Senecal, we should just realize that the Democrats are Ivy Tweeds who take money for delivering votes and go from there, and are in no way “us”. They’re “them”. So what should we do?

During the New Deal there was a back and forth between the two, but during the war era and after the Democrats cut off the populist-radical wings and went almost entirely technocratic. (Populists are not necessarily idiots, either. After all, in 1870 they were free-traders and monetarists).

It was really institutional rather than psychological, and it worked until 1968.

The specifics of your post are the kinds of things people should be talking about. What you require confronting finance directly, though; they wouldn’t go quietly. And that could be best done if there were a loud populist movement threatening something even worse.

As you know, I’m not exactly a pitchfork populist myself. However, I’m wondering if there might be something that party hacks halfway disillusioned with Obamanomics (like me) and populists (never illusioned about Obamanomics in the first place) could agree on. A basic principle I’d like to see: trickle-up economics.

Where the US has previously insured financial assets via FDIC, FSLIC, PBGC, etc, do what it takes to cover those losses. Other than that — other than those discrete cases where help was federally promised in advance — no help for investors or the financial sector.

Money goes directly into the real economy, through aid to the poor, public services, and projects. The financial sector can eventually get some of the benefit of this. If someone has public health coverage, and thus doesn’t have to declare bankruptcy in the midst of being treated for breast cancer, and thus can pay off her debts rather than defaulting, then the financial sector benefits from that, as a secondary consequence of the well-being of its customers.

Or maybe not. Maybe the wealth won’t trickle up any more than it trickles down. Either way, they’re on their own, unless a financier actually becomes poor enough to qualify for assistance by the same criteria as, say, a Wal*Mart greeter.

Okay. Not exactly pitchfork populism — it’s not about punishing the warlocks of Wall Street so much as cutting them loose and focusing on higher priorities. However, as a principle, I think it could cut across a number of different lines: there’s the populist-lite aspect of repudiating TARP-style bailouts. There’s the free market orthodox aspect of saying that finance should make its money by providing its services to an improved overall economy, rather than dealing directly with the federal government. There’s the mushy administrative liberal aspect of wishing the rich well and not wanting them to lose their wealth, but thinking the poorer have a stronger claim.

Is “trickle-up economics” a servicable meme for populists, loyalist Democrats who’ve only drunk half a cup of Obama Kool-Aid, and others on the broad non-right-wing of American politics?

None worth mentioning. I read newspapers. And blogs. And books. I’ve got a bachelor’s degree from a state university, and I haven’t made much of a systematic study of anything in life.

If you tell me that populism necessarily excludes political actors whose primary motivation and appeal are racist, then I agree that Duke is clearly not a populist. This is responsive to my question.