David Sirota and Amy Goodman; my heroes!!!!!!!!!

This sounds great--on paper. But if I'm reading the figures correctly, even with a record turnout at the caucuses, only 17% of voters turned out in Iowa. That's not Populism anywhere near as much as it is total indifference. Add to that the fact that Iowa only represents 1% of the U.S. population, and we don't have near enough statistics here to represent ANYTHING. Prognostications based on Iowa are nothing but smoke, mirrors and high hopes.

It will be those that turn out that decide the election so if the angry people turn out and the angry people are the populists, Sirota has proved his point.

As the rules in Iowa permit, Republicans crossed over in Iowa to caucus for Obama. They want Obama to win so that Democrats will lose in the general election. Edwards would otherwise have won had the rules been more strict.

Numbers don't lie but liars use numbers. What happened was not populism. What happened in Iowa was a popularity contest. Something like American Idol. And "we the people" are not winning anything. And it's not because we are not being heard. We are being heard, but ignored. It's very clear that American people want change in both foreign and domestic policy. The Dems have had more than enough time to respond to "we the people". Instead they respond to the needs of their base, which is Corporate America. We have laws to keep religion and politics separate and now we need laws to keep business and politics separate. If we don't change this corrupted system soon it won't matter what the numbers say.
Hoa binh

Yes, Huckabee had a good win. I think, however, that conservative evangelical Christians may have had more to do with yesterday's win than his populist rhetoric.

Most voters do not yet know (or care?) that Huckabee buys into the crazy "Fair Tax" plan by which the IRS, the income tax and all other taxes except a consumption tax of 23% on all new goods and services (including medical and dental care) is to be levied. Since the poor and middle classes spend almost their entire incomes on goods and services and the rich spend a tiny fraction, it is easy to see who would carry the tax burden and who would just get richer and richer. The retail industry has strongly objected to being made the country's tax collector, citing huge new costs in accounting.

The poor could save some money by buying used houses, clothing and cars, but not food, gas, education or health care. Probably the rich would be the only folks buying new cars and new houses, no doubt dooming the auto and housing industries to really low sales.

How this plan serves populist values is beyond my understanding.

But isn't it odd--Huckabee R gets media coverage, while the angry Edwards is pointedly ignored for the luv fest for Mr Lets-join with-the-fascists-and-class-oppressors.

9:00PM CST, Jan 3, 2008, Somewhere between DesMoines and D.C.:

Both establishment machines took a shot to the groin.

I stepped outside and sniffed the wind. There was a great spoiling of trousers.

Thank you, Hawkeyes!

Sorry Mr. Sirota, populism had nothing to do with Huckabee's win. Actually it was anti-populism. Hard core christians want to mash the US into a Christian nation, population be damned. Huckabee's their guy regardless of any real policy positions he has.

David you are correct that populism is on the rise, but corporatist imperialism is still transcendent and too many of the 'champions of the people" have already been escorted to "the dark side" by the Darth Vader's of Wall Street and religious extremism. The Death Star is still trudging relentlessly to exterminate Alderon, the valiant desires of the resistence to the contrary nmotwithstanding.

So far we have only been engaging their clones (transloate: politicians and the punditry of media and academia). What is needed is to chop off the oligarchial heads of banking, multi-national corporatocracy, and their favorite courtesan, Wall Street.

Until the people stop just saying "we" and start including s "them" in their discourse we will never be able to begin this process.

In any cse, either Obama or Edwards will kick repub arse come the time.
But to the point of the article, this will all be doubly true come summer and beyond as the real economy continues to tank and tank hard. Folks will be livid, not just progressives - Edwards and Huckabee will continue to rise, and Obama will more and more try to sing the song in the face of his wall st buddies.
Right now i feel like all the munchkins in the wizard of oz, dancing around singing in joy that the wicked witch is dead! hooray.

What type of populism? As more people get involved, it will be up to all of us to keep each other informed, positive, and skeptical of any sort of washington led populism. George W. ran as a populist as he often railed against washington, but then he went on to be President and never gave the public the time of day ever again.

Both establishment machines took a shot to the groin.

There it is skeptimist. And that's a good thing.

i wish it were, but it was my impression that Huckabee got the God vote, not a populist one (but that's just the impression from the TV, so only God knows right?) and I'm glad for Edwards- but I also got the TV impression that he did so well because he campaigned so much better and extensivley in Iowa (and they still like meeting their candidates in that early primary state), and that Obama did so well because of so many new, young voters. Did they vote for popularity or populism?

I hope it is, and I wish M$M would use the words more than God/Popularity-Contest.

Populism is good, but in a campaign it is nothing more than "tell the people what they want to hear." GW told everybody he would do away with abortion. HELLO!!!! One good thing about Obama's win though; it proves that even the "Whitest" of states can see beyond a man's skin color - it's about time!

I respect David's viewpoint, but I have no confidence in the U.S. electorate's ability to vote for "change." I've been hearing the same rhetoric for 50 years. The next President will more than likely be the safe choice -- a middle aged, "christian" white guy.

I agree that economic populism - at long last -is on the rise. This was clearly the driver for Edwards' (largely ignored) showing in Iowa.

Huckabee is, indeed, of a populist bent but his victory in Iowa had far more to do with the fact that he is the real true believer the evangelicals have been waiting for ever since they became a force in Republican politics. You might say, he is their Messiah. From their perspective, they've paid their dues. They've been systmatically disappointed by candidates lip synching bible passages. But now its their turn.

Fortunately, that combination - religion and economic populism - is anathema to much of the rest of the Republican base. Even if Huckabee wins the nomination, the evangelical vote won't be enough to win the general.

Hi my fellow citizens. Is it ok to allow some celerbration about Iowa or has our hearts hardened and vision so narrowed that all we can do is blame and complain?

I see the Iowa results on the Democratic side as a victory for hope. Obama represents the politics of change beyond the rhetoric. We are all so tired of the bleeding from Bush's onslaught of inhumanity, power, greed, murder in Iraq, arrogance and endless lies. Obama is a blank slate at some level and people hope he can rise to the greatness in him. Yes the people will decide this but they are open for hope.

Check out my 10 most important changes needed to return America to the status of a great nation.
www.ExploreLifeBlog.com. What do you see needs to be changed.

Can we all agree to stop living the lie that our intellect will save us and find our hearts and hopes again?

Joseph
www.ExploreLifeBlog.com
www.peace-together.com

"The Numbers Don't Lie - As I Said Long Ago, Populism Is on the Rise"

We know-this, Dave...hell, that's been the 'problem' since the mid-70's...!

As usual, RichM, right on! Unfortunately. We've been robbed, and we're going to be stuck with Obama nicely asking the robbers to give back their loot? The voters didn't get what they voted for in 2006, and it's looking like they won't get it in 2008 either. The Propaganda Ministry (MSM) is working overtime to make sure of that. I hear they couldn't bring themselves to mention that Edwards came in second. That the headlines left second place unfilled.

And what's with Dennis? WHY did he endorse Obama? Obama hasn't even come close to embracing his platform. I haven't taken the Kucinich bumper sticker off my car, but it's getting harder and harder to look at it.

Excellent article, and may I just add that upon reading the comments in response, I am struck by the negative attitudes that blame the American people. Why blame the victims of voter fraud in the last two national elections, and of corporate media misinformation?
Truth is, we are a lot better than the fear mongers and the hopeless cynics believe. What happened in Iowa last night proves this. And why knaw on the bone of any Rebublican frontrunner, when the Democratic Candidate has a fatted calf in the bag? Choosing the right person to run as the Democratic Candidate is the greatest test to our Democracy since Eisenhowers' historical speech. Except this time, it isn't so much the military industrial complex, as much as it is Corporate America, who in our lifetime achieved the same rights as a human being and has a lot heftier money bags.

Huey Long fell victim to an assassin's bullet shortly after announcing his bid for the presidency in 1935. He was way too dangerous for corporate America to tolerate. I notice some pretty harsh talk about John Edwards on the financial news networks over the last few days. What's good for the common man has absolutely nothing to do with what's good for the corporate elite. The neocons did away with Wellstone, and Edwards is even more vulnerable as Cheney's Chicago School free-market capitalists grow increasingly greedy & corrupt. I'm excited about the prospect of finally seeing a populist in office, but I hope he has good protection and a bullet-proof vest.

Sirota's kind of populism is like tossing a 25 foot line to someone drowning 50 feet from shore.

The only real populist mentioned here today was by John R Hall (3:20PM) when he brought up the great Huey Long.
If Sirota would like to learn about real populism he should read the Kingfish's speeches and study what he DID while in
power to trouble the elites and comfort the people.

RichM (2:13PM) I have been reading pundits, opinions and blogs all day about the 'Meaning" of Iowa and your short entry was by far the most insightful of the lot. Spot on, as usual.

Did anyone else notice that it sounded as though both Huckabee and Barama had heard Edwards' speech last night before they made their own comments?

The media refuses to recognize that Edwards' is the real populist candidate of "change"....

I think it is heartening that so many young folks and first-time voters turned out for Obama--what's too bad is that they were voting for the man they BELIEVE is the candidate for change but who--based on his voting record and policy papers--is more of the same. None of those well-intentioned voters realized that the guy they should have been voting for was Edwards....

Obamarama;
Is he the ONE?
I listened to Obama's Iowa victory speech last night and was truly seduced, and I am straight. But I also keep hearing the Crosby-Stills-Nash mantra in my head "we don't get fooled again"

Gen x could tip this over leaving the whole field of old dinosaurs baying their final breaths. And being a boomer myself, I seem also unable to ipod dance into this overture. What is my concern? The same concern I have when my very un-streetwise girlfriend wants to venture into a ghetto for some Tapas at 1am. It's not that I cant blend with the best, and after a couple of Proseco's I'm good to go, but is the food really that good to chance it?
I see Mr. Obama as whistling his way into the mouth of the Republican corpse machine, with no back-up plan, and all his base is back at dorm.

since1492: We have laws to keep religion and politics separate and now we need laws to keep business and politics separate.

More generally, it's better to keep all hierarchial organizations out of governance. If you ban the church and the corporation from interference in public policy then some third kind of hierarchial institution, e.g. academic, military, will rise to the challenge. The institution's official mission really doesn't matter. If it includes a hierarchy, where the few control the many, it will seek to expand its control over the entire society.

I agree with Mr. Sirota. I take this as another victory for "we the people". It shows that people in both parties are looking for someone better and are trying to take back our government. They're not listening to what the spin masters are saying. Wonderful things have happened in this country when the people banded together for a higher cause. This may be the spark we have all been waiting for.

Look. "Populism" is easily contained by the Establishment. The word indicates there's no organized American left. It means that Red-staters see grocery prices rising and feel ripped off by the powers-that-be. It means Blue-staters are sick of triangulation politics. BUT SO WHAT ? The energies get channneled to Obama-- a total Establishment candidate who's the greatest fraud since Gene McCarthy. What does he stand for? Oh, "hope"-- wow, my hero. On the Right, Huckabee gets the nod. Look, the guy's a shrewd politician. By the time his "flat tax" gets revised, it'll still be a PRO-CORPORATE, PRO-RICH, utterly REGRESSIVE tax-- I dunno, maybe with vouchers for the poor to shop at WalMart cheaper. Media elites don't like "populism," because the stance rejects Corporate Rule, and it does so from the Red State Right as well as the Blue State Left. BUT, unless the System is changed, even "populists" can get elected and it doesn't matter: they are EASILY CONTAINED by Power.

The almost always astute Mr. Sirota has really missed the boat on this one. Is economic populism on the rise as he claims? Yes, it is. No disagreement there.

But Mr. Sirota predicted that "Republican Mike Huckabee would rise and potentially win the Iowa caucuses based on his relentless focus on economic inequality." Well, Huckabee did indeed win the Iowa caucus but not because of his focus on economic inequality. Huckabee swept to victory by overwhelmingly winning the evangelical vote. 80% of those who turned out to support him identified themselves as evangelicals. That's not economic populism; it's evangelicalism. Huckabee has no chance in New Hampshire. Is that because people in NH don't care about economic populism or is it because there are far fewer evangelicals there? Had Iowa's independents not chosen to vote primarily in the Democratic caucus, I suspect many of them would have voted for a non-evangelical Republican.

On the Democratic side, I think the second place showing by Edwards, which was good but not great, was due in part to his perceived economic populism. I think Edwards' very recent statement that he would get all the troops out of Iraq in less than a year helped him tremendously. Absent that, he might very well have finished in third place behind Hillary. What message of economic populism would that have delivered?

Perhaps the American people are finally awakening to the ravages of the corporate stranglehold in Washington. But Mr. Sirota is a bit too optimistic when he states "no matter what the final exact tallies, we the progressive movement - and We The People - are already winning." What exactly are we winning? It's great to hear Edwards using a little of the anti-corporate rhetoric. I'm glad to hear the topic raised in the national dialog.

But just because the words are proffered doesn't mean they are backed with substance. We are being sold yet another bill of goods that Obama represents change and that Edwards is attacking corporate greed. That's what most adverstising and campaigning is all about. Edwards' talk about corporate greed needs to be backed with details. What, exactly, is the "corporate stranglehold" Edwards envisions and what will he do to dismantle it? Will he shut down the more than 730 US military bases overseas and recall the troops? Will he call for massive cuts in the bloated defense budget to finance critically needed domestic programs? Will he acknowledge that the US has been in the business of empire-building for private commercial gain and that he will put an end to it? Will he acknowledge that Iraq and the War on Terror have been primarily about oil? Because if he won't, and thus far he has not, then his message of economic populism is just "seller's talk" from a master puppeteer. There will be no economic populism until the machinery of empire is confronted and shut down. To pretend that Edwards, the anti-corporatist, will dismantle the corporate state without targetting the primary modus operandi of American empire is sadly misguided.

Mr. Sirota is dead on the money when he says the American people are hungry for economic populism; he's dead wrong if he believes any of the candidates he's mentioned have earned the label. If Mr. Edwards wants to lead the anti-corporate charge, he'll have to offer far more than he has thus far.

GOOD READING:
BLESSED UNREST, by PAUL HAWKEN

Did anyone notice that with less than 350,000 people going to the Iowa caucuses, the Democrats got approximately 224,000 to the Republican 114,000. That is almost a 2:1 ratio. I hope that in the general election that same ratio will hold in Iowa and the rest of the country. Then we can say that the populists won.

Goodbye, Dennis. That Kucinich sticker is coming off my bumper. I still can't believe he threw his support to Senator Obama who, really now, does not share his (or my) progressive views. I wish populism was on the rise but I don't see it in this Iowa vote, just some Democratic anger at the DLC and Republican evangelical fervor for their narrow concerns.

After Dennis endorsed Kerry in 2004, who also didn't share my progressive values, why is anyone surprised at this?

---------
I'd recommend Edwards post-caucus speech as something to listen to. Democracy Now! showed major parts this morning, so I'm sure that broadcast is there. (www.democracynow.org).

They showed Obama and Huckabee first as the winners. And what really struck me was that they two could have swapped scripts and never missed a beat. Lots of content-free drivel about 'hope' and 'unity'. Its striking how much Obama's message was virtually identical to Huckabee's.

Then they showed Edwards. No way a Republican would read that speech. Very sharp and direct about CEO pay and corporations getting rich from welfare while millions don't have coverage and exactly what that means to a mom with a sick child or anyone who's worried that any health issue might bankrupt them tomorrow. And tying that back to the corporate profits from health care. And more about poverty in America and the growth of inequality. Huckabee (and probably Obama and Hillary) would choke trying to read a speech like this.

To me, that speech had a lot of economic populism in there. And apparently he's learning about the Iraq War as per his statement that he will get out quickly if elected.

I won't say Edwards is perfect. But amongst the top three Dems, he's the only one saying anything even close to this. Its probably worth a listen.

And I don't have a clue as to why Dennis wouldn't tells his voters to go to Edwards when they found that their minimal numbers meant they couldn't get the 15% to count in the caucus. Of course, Dennis manages to completely puzzle me often with the way he conducts politics.

------
There seems to be a fair number of people who come here to post negative, nasty and disruptive comments. I take that as a continuation of the old fascist\communist tactic of sending thugs into break of a meeting of opponents. I think the only possible goal is to try to prevent any real discussion or organizing and divert discussion into their negative, nasty comments.

Dave is one of my favorite journalists and I'm heartened by his optimism and impressed by the intelligence of posters here like drmadef, RichM, Poet, Hall, Welsh, dustin, Vern, since, rtdrury, BeForKids and others on this thread.

PS ... one thing about caucuses. This is one of the few 'elections' you'll see where no computerized voting machines were involved and no computer vote counting machines are involved. Everything is open, public and transparent. It will be interesting to see if Edwards numbers drop significantly in an environment more susceptible to corporate control.

As was theorized elsewhere, Kucinich threw his support in Iowa to Obama to keep Edwards (with whom Kucinich is most competitive in NH for the same progressive votes) from gaining momentum. I hope it backfires, and that real progressives in NH will see it for what it was, a self-serving deal on Kucinich's part that showed him for what he is--a politician!

re; Obama's "audacity of hope"
Does this strike others as a version of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" BS? It's an empty phrase, and perfectly embodies its author. Hope is passive, not audacious. Obama is a corporatist, status quo candidate, just packaged in a different color. Real change, he is not.

Obama has stolen every populist talking point from Edwards and the MSM eats it up and spits it back up because he's "black."

Populism is a broad term. There's left-wing populism and right-wing populism. Both have been powerful forces in American politics at times. And at times they can merge together.

On the right side especially, the combination of populism and fundamentalist preaching is not new.

To me, Obama always sounds good when I listen. But then I start to think. I start to ask, what did he say that was really important? What concrete policies did he propose? And usually, upon further review, I realize that while the speech sounded good on the surface, there was nothing really there.

Bush did this a lot in 2000. Lots of talk. Lots of good sounding words like compassionate conservatism. Lots of flag waving and patriotic talk. But to me, there was nothing else there but words that sounded good (if you buy into that sort of thing).

Kerry was the same in 2004. Lots of talk. It sounded good on the surface. Except even he'd get lost and let his content free drivel spin off into just silly rambling. But again, after the speech when you stopped and asked yourself, what did I just here? What did he just propose? Then you realized there was nothing there.

Obama seems to be the latest master of this. I was watching his victory speech today. Usually that's an important speech. A candidate gets a chance to talk to the nation after a win, and its a chance for a candidate to talk to people who haven't been paying attention until then. And again, Obama sounded good on the surface, with lots of content free drivel about hope and change and unity. But not a damn thing there of substance in the talk. And like I said above, Huckabee basically had a different delivery of the same material in his talk ... which just shows how bland and meaningless and worthless this sort of talk yet.

So far, Obama has not impressed me. I've always sensed that he seems like he's the creation of media consultants who decided to create a candidate that could be President. But I've never gotten any sense that anything is important to him. Instead, words like 'hope' and 'change' must play well to those instant feedback sort of focus groups, thus Obama throws them around a lot.

"Huckabee and his wife lived in a trailer for a while, he points out. His son killed a dog one summer, 'a mangy dog' at that, as Huckabee explained to the befuddled national press corps. He said he used to eat squirrels, cooking them up in his popcorn popper."

American populism at its best?

I hope people will stay focused for that long -- until the election in November.

I also hope one of these populists will help to eliminate the power of corporate money in politics. How? By stopping corporate contributions to political campaigns. Corporate interests claim it's part of free speech -- but free speech is a right of citizens. Corporations are not citizens, and many of them are owned by non-Americans, i.e., citizens of other countries. We must eject those non-Americans from America's electoral process. They don't belong in it, and they should not be able to exert control over it.

I am hopeful this time, with the prospect of Obama or Edwards (or even Huckabee) as president.

coldwarbaby,please tell of the things,we must do.open to suggestions.......

Lip-service for populism is on the rise, there can be little doubt there. But the day that an ordinary guy like me ever gets the mic. on the MSM ain't happening in our lifetime.

Global warming + MSM = Al Gore.
Not the Green Party

Populism + MSM = suit-and-tie Lou Dobbs
Not Jim Hightower or the Progressive Populists.

Just turn off the MSM, it's a waste of time.

Mike Sirota really called one right, so he can gloat. But Iowa is not definitive, because it is a very limited and self-selected poll.

What both Obama and Huckabee figured out is that, with such a small number of participants, they could flood the caucus with a loyal army of their followers and take over a tight race. Huckabee went to the churches; Obama went to the colleges.

In a full-scale election, in a more urban state, the dynamic will be different. Obama's and Huckabee's Iowa strategies won't have the same impact. All the same, I'd have to say Edwards has an uphill battle because his message is being co-opted by Obama. Clinton has a more serious problem, because her message isn't playing. I think McCain has a better chance against Huckabee than Romney, because McCain is seen as more authentic than Romney (well, who isn't).

I would like to see Edwards come out on top, because I think he's been on the right track for the last four years, while Obama was still inventing himself in the Illinois legislature. But Obama is certainly an inspiring speaker, and very well-read. He would be a real improvement over the current blunderer-in-chief if only for those qualities. If he moves people to act, that's terrific--especially if they move in the right (i.e.,the left) direction.

P.S.--that's David Sirota. oops.

The rise of the populist movement against economic oppression and police state tyranny is the domestic side of what the anti-war movement is against expanding imperialist foreign wars.

The really seminal point is that both these rising political trends are simply the domestic and foreign policy aspects of an even more all encompassing political trend ------ the rise of a deeper anti-empire movement.

The rising of this anti-empire movement combining anti-war activism and economic populism is against the non-democratic actions of the global corporatist Empire hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy America' ---- which is the core of all American's problems both foreign and domestic.

Hannah Arendt presciently warned that, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home", and the American people are now recognizing and confronting the effects of this corporatist empire for the combined threat that it represents to our democracy both in wars abroad and tyranny at home.

Where's Ron Paul in all this? Being the top Republican fundraiser--kind of a populist... And being boycotted by Fox NEWS. Yes, a long shot--but a voice that people are listening to.
Also, Ron Paul and Kucinich will be on Bill Moyer's NOW tonight. If you miss it...you can watch online tomorrow...

As for solutions--here's 4 suggestions of 'active' models for changing the current system.
www.webofdebt.com
www.solari.com
www.rianeeisler.com
www.realwealtheconomy.com

solutions2, you ask, where's Ron Paul in all of this?

Well, my sense is that Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Jim Webb, and hopefully John Edwards all fall into a category not based on party affiliation or ideology, but rather as activists in the fast evolving anti-empire movement.

The common denominator of these people who I respect and support in government are joined foremost in their rejection and confrontation with corporatist Empire and all its assaults on our democracy both in terms of a foreign policy of imperialist wars and a domestic policy of economic oppression and tyranny toward average people.

In other words, they support real democracy and detest empire (either overt or disguised) ---- and what we have right here in River City is a deadly case of disguised Empire, of the corporatist kind.

GKL January 4th, 2008 5:41 pm

"Did anyone notice that with less than 350,000 people going to the Iowa caucuses, the Democrats got approximately 224,000 to the Republican 114,000. That is almost a 2:1 ratio. I hope that in the general election that same ratio will hold in Iowa and the rest of the country. Then we can say that the populists won."

Just because Democrats win does not mean that Populists have. While a Democrat can be a Populist not all are, in fact most aren't.

Lobo Gris

Of course economic populism is on the rise: Political change in the political superstructure always lags behind change in the economic substructure (here, inequality brought about by globalism).

Bush/Cheney know this, and that's why they've put in place the pieces for the take over by the IRON HEEL.

Public TV did a poll of college students about a year ago, which reported that overwhelmingly US college students want "to make a lot of money", and "attain celebrity". Both of these aspirations can be accomodated within a totalitarian system. As long as one submits totally, completely to domination, one will be rewarded with money and/or status in the machine. Economic populism arises because globalism is not meeting these needs due to outsourcing, etc. But give the people uniforms and a place in the police state hierarchy, and they'll come around.

Economic populism is the counterforce to be met with the IRON HEEL.