The Activist

In an op-ed for the New York Times on August 17, Paul Krugman argued that “a hard-hitting populism . . . would give [Barack Obama] a landslide victory this year.” While it is inarguably true that a more passionate focus on the economy would bolster Obama’s campaign, is populism really the answer? Considering that CNN’s anti-immigrant anchor Lou Dobbs, for example, fits the definition of a populist, perhaps populism is not the direction in which progressives should want American politics to go. While there may be positive aspects to populism, the populist core value is an “us versus them” mentality that pits the American worker against immigrant workers and workers abroad — and that, ladies and gentlemen, is not change we should believe in.

Consider the populist approach to trade. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, populists are not generally in favor of fair trade. They are in favor of tariffs and other protectionist measures intended to keep American jobs in America and largely bring to a halt the frenzy of so-called free trade that has occurred under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Those who are truly in favor of fair trade recognize that globalization is inevitable, but that it should not happen on the backs of the world’s workers. Fair trade consists of measures that would acknowledge the reality of the global economy, but with the caveat that American workers must be protected from its harshest aspects and that the needs and dignity of workers abroad must be respected. This differs significantly from a populist approach to trade that would focus exclusively, or at least primarily, on protecting American workers at the expense of workers in other countries.

Another issue to consider is the populist approach to immigration. Populists have been at the forefront of the campaign to “crack down” on illegal immigrants by, among other things, engaging in mass deportation, building a fence on our border with Mexico, and militarizing our southern border by hiring more border patrol agents and sending the National Guard to patrol the border. This is all based on the ancient and ugly belief that “they” are taking “our” jobs and therefore must be kept out. It should be noted that the mainstream Right’s approach hasn’t been much better; it favors a “guest worker program” that would benefit American corporations and turn immigrants into a new caste of slave labor in our society. Still, it is clear to any person concerned with the human dignity of immigrants that the war of attrition proposed by populists is not the way to solve the problems faced by undocumented migrant workers or workers born in the United States.

If Obama wanted to get passionate about the economy while continuing his message of change, he would have to embrace not populism but socialism. Unlike populists, socialists encourage the workers of the world to unite against their exploitation by the global capitalist class. Socialists refuse to pit the white worker against the African American or Latino American or Asian American worker, the U.S.-born worker against the immigrant worker, or the American worker against workers abroad. Rather, socialists propose that we must ensure good jobs for all workers regardless of skin color; that we must ensure the social welfare of the U.S. worker while developing a humane immigration policy; and that American jobs should stay in America even while we insist that the rules of trade respect the rights of workers abroad. Socialists declare that these issues are not mutually exclusive. Until governments everywhere are of the worker, by the worker, and for the worker, truly just and humane conditions will not exist for workers anywhere.

Indeed, socialism would provide the bridge between Obama’s foreign policy proposals and his best economic proposals. Socialists have always held that war is the result of the manipulation of the working class by wealthy elites to fight other workers, thus undermining the solidarity of laborers the world over. Today, the taxes paid by American workers are being used to send other American workers to kill Iraqi workers. The same is true in Afghanistan. The same would be true if a McCain administration engaged in armed conflict with Russia over Georgia’s treatment of Abkhazia and South Ossetia — here again, the wealthy elite would be using the money of American workers to send other American workers to fight and kill Russian workers. What socialists wish Obama would do is make the connection that neoconservative warmongering means taking American workers’ tax dollars and using them for death and destruction rather than using them for social services that would benefit the entire U.S. working class. 

As it unites workers in a common cause, at home and abroad, socialism would be a real “change we can believe in.” Populism is really business as usual, another way of pitting worker against worker and dividing rather than uniting people in our own country, on our own continent, in our own hemisphere, and abroad. Krugman is right that it would be good if Obama became more passionate about economic issues, but he’s wrong about “populism.” The time is now to propose a truly new direction for the U.S., and our walk together in that new direction should be guided by a socialist worldview.