POLITICS
Elites Beware: Eric Cantor's Defeat May Signal a Populist
Revolution
Democrats and Republicans need to ask themselves:'What side of the barricades am I on?'
00
WEST CHESTER,
Pa.—Expecting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to win his GOP primary in
Virginia, I spent Election Day in Pennsylvania—interviewing angry Republicans,
Democrats, and independents about the rise of political populism.
I was in the wrong state, but I had the right topic.
Cantor's defeat has less to do with immigration reform than it does with an
uneven movement that should frighten conservative and liberal political elites
to their shallow cores.
Americans see a grim future for themselves, their
children, and their country. They believe their political leaders are selfish,
greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from
wrenching economic and social change. For many, the Republican Party is
becoming too extreme, while the Democratic Party—specifically, President
Obama—raised and dashed their hopes for true reform.
Worse of all, the
typical American doesn't know how to channel his or her anger. Heaven help
Washington if they do.
"America is for the greedy, for those who've made
their buck or grabbed their power. It's not for us," said Helen Conover of
Oxford, Pa. She was eating with two other Chester County employees, Jennifer
Guy and Kim Kercher, at the Penn's Table diner. Conover was the table's
optimist.
"This country's doomed," Guy said. Kercher
nodded her head and told me that she's close to losing her house to a mortgage
company and can't get help from Washington. For years, their county salaries
haven't kept pace with the cost of living. "The rich get richer. The poor
get benefits. The middle class pays for it all," Kercher said.
Guy said she's an independent voter. Conover and
Kercher are registered Republicans. All three voted for Obama in 2008, hoping
that he could start changing the culture of Washington. Now, they consider the
president ineffective, if only partly to blame for his failure.
"He hit a brick wall," Conover said.
"The Republican Party is not going to let him change anything."
I replied, "But it's your party."
"No," Conover bristled, "it's not my
party. I don't have a party." She paused, took a small bite of her
sandwich and added, "An American Party is what I have."
An American Party—what does that mean? For months,
I've heard that phrase or similar antiestablishment sentiment from voters in
Michigan, Arkansas, South Carolina, and elsewhere—whites and nonwhites; voters
who are poor and rich and from the shrinking middle-class; Democrats,
Republicans, and independents. "We need American leaders, not Republican and
Democratic leaders," a construction worker in Little Rock, Ark., told me
last month. Down the street from Penn's Table, barber Stefanos Bouikidis held
scissors in his right hand while throwing both hands in the air. "How are
things going to change with corporate America running everything?"
At West Chester's popular D.K. Diner, a military veteran who served five
combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan said the only solution may be a revolution
against political elites. "We may need to drag politicians out and shoot
them like they did in Cuba," said a grim-faced Frederick Derry two days
after a Las Vegas couple allegedly shot two police officers. The attackers
draped their bodies with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, according
to ABC News, pinned a
swastika on them and a note that read, "The revolution has begun."
A violent revolution is unconscionable. But what may be in the air is a
peaceful populist revolt—a bottom-up, tech-fueled assault on 20th-century
political institutions. In a memo to his fellow Democrats, former Clinton White
House political director Doug Sosnik writes persuasively about "an
increasing populist push" across the political spectrum.
At the core of
Americans' anger and alienation is the belief that the American Dream is no
longer attainable. Previous generations held fast to the promise that anyone
who worked hard and played by the rules could get ahead, regardless of their
circumstances. But increasingly, Americans have concluded that the rules aren't
fair and that the system has been rigged to concentrate power and wealth in the
hands of a privileged few at the expense of the many. And now the government is
simply not working for anyone.
Americans'
long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point. And when
it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one
that asks, "Which side of the barricade are you on? Is it the side of the
out-of-touch political class that clings to the status quo by protecting those
at the top and their own political agendas, or is it the side that is fighting
for the kind of change that will make the government work for the people—all
the people?"
Which side of the barricade are you on? Populists from
the right and the left—from the tea party and libertarian-leaning Rand Paul to
economic populist Elizabeth Warren—are positioning themselves among the
insurgents. Sosnik pointed to six areas of consensus that eventually may unite
the divergent populist forces:
§
A pullback from
the rest of the world, with more of an inward focus.
§
A desire to go
after big banks and other large financial institutions.
§ Elimination of corporate
welfare.
§
Reducing special
deals for the rich.
§
Pushing back on
the violation of the public's privacy by the government and big business.
§
Reducing the size
of government.
In Washington, Cantor's defeat is being chalked up to
the tea party's intolerance toward immigration reform. While he paid a price
for flirting with a White House compromise, Cantor's greater sin was
inauthenticity—brazenly flip-flopping on the issue. Typical politician. Worse,
voters sensed that Cantor was more interested in becoming House speaker than in
representing their interests. He spent more money at steakhouses than rival
David Brat spent on his entire campaign. Typical politician.
"Dollars don't vote," Brat told Cantor's
constituents, "You do."
Let this be the lesson taken from Cantor's loss. He is
not the only political leader to lose touch with voters. In fact, according to
every indication, the entire political class has lost touch. There is ample
polling to suggest that a majority of Americans voters don't feel rooted in, or
represented by, either the Republican or Democratic parties. Change or lose
power, folks.
At Penn's Table, Guy, Kercher, and Conover nodded
their heads firmly at the mention of each of Sosnik's bullet points. They're populists, not
optimists.
"I don't see how it can happen," Kercher
said of a unification of barricade-busters. "You keep waiting for
everybody else to do something about it because you're just keeping your head above
water. I can't take the time to worry about it, because if I lose my job, I'm
homeless."
She paused and laughed sarcastically. "Of course,
then maybe I could get some help from the government."
Conover is a bit more hopeful, despite her doubts
about the emergence of a Right-Left populist alliance. "Do I think the
three sects will come together and align against the establishment? No. They're
too focused on their beliefs," she said. "Do I think there might be
some group or some person who might tap into our frustration and, unlike the
president, actually change things? Yes. Yes, I do."
Why the hope? Because she won't consider the
alternative—voter apathy and the status quo. Nodding to Guy, her pessimistic
friend, Conover chucked, "That would be doom."
No comments:
Post a Comment