Anger and Progressive Populism

by: Mike Lux Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM EST

While Chris could be right that it is too soon to write off Edwards (although a win for him in Nevada would truly be a miracle), I have been thinking a lot about the failure of Edwards' message in this campaign, especially in Iowa where he was in a must-win situation. People are making a lot of excuses as to why he didn't win, and it is certainly true that he was way outspent, and the traditional media didn't like him. But I don't think those valid points are the reasons he lost. Remember, John Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa a great deal, basically since 2001. He has been spending tons of time and tons of money in Iowa for seven years, and has been well-known and well-liked by Iowa Democrats for a long time. Even though he was outspent, he had more than enough money to get his message out, and he had a good core of field staff and Iowa supporters to run his campaign. And Iowa is one of the most populist states in the country. The other thing that bothers me about the Edwards excuses is that they basically consign progressive populists to losing all of their campaigns, because such candidates will almost always be both outspent and disliked by the traditional media. I just do not believe that our side will always lose elections, in great part due to the winning progressive populist campaigns I have seen over a great many years (from folks like Tom Harkin and Paul Wellstone all the way to the 2006 victories by people like Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester and Jim Webb.) I think it is important for those of us who advocate a strongly progressive populist message and politics to ask ourselves why only 19% of the folks walking in the door of the Democratic caucuses voted for John Edwards. Edwards' message was one of pure, undistilled anger at the big corporations who are dominating our country's politics: he was angry at those corporations, and he was going to "fight them," "beat them and beat them and beat them some more," and "stand up to them." That message certainly resonates with me, and probably does with most of the OpenLeft.com community. And there is no doubt that Democratic primary voters, and voters in general, are angry at the special interest elites. But it didn't lift Edwards past 19% among first choices. I think the problem has been that the anger is the only thing that voters were hearing. The lesson of the Edwards failure to me is that anger alone is not enough: that we have to combine the righteous anger we feel with telling people about the new ideas we have. Edwards had produced a bunch of great policy papers earlier in the campaign, but his core message in debates and advertising felt like it was all about the anger. If we can give people a sense of how we are going to change things and solve problems, and combine it with our anger at injustice, then we can win elections. Progressives need to run on, and project more than just our justifiable anger at big business and conservative policies. We also need to be, in the words of Matt Stoller, an "ideas factory." We need to show people that we have the ideas and ability to really change things for the better. Populist anger alone doesn't win elections.

Mike Lux :: Anger and Progressive Populism

Tags: 2008 Democratic primary, john edwards, populism, (All Tags)