<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Populism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/populism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:12:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why do the Republicans nominate blue bloods?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12181191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The potent combination of Jacksonian populism and old money oligarchy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong></strong>If Mitt Romney receives the Republican presidential nomination, he will be the third upper-class candidate in a row nominated for the presidency by a party that speaks in the accents of Jacksonian populism and pretends to be against “elites.”</p><p>America may not have titled aristocrats, but it has always had patrician families, defined by a combination of wealth, educational affiliations and public service.  Today’s Republicans may sound like George Wallace in their denunciations of paper-pushing bureaucrats and pointy-headed intellectuals, but their presidential selection pool is a very selective country club.</p><p>Between 1980 and 2008, inclusive, there have been eight presidential elections.  The Republicans have nominated five presidential candidates — Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain.  During the same time, the Democrats have nominated seven presidential candidates — Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>109</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ron Paul&#8217;s phony populism</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10270464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The libertarian presidential candidate is a true friend of the 1 percent ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me, the epiphany of the most dreadful presidential campaign in history took place in Keene, New Hampshire, last week, when a Ron Paul town meeting was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJCqw8XVw0">interrupted</a> by some Occupy Wall Street hecklers.</p><p>"Let me address that for a minute,” the Republican presidential candidate said, “because if you listen carefully, I’m very much involved with the 99. I’ve been condemning that 1 percent because they’ve been ripping us off --” He was interrupted again, this time by cheers, almost drowning him out.</p><p>After the usual chants of "We are the 99 percent" and "There are criminals on Wall Street who walk free," Paul quickly took back the audience, not that he had ever lost it. “Do you feel better?” he asked, to laughter.</p><p>“We need to sort that out, but the people on Wall Street got the bailouts, and you guys got stuck with the bills, and I think that’s where the problem is.”</p><p>It was a masterful performance. Ron Paul — fraudulent populist, friend of the oligarchy, sworn enemy of every social program since Theodore Roosevelt — had won the day, again.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>827</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nobody represents the American people</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/07/lind_american_people/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/07/lind_american_people/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/12/07/lind_american_people</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No matter which party runs Washington, only minor, marginal reforms ever take place]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The disconnect between the actions of the government and public opinion is the central fact of American politics today. It doesn&#8217;t seem to matter whether liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans are in power. Only minor, marginal reforms ever take place. The basic outlines of American economic policy and foreign policy remain the same, even as Congress and the White House change hands. The changes promised by progressive Democrats and Tea Party Republicans are quickly discarded after the elections.</p><p>The changes that do take place are often the opposite of those that majorities of Americans want. Most Americans want Social Security to be strengthened and American manufacturing protected. But the conversation among elites inside the Beltway-New York bubble is about cutting Social Security and more one-sided "free trade" deals with mercantilist nations that, unlike the U.S., protect and promote their domestic industries.</p><p>Many Americans have come to the conclusion that nobody represents them in Washington anymore. They are right.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/12/07/lind_american_people/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/12/07/lind_american_people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Where are the peasants with pitchforks?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/26/lind_populists_pitchforks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/26/lind_populists_pitchforks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2010/10/26/lind_populists_pitchforks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republicans embrace populism but fight statism, while Democrats champion statism but fear populism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the aftermath of a global economic collapse brought about in part by the corruption of big government by big finance, many pundits expected a voter backlash in America to take the form of a combination of populist anti-elitism and statist anti-capitalism. But that has not happened, nor is it likely to occur. In the United States, the populists are anti-statist and the statists are anti-populist.</p><p>The last realignment of the American party system took place in the 1970s, when the civil rights revolution along with the cultural revolutions of the 1960s blew apart the New Deal order that had coalesced in the 1930s. In the post-New Deal system that exists to this day, the Republican Party is a neo-Jacksonian coalition whose base consists of Southern white Protestants and, to a lesser degree, conservative white Catholic&#160;"ethnics" in the Northern suburbs. The Democratic Party is based in big cities and college towns. Among ethnic and racial groups, its most consistent electoral supporters are blacks and Jews, followed by Latinos.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/26/lind_populists_pitchforks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/26/lind_populists_pitchforks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>62</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Broder&#8217;s helpful advice for the Tea Parties</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/07/12/0david_broder_tea_parties1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/07/12/0david_broder_tea_parties1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/07/12/0david_broder_tea_parties1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most moderate, sensible political journalist alive tells the raging white populists to stop being so angry]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Extremist moderate Washington Post columnist David Broder -- the dean of American political journalists -- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070903717.html">has some helpful, moderate advice for "the Tea Parties,"</a> an exciting political movement he heard about on "Meet the Press": They should become happy and moderate.</p><p>Knowing he needed to learn more about "the Tea Parties" before he wrote a Sunday newspaper opinion column all about them, Broder turned to American Enterprise Institute vice-president Henry Olsen, who is not affiliated with "the Tea Parties," but is a longtime conservative think tank fixture who recently wrote a lengthy piece on American populism for a largely unread political journal.</p><p>Yes, this member of the Washington conservative think tank elite will definitely help Broder understand what these "Tea Parties" are all about.</p><p>The history of American populism, according to Olsen as filtered through reflexive centrist Broder, is a history of two distinct sides, liberal and conservative, that were both unsuccessful not because of the merits of their ideas or the righteousness or destructiveness of their ideologies, but because they were both too extreme. The conservative populists became successful when Ronald Reagan appeared to move them toward the center. Once ideas are mainstream, they are good. Before they are mainstream, they are scary and bad and wrong. The end.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/07/12/0david_broder_tea_parties1/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/07/12/0david_broder_tea_parties1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Our incredible shrinking democracy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/02/03/shrinking_democracy_open2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/02/03/shrinking_democracy_open2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Bernanke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2010/02/03/shrinking_democracy_open2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big decisions that the majority's supposed to make are happening instead behind closed doors]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish conservatives would stop complaining about big government and start worrying about the real problem -- small democracy. I wish we&#8217;d all worry more about our incredible shrinking democracy.</p><p>It seems as if more and more decisions that should be made democratically are being shunted off somewhere to a few people who make them in back rooms. Which programs should be cut, which entitlements pared back, and what taxes raised in order to reduce the long-term budget deficit? Hmmm. Let&#8217;s convene a commission and have them decide.</p><p>Commissions are a default mechanism when politicians want to hand off difficult issues to "experts." But reducing the long-term budget deficit has almost nothing to do with expertise. It&#8217;s about our nations&#8217; values and priorities. Nothing could be more central to the democratic process.</p><p>Democracy requires at least three things: (1) Important decisions are made in the open. (2) The public and its representatives have an opportunity to debate them, so the decisions can be revised in light of what the public discovers and wants. And (3) those who make the big decisions are accountable to voters.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/02/03/shrinking_democracy_open2010/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/02/03/shrinking_democracy_open2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s populist pose</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/26/obama_populism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/26/obama_populism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2010/01/25/obama_populism</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the president needs to do to prove his newfound populism is more than just a one-day P.R. stunt]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following Republican Scott Brown's capture of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts last Tuesday, President Obama last Thursday surprised everyone by recalling his advisor Paul Volcker from political exile and endorsing Volcker's plan for restoring the Glass-Steagall law's prohibition on speculation by deposit-taking commercial banks. Even more encouraging were reports that Obama's support for reform in the spirit of Glass-Steagall had been in the works since December. Criticisms that a new Glass-Steagall law, by itself, would not have averted the crisis are correct, but that is like saying that we shouldn't try to prevent nuclear terrorism because that won't necessarily prevent global pandemics.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/01/26/obama_populism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/26/obama_populism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can populism be liberal?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/24/populism_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/24/populism_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/11/23/populism</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The GOP has owned it since Nixon. Democrats would have to return to the New Deal to recapture it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is a Jackson revival under way? I'm referring not to the late <a href="http://www.salon.com/entertainment/michael_jackson/index.html">King of Pop</a> but to the 19th century populist president whom his opponents called "King Andrew." According to <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/A-Jacksonian-Republican-sweep-70222192.html">Michael Barone,</a> in the 2010 elections Republicans have a chance to knock Democrats out of as many as three dozen insecure congressional seats in "Jacksonian districts."</p><p>By itself, this would merely reinforce the identification of the Party Formerly Known as Lincoln's with the white South. But in a time of popular anger over banker bonuses and lobby-hobbled government, the themes of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian populism have appeal far beyond the Scots-Irish enclaves of the Appalachians and Ozarks. Witness the calls from Democrats as well as Republicans for President Obama to oust Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and pay more attention to Main Street than to Wall Street.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/11/24/populism_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/24/populism_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>72</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poor, poor, plutocrats</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/03/25/wall_street_feels_bad/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/03/25/wall_street_feels_bad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Globalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[How the World Works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works//2009/03/25/wall_street_feels_bad</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wall Street's mad and just not going to take it anymore!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When President Obama declared <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/03/24/obama_press_conference/index.html">in his press conference Tuesday night</a> that "we can't afford to demonize every entrepreneur and investor who seeks to make a profit," he was clearly asking Americans to dial down their outrage.</p><p>Because, you know, Wall Street fat cats are really mad, and if we don't play nice, they're just going to pick up their ball and go home.</p><p>Exhibit A: From the Wall Street Journal, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123792916530530165.html">"On Wall Street, Talk of Trust and Civil War"</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p>"Washington and Wall Street are the equivalent of Gettysburg and Antietam right now," said Glenn Hutchins, co-chief executive of private-equity firm Silver Lake.</p>
<p>"To point the finger at one group means, No. 1, you're not understanding the problem, two, you're stretching our social fabric thinly, and you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater," Mr. Hutchins noted. "Trust goes both ways."</p>
</blockquote><p>Exhibit B: AIG trader Jake DeSantis' resignation letter, published as an Op-Ed in the New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html">"Dear A.I.G. -- I Quit!</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/03/25/wall_street_feels_bad/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/03/25/wall_street_feels_bad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>72</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are you too dumb to vote?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2008/06/05/shenkman/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2008/06/05/shenkman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/06/05/shenkman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sure, ignorance is rampant among the American electorate, as Rick Shenkman argues. But without The People, there would be no Democracy as we know it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FJust-How-Stupid-Are-We%2Fdp%2F0465077714&tag=saloncom08-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">"Just How Stupid Are We?"</a> There's no getting around the provocation of that title, and if your mouth is already forming the words, "Not stupid enough to read this book," then pause and give author Rick Shenkman his proper due. By questioning whether American voters have the capacity to think straight, he has ensured that he will never win an election and probably won't scare up a lot of readers, either. But at a time when Obama and Clinton and McCain have been hustling around the country trying to feel the common man's pain, it's oddly bracing to hear someone argue that the common man <i>is</i> a pain. </p><p> If nothing else, it flies in the face of a great many clich&eacute;s. "The people have spoken." "The people are always right." "Government of the people ... by the people..." Well, you know the rest. Or maybe you don't. Because, according to Shenkman, Americans don't know a hell of a lot, and some of us are, by any available metric, D-U-M dumb. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/06/05/shenkman/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2008/06/05/shenkman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>126</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The secret to Mike Huckabee&#8217;s success</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/huckabee_13/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/huckabee_13/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Edwards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Huckabee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/21/huckabee</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With his meteoric rise in Iowa, the aw-shucks former governor has an unlikely strategic doppelg]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/mike_huckabee/">Mike Huckabee</a>'s transformation from poll asterisk to political astronaut has been so sudden and dramatic that there is a desperate effort to understand <font size="-1">WHAT IT ALL MEANS</font>. Huckabee's return Wednesday afternoon to Iowa, where he is leading in most polls, was accompanied by the kind of camera-crush media frenzy unknown in a Republican presidential race since the glory days of <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/john_mccain/">John McCain</a> in 2000. Speaking Wednesday night to 200 Republicans in Ames, Huckabee engagingly confessed, "I get asked every day, 'Why do you think you're surging in the polls?' The honest answer is that I don't know that I know." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/huckabee_13/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/huckabee_13/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>God&#8217;s demagogue</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2006/03/01/kazin/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2006/03/01/kazin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/03/01/kazin</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rabble-rousing Christian, harsh critic of Big Money, champion of the working man, William Jennings Bryan was the original American populist --  and politicians from Wallace to Clinton to George W. Bush are his grandchildren.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A hundred years ago, it would have been hard to find an American in any field of endeavor who was better known, or more widely loved, than William Jennings Bryan. By 1906, Bryan had already lost two presidential elections, with one more defeat to go. In fact, that's one way of summarizing Bryan's peculiar legacy: Among major-party candidates in American political history, he's the all-time champion loser. Then as now, Bryan cut a much grander figure on the national stage than the men who defeated him: William McKinley in 1896 and 1900, William Howard Taft in 1908. McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist; Taft was enormously fat. Who among us knows, or cares to know, more than that? Bryan, although he retains only a flickering shadow of his former fame, still hovers over the early 20th century like a frock-coated ghost, Holy Bible in one hand and United States Constitution in the other. If we have come to believe, in the eight decades since Bryan's death, that those two documents are at war -- or rather, that one must be subservient to the other -- he never saw it that way. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2006/03/01/kazin/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2006/03/01/kazin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Brooks, champion of the people?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/08/brooks_and_elitism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/08/brooks_and_elitism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Brooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MoveOn.org]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2005/02/08/brooks_and_elitism</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The right-wing columnist used my work to bash Dean and MoveOn as elitists -- conveniently ignoring the big-money interests that pull the GOP's strings.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are MoveOn.org and <a href="http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/01/24/dean/">Howard Dean,</a> who is about to be named chairman of the Democratic National Committee, major threats to democracy in America -- and bastions of elitism within the Democratic Party? That is what David Brooks would have us believe. His Feb. 5 <a target="new" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/opinion/5brooks.html">Op-Ed column</a> in the New York Times invoked my 2003 book, "Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life," in support of the notion that a secularist, "newly dominant educated class" is using advocacy groups and Internet fundraising to take over the Democratic Party. In Brooks' vision of politics, Republicans have meanwhile morphed into a true party of ordinary people. </p><p> I was not a "Deaniac" in the 2004 election, but I must protest the way Brooks has used my research to support his claims. Democrats today certainly face challenges in building broad coalitions of educated professionals and populist supporters. But MoveOn and the Dean campaign have gotten more people involved, not fewer, in the party. Republicans, meanwhile, can hardly brag that they represent the values of ordinary Americans. Their effort to destroy the popular and inclusive Social Security program, a plan hatched by ultra-right advocacy groups and think tanks, is a textbook case of manipulative elitism and faux-populist conservatism. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/02/08/brooks_and_elitism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/02/08/brooks_and_elitism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Democrats lost the heartland</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/06/28/tomfranks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/06/28/tomfranks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Author Interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonfiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/06/28/tomfranks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas Frank talks about why Middle America, once a bastion of left-wing populism, has become red-state Republican.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> I'm fortunate enough to spend a lot of weekends in a house owned by my wife's family in Delaware County, in central New York state. It's a lovely, bucolic region of mountains, rivers and pastures that feels farther away from New York City than 140 miles. It's also one of the poorest counties in the entire state (poorer, for example, than the Bronx.) Two years ago, when the New York Times published a front-page feature story about the effects of welfare reform on the rural Northeastern poor, the reporter picked our town. (Strangely, the Chamber of Commerce doesn't have this article up on the wall.) </p><p> Another fact about this county won't surprise you at all, although maybe it should. Despite being an alarmingly depressed area smack in the middle of one of the bluest of all blue states -- with a truly alarming percentage of adults on government assistance -- Delaware County is bedrock Republican. George W. Bush got close to 70 percent of the vote here in 2000. Hillary Clinton swept to an easy statewide victory in the race for U.S. Senate that year, but her opponent, an undistinguished Republican congressman from Long Island named Rick Lazio, won 61 percent of Delaware County's votes. When we briefly considered living up here full time, we had to consider the fact that truly meaningful politics in Delaware County takes place inside the Republican Party. Being a registered Democrat up there is about as functional as voting Green or Libertarian or Socialist Worker. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/06/28/tomfranks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/06/28/tomfranks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Kerry could beat Bush</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2004/02/03/populist_kerry/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2004/02/03/populist_kerry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2004 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2004/02/02/populist_kerry</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To close the sale with the public, the Democratic front-runner should can the populist rhetoric and talk to Americans about an "opportunity society."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let's face it: John Kerry isn't the Democrats' dream candidate. He's got a list of Senate votes and public statements as long as your arm (longer!) that the Republicans will use to typecast him as a stale, out-of-step Massachusetts liberal. And his campaigning style is, shall we say, not exactly electrifying. </p><p>But he is an improvement over Howard Dean in the electability department. And despite the problems mentioned above, he probably also has an electability advantage over John Edwards or Wes Clark (though this is less clear). </p><p>To radically simplify, a presidential candidate needs to impress voters in three ways: as a commander in chief and defender of national security; as a steward of the economy and a custodian of the domestic agenda; and as someone who can connect with voters as he campaigns for the nomination. In each of those areas, Kerry achieves threshold credibility -- that is, he's good enough to make most voters give him a closer look without saying, "No way can I vote for that guy." </p><p>Instead, voters (at least our typical primary voters) might say: Kerry as commander in chief? He seems plausible. Kerry on domestic issues? Well, pretty good. He seems to know what he's talking about. Kerry as campaigner? Not exciting, sure, but at least he's disciplined and doesn't say a lot of goofy stuff. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2004/02/03/populist_kerry/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2004/02/03/populist_kerry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The politics of populism</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/24/populism_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/24/populism_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/huff/2002/09/24/populism</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this year's most competitive Senate races, suddenly everyone's a populist.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only a tone-deaf politician could fail to realize that there is much political hay to be made from the current bumper crop of corporate scandals. So, with control of the Senate at stake, candidates -- especially in tight races like those in Minnesota, Missouri and Texas -- are slipping into the reformer's mantle and doing all they can to squeeze their way into the crowded populist tent. </p><p> In Minnesota -- where Democrat Paul Wellstone, the incumbent, is being challenged by Republican Norm Coleman, former mayor of St. Paul -- the candidates are battling to see which can paint himself as more pro-little guy. It's become Populist vs. Populist. Or Populist vs. Populist vs. Populist, if you factor in Minnesota Green Party candidate and potential spoiler Ed McGaa. </p><p> It's a stance that comes naturally to Wellstone, who since 1990 has been the Senate's reigning crusader against corporate influence over public policy. His latest TV spots legitimately portray him as "one of the toughest watchdogs in Washington," a politician who has consistently "stood up to the most powerful interests to fight for people." "You've got to put people first," says Wellstone in the ad. "You've got to know whose side you're on." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/09/24/populism_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/09/24/populism_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The coming populist revolution?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2002/08/19/powder_keg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2002/08/19/powder_keg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/col/huff/2002/08/19/powder_keg</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the wake of corporate America's woes, who will tap into the American people's  sense of outrage?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I logged on to AOL to check my e-mail last week, I was more than a little surprised to find myself confronted not with one of those annoying pop-up ads for a cheap subscription to Teen People or the now standard promo for the latest Warner Bros. movie, but with the faces of three smiling men. The caption read: "The Greediest Execs of All: They made billions as investors lost big."</p><p>Intrigued, I clicked on the accompanying link and was transported to <a target="new" href="http://www.fortune.com/insiders/execs.html">"The Greedy Bunch,"</a> Fortune magazine's exhaustive evisceration of America's most avaricious executives -- featuring blood-boiling stories such as "You Bought. They Sold." and "The Cash Out Kings."</p><p>Here was AOL, under SEC investigation for questionable accounting practices, eagerly redirecting me to AOL Time Warner's corporate sibling Fortune for a stinging expos&#233;. And there, front and center among the greedy executives, was square-jawed AOL Time Warner chairman Steve Case. Who said synergy is dead? </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2002/08/19/powder_keg/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2002/08/19/powder_keg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clueless in Seattle</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/seattle_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/seattle_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/12/10/seattle</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The real legacy of the WTO protests is a rising tide of populism -- try telling that to politicians swapping platitudes on global trade.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listen to any presidential contender or other political leader on what happened last week in Seattle, and cluelessness reigns.</p><p>Their responses ranged from the platitudinous ("I support free and fair trade. And along with the president I have argued that labor rights and environmental protections should be a more important part of the negotiating process" -- Al Gore) to the painfully obvious ("I readily concede there may be an instant in time where someone has been pained by free trade" -- George W. Bush). And the award for meaninglessness goes to Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "The key," he said, "is not to run away from global trade but to embrace it while dealing with the negative aspects." The minority leader clearly has a great future as a marriage counselor.</p><p>Meanwhile, the media focused on the easy debate of whether the Seattle authorities were unprepared for the protesters (they were) and whether they subsequently overreacted (they did). In between, they giggled uncomprehendingly and made lame jokes about <a href="/news/feature/1999/12/01/wtoprotest/index.html">topless lesbian sea turtles.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/seattle_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/1999/12/10/seattle_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

