Not Every Populist Wants to Be Popular
Posted by Chap at 12/4/2006 12:28 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
On Friday, I attended the breakfast of the Northern Virginia Democratic Business Council group. It's a group of business owners, lawyers and other shady types that gathers to hear speakers on Virginia and national issues.
This Friday, our speaker was a well-known political scientist at George Mason University named Mark Rozell. He was breaking down the 2006 races in Virginia.
No great surprise there. It's something we've all done (I took a stab at it on November 8th). Mr. Rozell focused on the anti-Iraq war message from the Webb campaign and its effectiveness in consolidating the Democratic and independent vote.
In the course of his talk, he mostly dismissed the "populist" message of Webb as being electioneering rhetoric. In other words, no Fairfax County homeowner gets turned on by this stuff.
That's where he got off track, because he made two mistakes: 1) assuming that professional people don't view themselves as "workers" and 2) assuming that public leaders always say what they believe is popular -- and not what they truly believe.
More on #1 later. As far as #2, I can claim a shred of insight. As a Councilman and Delegate, I can think of many statements I've made (too many?) that angered the listeners in the room. And I knew they'd be angry and I said it anyway. That's part of leadership.
For Jim Webb, I met him a year ago. This was three months before he declared his candidacy. I asked him why he wanted to run as a Democrat and he spoke about the growing disparity of wealth and opportunity in American culture. He called himself a "Jacksonian Democrat" in the sense of the party's mission to represent working people.
I took that message at face value and I still do today. In fact, that is the same message that Senator-Elect Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal in a column immediately after the election -- a column which raised hackles amongst conservative commentators.
It's a strong message and not everyone is expected to agree with it. But it's an authentic message that resonates with many, including me. And it was formulated without the help of a poll or a political consultant. That is the authenticity that voters want, and that's what they selected on Election Day.
Chap
This Friday, our speaker was a well-known political scientist at George Mason University named Mark Rozell. He was breaking down the 2006 races in Virginia.
No great surprise there. It's something we've all done (I took a stab at it on November 8th). Mr. Rozell focused on the anti-Iraq war message from the Webb campaign and its effectiveness in consolidating the Democratic and independent vote.
In the course of his talk, he mostly dismissed the "populist" message of Webb as being electioneering rhetoric. In other words, no Fairfax County homeowner gets turned on by this stuff.
That's where he got off track, because he made two mistakes: 1) assuming that professional people don't view themselves as "workers" and 2) assuming that public leaders always say what they believe is popular -- and not what they truly believe.
More on #1 later. As far as #2, I can claim a shred of insight. As a Councilman and Delegate, I can think of many statements I've made (too many?) that angered the listeners in the room. And I knew they'd be angry and I said it anyway. That's part of leadership.
For Jim Webb, I met him a year ago. This was three months before he declared his candidacy. I asked him why he wanted to run as a Democrat and he spoke about the growing disparity of wealth and opportunity in American culture. He called himself a "Jacksonian Democrat" in the sense of the party's mission to represent working people.
I took that message at face value and I still do today. In fact, that is the same message that Senator-Elect Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal in a column immediately after the election -- a column which raised hackles amongst conservative commentators.
It's a strong message and not everyone is expected to agree with it. But it's an authentic message that resonates with many, including me. And it was formulated without the help of a poll or a political consultant. That is the authenticity that voters want, and that's what they selected on Election Day.
Chap
I think that, for most of us, the War in Iraq is THE overwhelming concern--and that is only right and proper. It is a war, after all, with all its horror, and all its urgency.
But to say that "professional people" are not concerned about the squeezing (I'd say "disintegrating") of the middle class is dead wrong. Without the middle class, a strong, vibrant, and, most of all, GROWING middle-class, America is just another third-world country.
I know everyone thinks that Webb was all about the war--but it wasn't as if he didn't try to tell people about his views on economic fairness all through the campaign. It seems as if everybody was focused on Iraq, and just didn't listen. Looks like they are listening now.
As to number 1, the income inequality growing in this country, you have plenty of support from recent sources. Today's NYT Magazine has an article addressing this very problem. (The New Inequality)
There is in fact a growing body of evidence that not only blue collar, but educated and professional white collar workers, are seeing their wages remain flat or decrease while the CEOs and top tier reap all the increases.
As for Rozell's take on Webb, he's been irritating me for a while with his pronouncements. I believe he was part of the chorus shocked, shocked that Webb didn't feel like talking about his son with the man who put him in danger. He seems to view Webb through the construct he's erected for every other politician and I have not picked up any sense from him that he has a real idea of what makes the man tick. Having read Born Fighting and carefully considered his statements in the WSJ (Webb doesn't say what he doesn't mean in writing), it's clear to me that he's honestly interested in remedying some of the economic disparities in this country. He doesn't regard himself as apart from the people most affected by globalization, downsizing, outsourcing, and current trade policies.