these higher salaries.
That is only one of the many reasons that Buffalo teachers have not had a new contract (or raise) in over twelve years. (And why they earn $20,000+ A year less than their suburban counterparts).
Populism with a brain would look like Bernie Sanders. What we are getting in this “pseudo” election of presumptive nominees are “presumptive nominees” who either bought their way (aka Trump) or super-packed/super-delegated their way (Clinton with full DNC and Wall Street support) to becoming the “nominee”. For the sake of democracy one can hope that we will see a voting process in 4 years that is about the Will of The People. Sanders is not officially “folding up the tent” because he stands his moral ground about the illegalities in the election process. I hope his movement is not going away and do hold out hope that either Clinton or Trump are one term presidents (whichever one gets put into office – refuse to use the term “elected”).
Artsegal, just to be clear: Clinton did not prevail because of super delegates. She won more pledged delegates than Sanders and won millions more actual votes. Bernie actually raised more money than Hillary. She won the nomination.
According to my sources, Hillary raised more than Bernie.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/
Here are some reasons why Sanders supporters will claim this election was rigged/stolen:
-Deception: Mass media blackout on Sanders.
-Deception: Mass media bias against Sanders, when he finally was getting media.
-Deception: Media included superdelegates in the delegate count for the entire primary cycle, tricking people into believing Sanders never had a chance.
-Election fraud: massive exit poll discrepancies, almost always favoring Hillary, sometimes by large amounts, and particularly in areas where electronic votes cannot be verified and/or exit polls not conducted. Experts claiming these discrepancies to be a statistical impossibility.
-Election fraud: Magically erasing/switching hundreds of thousands if not millions of voter registrations.
-Election fraud: Millions of ballots left uncounted, often for reasons that election officials were trained to give provisional ballots, especially to independent/young voters.
-Election rigging: Polling stations closed down, often in large amounts and very shortly before voting day.
-Election rigging: Rigid voter registration rules and procedures that further excluded millions of independents and young people.
The question is not if the election was rigged, the question is how much it was rigged and if Sanders would have been the nominee if not for all the fraud and rigging. We may never know. Or maybe we will find out soon, there is lawsuit in progress against state parties and mass media for being complicit in the fraud and rigging.
In a real democratic election, millions of voters are not disenfranchised, their votes are not frequently lost or changed, and their minds not purposefully tricked from the very beginning by a mass media that is funded and largely controlled by the establishment, rather than the people.
With all this considered, Hillary did win more pledged delegates.
In Ohio, there is no doubt Sanders would have gained votes, without the media bias. Local news reported, and anecdotally I know, Sanders supporters acted on the belief that Sanders didn’t have a chance. Fearing the election of Trump, they went to the polls and voted for Kasich, a man they detested.
I will concede an inordinate number of Ohioans are stupid. A 24-year-old, home schooled, woman was elected to the Ohio State Board of Education. If northeast Ohio has unions and, people who think science, instead of religious beliefs, should be taught in schools, why was Sarah Fowler elected with 60% of the vote?
Nothing has been “cut and dry” about this nomination process. There were numerous states early on where super-delegates backing Clinton truly tilted the elections results in ways that did not reflect the voting patterns (thinking NH as one example). The democratic party’s process of electing a nominee lacks accountability to “We The People”. A large part of this problem involves the overarching influence of big money and candidates tied to these few “holders of the purse-strings”. There are the superpacs and then there are the super-delegates; strange bedfellows. I know I am so not alone in my view that this is a huge problem in the process of nominating a presidential candidate. I believe… yes it is my opinion… that Clinton was the DNC choice before the primary process began and the primary process seemed to serve to anchor her spot for the nomination. Wasserman’s role in this process has been quite the subject of debate as well. So, for me there has been nothing “cut and dry” about this nomination process. I hope Democracy prevails and this process will be revised for future presidential elections.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-winship/a-bird-a-plane-no-its-sup_b_9588656.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/opinions/superdelegates-democratic-party-kohn/
If Trump is elected, the theft of the American people will be swift, pervasive and uncontrollably huge. If HRC is elected, it will be controlled.