Liberal vs. Conservative Populism

President Obama's response to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United last week helpfully illuminates the distinction between the brands of populism practiced by the Left and Right. (Actually you could even say it illuminates the fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative in how they view the relationship between citizen and government.)

The President:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.  It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.  This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.  That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue.  We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.  The public interest requires nothing less.

Liberal populism (like its conservative counterpart) decries the vulnerability of the people and finds the necessary remedy (unlike its conservative counterpart) in government action to protect the people from predators such as big business, insurance companies, poverty, etc. It is expressed in a way that envisions individuals and society as intrinsically and at all times vulnerable and thus forever in need of protection from a paternal government. Without government intervention and regulation society is left to the mercy of nefarious and usually faceless forces, with individual's being constantly exploited and their "positive liberty" denied.

This explains President Obama's negative reaction to the Court's decision. Without the federal government limiting the ability of corporations and other powerful interests to buy ad time in the media around election time, the votes of the people will be compromised by big money. This is the same rationale that underwrites so many hallmarks of contemporary government such as the minimum wage, affirmative action, seat-belt laws, and the proposed individual mandate in health care. Government is indispensably necessary to protect the individual in everything.

Conservative populism is the opposite. While its expression also bemoans the vulnerability of the people it sees the source of that vulnerability to be an extravagant and overweening government. This is the ascendant form of populism in America today, built upon resistance to a federal government that is spending billions upon billions of borrowed dollars and that is trying to force through a radical health-care bill that will dramatically alter the relationship between citizen and government. Adding to this popular ire is the fact that Congress is formulating this "reform" on a strictly partisan basis behind closed doors and that congressional leaders are using special favors and buyoffs directed to swing congressmen and senators to pass it on strictly party-line votes.

As is the case here, conservative populism is a reaction against a distant, over-bearing government out of touch with the people. It is the large and ever-growing Tea Party movement, a mass antagonist to the exact same paternal government – the nanny state – that liberals believe is necessary to protect the people. The major thing conservative populism believes that individuals and society must be protected from is government itself, especially a government that seeks to inject itself into every facet of individual and civic life.

This is what Ronald Reagan succinctly expressed when he declared in the previous era of ascendant conservative populism that "government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem."

This is the clear distinction between liberal and conservative populism. The former believes the people need protection from their government in everything. The latter simply believes the people need protection from their own government.