SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Let Them Eat Arugula

POLITICS MAY 8, 2008

Let Them Eat Arugula

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The dying days of the Hillary Clinton campaign have brought the breathtaking spectacle of a candidate lashing out at every element of public life that has nourished her career. The über-wonk has disparaged economists and expertise. The staunch ally of black <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />America has attacked her opponent for lacking support of "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." People who thought they knew Hillary Clinton have gazed in astonishment: What has she become? The answer is, a conservative populist.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

Conservative populism and liberal populism are entirely different things. Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people’s interest. Conservative populism, by contrast, dismisses any inference that the rich and the non-rich might have opposing interests as “class warfare.” Conservative populism prefers to divide society along social lines, with the elites being intellectuals and other snobs who fancy themselves better than average Americans.


Consider this analysis recently offered by Bill Clinton in Clarksburg, West Virginia: “The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules.” This is precisely the dynamic that allows multimillionaires like George W. Bush and Bill O’Reilly to present themselves as being on the side of the little guy. A more classic expression of conservative populism cannot be found.


Historically, the conservative populist’s social divide ran along racial and ethnic lines. In recent years, overt racism has all but disappeared from mainstream political life, and even racial hot button appeals like the 1988 Willie Horton ad have grown rare. What remains is a residue of nostalgia about small towns--whose residents are said to have stronger values and work harder than other Americans, and who also happen to be overwhelmingly white. In 2004, after John Kerry declared that some entertainers supporting him represented “the heart and soul of America,” George W. Bush embarked upon a national tour of small- and mid-sized cities, where he would say, “I believe the heart and soul of America is found in places like Duluth, Minnesota,” or other such places.


Likewise, Bill Clinton recently declared, “The people in small towns in rural America, who do the work for America, and represent the backbone and the values of this country, they are the people that are carrying her through in this nomination.” The corollary--that strong values and hard work is in shorter supply among ethnically heterogeneous urban residents--is left unstated. Hillary Clinton’s statement about “hard-working Americans, white Americans” simply made explicit a theme that conservative populists usually keep implicit.


Liberal populism is mostly harnessed to a concrete legislative program aimed at broadening prosperity. Al Gore’s “people versus the powerful” campaign focused on his differences with Bush over issues like regulation of HMOs and progressive taxation. Conservative populism, by contrast, is a way of exploiting the grievances it identifies without redressing them. It has an ever-shifting array of targets--Michael Dukakis’s veto of a law requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or the rantings of Jeremiah Wright--but no way to knock them down.


Conservative populists sometimes ape liberal populism by promising material benefits to average people. But the promise is structured so as to pose no threat to any wealthy economic interest. George W. Bush offered tax cuts to the middle class, but paired them with far larger tax cuts for the rich, so that, ultimately, the middle class bore a larger proportion of the tax burden.


Hillary Clinton’s embrace of the gas tax holiday is a miniature example of the same pattern. Her plan, which rests upon the political principle that high gasoline prices are unacceptable and that the federal gas tax is a burden on hard-pressed Americans, is highly congenial to the interests of oil companies. Yet she presents it as an assault on Big Oil, much as Bush presented his tax cuts as a way to force the rich to pay a higher share of the burden of government.


If economists or other social scientists dispute the conservative populist’s claims, that is only because they, too, are elitists. Bush would dismiss objections to the upper class tilt of his tax cuts by picking a middle class family (in this case, the Muellers) and saying, “Oh, some of the sophisticates will say that $2,700 doesn't matter to the Muellers. ‘It doesn’t sound like a lot to me.’ It’s a lot to them. That’s what counts.”


And so, when Tim Russert said that economists believe the gas tax holiday won’t lower prices at the pump, Clinton campaign chairman Terry MacAuliffe replied, “Maybe for Barack Obama and for many of your economists, Tim, who you may talk to, you know what, maybe an extra hundred bucks for them isn’t a big deal. But I can tell you this, it is a big deal for most Americans.”


Social science analysis is the mortal enemy of conservative populism. The liberal populist sees politics as a series of quantifiable trade-offs between competing interests. The conservative populist offers an appeal that can’t be quantified: Who shares your values? Who is more manly? (James Carville: “If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two.”)


If a liberal populist cites experts or numbers to back his position, that only proves to the conservative populist that he is out of touch. It’s the intellectual equivalent of buying arugula from Whole Foods. A Clinton endorser addressed a rally last month, “You didn’t go to Harvard! You weren’t born with a silver spoon in your mouth!” (Never mind that Clinton graduated from Yale Law School and had a far more stable, middle class upbringing than Obama.) In the liberal populists’ world, the locus of evil is K Street. In the conservative populists’ world, the locus of evil is Cambridge, Massachusetts.


In Clinton’s defense, she obviously does not believe her own social conservative rhetoric. But neither do Republican social conservatives. She is not running for president so she can suspend the gas tax any more than George H. W. Bush sought the office on order to increase the rate of flag-saluting.


One conceit of the conservative populist style is that its practitioners are “real,” while its targets are “fake.” For years, Hillary Clinton put herself forward as the earnest liberal policy wonk she actually is, while conservatives lambasted her as a phony. Since she started campaigning as the enemy of all she once held dear, some conservatives have started to appreciate her, even lauding her authenticity. The Weekly Standard’s Noemie Emery gushed that after March 4, Hillary “began to seem real.” Indeed, she is now real in exactly the same way the conservative populists imagine themselves to be.


Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 172 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

172 comments

Hillary is correct that America will never elect as its President an emaciated arugula-eating metrosexual whose father was a Muslim goatherd and whose spiritual mentor for 20 years beseeched God to damn America.

- Mike H in Cali

May 9, 2008 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait disappoints! I had hoped that he was going to write yet another "Hillary=toast" column...y'know, the type of column that has uncannily coincided with yet another Hillary "Lazarus" act. Jon, you might justifiably write a "toast" column at this point but maybe you'd better check with the pastor to make sure that he'd stay put this time!

- dcshungu

May 9, 2008 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Smart, warm, genuine, tough as steel Hillary Clinton. How I would love to say "President Hillary Clinton". Keep calling her names. Keep writing things that try and take down her campaign. I just sent her campaign more money. Obama supporters and the media make it so much easier for us Hillary Clinton fans to practice saying "President John McCain".

- Phoenix Comment

May 9, 2008 at 1:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, you have once again struck the proverbial nail directly on its head.

- Brad

May 9, 2008 at 1:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait: The question is not, why won't Hillary quit? The question is, when will you be made accontable for your hate-filled speech? As for Hillary's campaign, perhaps a contrary point-of-view might help: It's over. For Barack Obama. We, the people, will never vote for him in the Fall if he is the Democratic nominee. BUT HE WILL NOT BE THE NOMINEE. When the voters of West Virginia, Kentucky, and my fellow Puerto Ricans have their say, watch how Obama's "Let's Pretend I Am The Nominee" stance crumbles from the sheer number of voters and the equivalent in the popular vote that will translate into for Hillary. You see, Obama, certain Democratic Party insiders, and the media, which has turned itself into a Communist-style propaganda machine for Obama (including yourself), KNEW that when he did not carry Indiana, the state they have constantly called a virtual annex of Illinois, being part of the "Chicago media market", he had nowhere else to go. We always knew he would carry North Carolina. Even the pollsters got that right; the only question there was how big a margin it would be. That is why the process, as far as all these interested parties were concerned (including yourself), had to end on May 6. It did not because Hillary WON Indiana. That is also why the drumbeat to end this race and for Hillary to drop out is relentless. This, from the man who once proclaimed that he believed in a 50-state strategy. Well, the remaining six states will not be so kind to him, especially WV, Kentucky, and PR. And I am assuming he will indeed win in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. The problem is they just do not have enough votes to stem the tide of the other three. My fellow Puerto Ricans alone will turn out in the 1 to 2 million number, based on word from back home. For Hillary. That is why, unfortunately for you and the rest of the media, Hillary is NOT quitting. Ain’t gonna happen. Oh, and don't forget about that little problem the Democrats have with Michigan and Florida. It's over. For Barack Obama, the media darling, and for the American media. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE CLINTONS AND THE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO BELIEVE IN THEM. YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN PERIL. Matthew Dominguez

- Matthew Dominguez

May 9, 2008 at 1:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, you obviously are motivated by a desire to help the poor and middle class. Why do you even bother, considering how stupid you think they are? Its very convenient how the interests of the white, middle class are served by attacking the wealthy rather then stoping government sponsered discrimination in the form of "affirmative action" and illegal immigrants willing to work for slave wages. No ideolgy there at all, nope. Just pure, factual analysis that the yahoos dismiss as elitist.

- John

May 9, 2008 at 1:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A brilliant and insightful article.

- Jan_M

May 9, 2008 at 2:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A very thoughtful analysis by Mr. Chait. I am unsure I have ever heard this particular explanation of liberal vs. conservative. Though I don't totally agree with the author, he made some excellent points.

- Phillip Williams

May 9, 2008 at 2:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You suggest that the middle class carries a higher percentage of federal taxes after the Bush tax cuts - this is not supported by either the article or, incidentaly, the facts.

- tsh

May 9, 2008 at 2:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is a miniature masterpiece. It's truly astonishing what Hillary has become. I always knew Carville had no soul. But I thought better of Billary. I guess it all goes back to that famous Lord Acton quote.

- Dave Blum

May 9, 2008 at 2:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I learned something new from your article. Thanks for laying it down. It's important to deconstruct (oops, that's an arugula word, ain't it) the gimmicky of populism.

- Scott

May 9, 2008 at 2:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Best article on the 2007-2008 elections so far! Mr. Chait only fails to sufficiently amplify how the very fact that Mr. Obama is Black and risen from the station in life where most followers of Conservative Populists are to be found is so bitingly painful to them. "How did he escape?" - they wonder. "Maybe people in America will discover that we don't work that hard..." they think. Also, a variant of this style was used by her husband Bill in 1992 - but it was hard to notice along side the Grand Master of Conservative Populism - Ross Perot!

- Alexei Stakhanov

May 9, 2008 at 2:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With her explicit statement that she appeals to white voters who would not vote for an African American candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton removes herself as a viable Democratic nominee for the presidency. Her claim that Obama cannot win white votes is more wish than reality; depending on the demographic Obama has polled between 60% and 40% of white voters. Only in economically-strapped and intellectually-challenged (as measured by educational attainment) small towns in the rust belt have Obama’s numbers among white voters been in the 30 percentile range, and this only when Jeremiah Wright was still dominating the headlines. Hillary tells us that the America that she sees is one that is not quite ready to elect Obama president; and she makes this argument explicitly along racial lines. What self-respecting African American can vote for her now? What self-respecting American can vote for her? Were the superdelegates to give Hillary Clinton the unearned nomination they would, in the words of the old segregationist George C. Wallace, be “send(ing) them a message.” Previously Clintonistas had a degree of deniability. They were able to say that Bill Clinton didn’t mean it the way it sounded when he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson; or that Hillary didn’t mean it the way it sounded when she said “Martin Luther King had a dream, but it took a president to bring it to reality.” Clintonistas were able to say it was merely a coincidence when Geraldine Ferraro appeared to go off her meds, and went on an ugly 48 hour rant about race preference on national television, or when Ed Rendell said a good number of Pennsylvanians would not vote for a black candidate under any circumstances. But there is no longer any deniability that Clinton seeks to base her case on her ability to appeal to racist voters. We have now heard it, in explicit terms, directly from the horse’s mouth. The only question facing the Democratic Party is whether it wants to validate, sanction, and reward Clinton’s explicitly race-based appeal by handing her the nomination. And if they should do so, the only question facing traditional Democratic constituencies is whether or not it is time stop allowing the Democratic Party to take their votes for granted.

- matthawk

May 9, 2008 at 3:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think this is a fair description of Hillary's metamorphosis. The speeches from flatbed trucks, the wince-inducing hunting stories, the constant dropping of her g's while on the campaign trail, etc. etc. ad nauseum. What adds an extra layer of unappealing irony to the spectacle is the concomitant machismo - an essential element of her new posture as 'hardworkin' Hillary.' In her shameless rush to embrace this politically expedient and manufactured identity of "conservative populist," she is behaving like a swaggering hardhat. . . Who needs a post-menopausal George Bush? Yet incredibly, women (like me) are supposed to get behind her candidacy because she is a feminist beacon? Feh.

- Los Angeles Reader

May 9, 2008 at 3:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with Obama is that he has been a media darling from day one. Those of us who want to choose our candidate based on ability, historical record, work ethic and knowledge have had this unexperienced, arrogant and lazy person forced down our throats. Not since we have seen in CLOSED societies such as the Soviet Union or in dictatorships in today's world, have we seen such HIGHHANDED TACTICS. I choose to exercise my right to a free choice and it will not be OBAMA. I promise on the day that the Democratic Elite and the MEDIA nominate Obama, I will post my first, of many, contributions to the man I will support in November, John McCain. I will copy that receipt onto my posts as proof. All of you who either support Senator Clinton or simply care about VOTERS rights, are invited to do the same. I also urge you to write to your State Superdelegates @ congress.org and to Howard Dean at http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman to express your displeasure.

- Hillary is Simply The Best

May 9, 2008 at 4:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"… the earnest liberal policy wonk she actually is…" What'd you do Chait, look into her soul? She's always been whatever it takes to get what she wants; that you were suckered into thinking she's an "earnest liberal policy wonk [just like me!]" puts you a stone's throw from the pig pickin' populists she's pandering to these days.

- diversityhire

May 9, 2008 at 4:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rodham's real problem is more fundamental than the author imagines.....most Americans have decided that having already had one crooked lawyer with fat pasty thighs who can't tell the truth as President,we simply don't need another.

- Robbins Mitchell

May 9, 2008 at 4:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, This is one of the better and more insightful political pieces I have ever read. Well done.

- Reilly

May 9, 2008 at 4:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I do believe you've got it!, you've finally got it!"

- WaltB

May 9, 2008 at 6:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've never seen a bigger fake than BO. You don't mention his developmental years in Hawaii, the great school he attended there, the fact that his WHITE grandparents raised him. You, like so many others in the media keep perpetuating this myth. I don't think BO is an elitist; but he certainly aspires to be one. Let him eat arugula indeed...I hope he chokes on it.

- Debbie

May 9, 2008 at 6:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If "Social science analysis is the mortal enemy of conservative populism," then common sense is the mortal enemy of liberal populism. Chait's example of Al Gore's "people versus the powerful" campaign is a case in point. Gore's a product of private boarding schools and Harvard, lives in a house with a gazillion rooms and a 10 page electric bill, and flies around in a private jet. He's going to lecture us on how the people can take on the powerful? Oh, and we do that with his help. I get it. An even better example is George Soros trying single handedly to buy the last presidential election, and making a virtue of it. Chait describes two interesting political phenomena, but draws some misleading conclusions, including where the Clintons may be going with all this.

- wabash sphinx

May 9, 2008 at 7:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that is the dumbest analysis i have ever read. i have to go take a scalding hot shower to wash off all of the stupid that may have rubbed off on me. i won't even bother making specific points, as i doubt this would help the writer. he is clearly irredeemable. perhaps if he just spent some time outside the liberal echo chamber and went for a walk or something he might think and analyze as normal people do.

- brendan wilson

May 9, 2008 at 7:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, thank you for an interesting article. Two concerns: 1) your statement that liberal populists offer answers and conservative populists don't, is incorrect. The conservative populists just don't offer answers that you like - stopping forced school busing, allowing private school choice, allowing creches in the public square, certain blue laws, protecting private property (including the right of an owner to decide whether or not to allow smoking your own restaurant). I'm not saying you need to agree with all of these - many people don't - but understand that it's not true they have no proposals. It's not in the amount as the liberal populists who, since they seek a larger role for government, will have more government- centered answers. 2) Near the end of the article you say, "In her defense, Mrs. Clinton obviously doesn't believe her social conservative rhetoric." Are you saying that in Mrs. Clinton's defense, she's a liar? Is that really a defense? The Clinton people truly amaze me; they'll forgive and justify anything that pair does. The hyporcrisy is remarkable.

- Round Table

May 9, 2008 at 7:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would have called it "cultural populism" vs, "economic populism," rather than conservative vs. liberal; I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. Your overall point is correct, though. Frankly, I find both varieties somewhat off-putting, since they feed on paranoia by creating bogeymen, things like gay marriage for the cultural populists and things like free trade for the economic populists. The cultural kind is worse, though, since it demeans so much of the country, ultimately telling people "you're better than those effete liberal elites."

- AlanSP

May 9, 2008 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

President Bush's tax cuts increased the % of taxes paid by the wealthy as porportion of total federal revenue. This article stated otherwise.

- Mark

May 9, 2008 at 7:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people's interest." Disproportionate influence? Policies at odds with the people's interest? No kidding. The "people" have noticed. I expected better from Jonathan. His comparisons are all one-sided. To knock down the largest straw man: the wealthy. Demographically, the Democrats now have the most wealthy voters and, arguably, the wealthiest voters on their side: the Hollywoods, Gates, Buffet, and Heinz-Kerry to name a few, and let's not forget Soros who contributes millions to undermine the elections of a country he's not a citizen of. But I get it: at odds with the people's interest.

- mk

May 9, 2008 at 8:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fascinating analysis; one factual error however; Bush tax cuts did not increase share of federal taxation born by middle class, but actually increased share born by "rich". It is true that the rich individually experienced larger tax cuts, because they pay more in taxes, but, following the tax cuts, the distribution of taxation among different income levels actually shifted more of the burden to the "rich".

- Michael McDonald

May 9, 2008 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article but I've read the following and cannot imagine that Chait really intended to say this: "Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people's interest." What am I missing here?

- moz

May 9, 2008 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"George W. Bush offered tax cuts to the middle class, but paired them with far larger tax cuts for the rich, so that, ultimately, the middle class bore a larger proportion of the tax burden" This statement is a blatant lie, if you go by percentages or actual numbers...a blatant lie. I DARE ANYONE to find ANY data to support this juvenile statement. It shows a complete disregard for the truth in the name of fallacious partisan rhetoric. Pure Liberal Populism. You should be ashamed.

- Jermaine Washington

May 9, 2008 at 8:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh man, what can be said about an article like this? A why do I read this garbage and agonize over it? All this is nonsense. Come November we will now whether Hillary’s camp is right or wrong. Personally I believe we have nominated a bright young man, that unfortunately, because he is African American, and a extremely liberal, will not be able to be elected in November. People like Mr. Chait live under the illusion that most of us share his political views. That this is a left of center country. I believe we are not. When push come to shove, a liberal AA pol from the north will suffer the same fate as Mondale and Dukakis an the rest of the gang. I will support and vote for Mr. Obama. Nust like a voted for Dukakis, and Gore, and Kerry. But bare in mind, since 1976, we have have only elected one Bill Clinton to office. And that Mr. Chait might be the one truth that you cannot handle nor understand.

- Robert_V

May 9, 2008 at 8:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a hack.

- Jennifer

May 9, 2008 at 8:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. If any candidate can be called an elitist, it is Hillary Clinton. 2. When the measure of being an elitist is primary identification with other college graduates and those who value education above all else, then it's a sad day for America. There are people who call themselves Democrats who honestly believe Obama is a Muslim, and will look a reporter square in the eye and say "I won't vote for a black man." If it's elitist to lack identity with those people, there are a hell of a lot of elitists in America. 3. Personally, I resent the media's adoption of the term "blue collar" as a euphemism for "undereducated bigot." I have been a blue collar worker, I know blue collar workers, and I can say that being "blue collar" entails neither ignorance nor bigotry. 4. I have no expectations that Barack Obama or any other political candidate should pretend to be anything other whan what they are. When Hillary Clinton asks me to believe that she can identify with middle America, then defines "middle class" as "those earning under $250,000 a year," I'm outraged. She has no idea what it's like to be a middle class American. And that would be OK with me if she wasn't insulting my intelligence by asking me to belive that she isn't a product of privilege. So let's not be holier than thou about this issue. Barack Obama is not an elitist - far from it. Does he identify with people who would rather their children hunt than attend school? Nope. But that does not make him an elitist. That is, unless I'm one too. And you. And just about everyone we know.

- David Scoven

May 9, 2008 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article. I wonder whether there isn't conservative/libertarian economic populism, though, that merits attention. For example, Ron Paul speaks frequently about the Federal Reserve and activist government inflating the money supply and, through heavy taxation, helping upper-income bureaucrats and other special interests. In his case, unlike the socially conservative populists you mention, he has a policy program that he thinks addresses it. Would right-leaning politicians become more genuinely populist if they became more like him?

- Benjamin Rogers

May 9, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the several reasons I support Senator Clinton for the Office of President of the United States is her practical multi-step approach to solving our country's problems. For example, addressing complaints and concerns about the high price of gas, I understood Senator Clinton to say that, short-term, we can ease consumers' burden by imposing a gas tax holiday and shifting the burden to the oil companies, through a tax on windfall profits. Long term, she proposed conservation and sanctioning OPEC through the WTO. One of the several reasons I do not support Senator Obama for the Office of President of the United States is that he omits from his list of 'qualifications' to the office, the only experience I find that could credibly contribute to a claim of his ability to lead the country, that is, his stint as the head of the Annenberg Challenge. This is the educational program set up by his friend, the self-promoting terrorist, William Ayers, who hired his inexperienced pal to run the show. (And because his chief foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, advocated in 2003 that the President should unilaterally invade Israel to establish a Palestinian state because, to paraphrase, 'powerful lobbies in this country would otherwise prevent such a move'. And because he gave Senator Clinton the finger.)

- jbjd

May 9, 2008 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the several reasons I support Senator Clinton for the Office of President of the United States is her practical multi-step approach to solving our country's problems. For example, addressing complaints and concerns about the high price of gas, I understood Senator Clinton to say that, short-term, we can ease consumers' burden by imposing a gas tax holiday and shifting the burden to the oil companies, through a tax on windfall profits. Long term, she proposed conservation and sanctioning OPEC through the WTO. One of the several reasons I do not support Senator Obama for the Office of President of the United States is that he omits from his list of 'qualifications' to the office, the only experience I find that could credibly contribute to a claim of his ability to lead the country, that is, his stint as the head of the Annenberg Challenge. This is the educational program set up by his friend, the self-promoting terrorist, William Ayers, who hired his inexperienced pal to run the show. (And because his chief foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, advocated in 2003 that the President should unilaterally invade Israel to establish a Palestinian state because, to paraphrase, 'powerful lobbies in this country would otherwise prevent such a move'. And because he gave Senator Clinton the finger.)

- jbjd

May 9, 2008 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stop these articles which trash Clinton! Save it for the history books. The nomination battle is over and all that you can do is reinforce the division of the party at this point. There are a lot of people who are way pissed off at the Obama crowds for their attacks on Clinton. I've never had much of a problem with Obama but I sure have a problem with Obama supporters who have gone out of their way to trash Clinton. More of these types of articles at this point are counter productive,unless you really want to drive away her supporters in November. Please don't tell me you believe the folly that Obama can win easily in November only with the black and elite white vote. The object of the game is to win the election so it is time to be gracious winners and cut the crap. Save it for McCain.

- rbrown207

May 9, 2008 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the several reasons I support Senator Clinton for the Office of President of the United States is her practical multi-step approach to solving our country's problems. For example, addressing complaints and concerns about the high price of gas, I understood Senator Clinton to say that, short-term, we can ease consumers' burden by imposing a gas tax holiday and shifting the burden to the oil companies, through a tax on windfall profits. Long term, she proposed conservation and sanctioning OPEC through the WTO. One of the several reasons I do not support Senator Obama for the Office of President of the United States is that he omits from his list of 'qualifications' to the office, the only experience I find that could credibly contribute to a claim of his ability to lead the country, that is, his stint as the head of the Annenberg Challenge. This is the educational program set up by his friend, the self-promoting terrorist, William Ayers, who hired his inexperienced pal to run the show. (And because his chief foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, advocated in 2003 that the President should unilaterally invade Israel to establish a Palestinian state because, to paraphrase, 'powerful lobbies in this country would otherwise prevent such a move'. And because he gave Senator Clinton the finger.)

- jbjd

May 9, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Chait- Obama supporters like yourself simply don't know when to stop. Articles like this one that belittle Senator Clinton only harden the resolve of her supporters and make them less and less likely to ever rally to Senator Obama. What was once simply a preference for one Democratic candidate over another is for Clinton supporters being transformed into an intense, unyielding, irreconcilable antipathy to Obama. You and the other pro-Obama media pundits seem blissfully unaware of how much Senator Obama will need the Clinton supporters you so contemptuously dismiss...but you'll be in a state of total awareness when Senator McCain is elected in November.

- Raconteur

May 9, 2008 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait is very much confused. Social conservatives truly believe in social conservatism. It's not phony pandering in order to pull in some votes. And, flag waving has nothing to do with social conservative values. Chait's analogy is laughable, and demeaning to social conservatives, which is obviously Chait's intention in the first place. Get a grip on reality Mr. Chait. Americans are far more socially conservative than you appear to understand, and are willing to tolerate. And, that's why there's been 1 liberal Democrat elected to the Presidency in the past 4 decades.

- Scott

May 9, 2008 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very much flawed in his assumptions. 1) As a conservative who knows many other conservatives, I know no racists implicit or otherwise. I'm sure there are. But of all the people I know who won't vote for Obama because he's black, those are Democrats. 2) Liberals may want to help people, but their policies don't work and sometimes cause actual harm. Conservatives just believe their economics and government-based policies are wrong. We believe that rich people make other people wealthy by being productive, hiring people, etc. A rising tide lifts all boats.

- Geoff

May 9, 2008 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Bill Clinton quote is a perfect characterization of both Bill and Hillary...: "...those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules." That's how they have always behaved.....

- Bill Ahlstrom

May 9, 2008 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for reminding me why I hardly ever read liberal viewpoints.

- Barry

May 9, 2008 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait said, "This is precisely the dynamic that allows multimillionaires like George W. Bush and Bill O'Reilly to present themselves as being on the side of the little guy." Oh, and people like Gore, Edwards, the Clintons, and Obama have net worths comparable to "The little guy" and can thus represent them better? Please get real.

- Mike C

May 9, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, now Mikey. Hate is and evil thing! Take Hitler for example, consumed by hate he ultimately committed suicide. Release your grip on the HATE, embrace your love of all people no matter their skin color.

- Todd

May 9, 2008 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice column all the way to the end...fact...the rich are paying more of the total cost of government today than what they ever have...get your facts straight.

- Chuck

May 9, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I get it. In whatever iteration, Liberals are smart and Conservatives are dumb.

- jenny

May 9, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look at all the consevative chest pounding on the tread. Your ideas suck and the evidence is all around us. Suck it up and admit your mistakes like a man. Bunch of whiners.

- Northern Observer

May 9, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mike H. wrote, "America will never elect as its President an emaciated arugula-eating metrosexual whose father was a Muslim goatherd and whose spiritual mentor for 20 years beseeched God to damn America." It is sad that anyone would not only base their political position on such a pile of falsehoods, distortions, smears and irrelevancies, but would advertise the fact. Question: if you are a member of a religious institution, do you feel bound by the opinions of its leader? The Pope was warmly welcomed on his visit to America, even as he complained about how American Catholics pick and choose which of the Vatican's teachings to accept. I sympathize with rbrown207's concern about intra-party divisiveness, but I would be more enthusiastic about ending criticisms of Hillary if she would stop her trashing of Obama. Her overt racist appeal in her interview with USAToday is about as civil as McCain's repeated statements that Obama is the Hamas candidate. The observable fact is that Obama has bent over backwards to avoid escalating the nastiness that has come overwhelmingly from the Clinton camp. General comment to the Clintonistas with their obsessive attacks: Are you ever going to face reality? Or is the Hillary-in-the-bunker video currently circulating an accurate representation of your collective mentality? dcshungu refers to another Hillary "Lazarus" act. Really? It is amazing how the Clintons retroactively change the expectations as it suits them. But can anyone seriously maintain that eking out a win in Indiana by less than two percentage points constitutes rising from the dead? The Clinton talking points, like the Republican talking points, are increasingly desperate. There is one candidate still standing who treats us like adults, and he is the one who deserves to be president.

- R. Rosendall

May 9, 2008 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jermaine, Try looking at Congressional Budget Office numbers. I think the burden of proof is on you here. Can you find me one credible source that says otherwise?

- moz

May 9, 2008 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tsh, Michael: Please provide sources for these (misguided) claims!

- moz

May 9, 2008 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree that liberal progressives, as Mr. Chait puts it, seek wider economic prosperity. What they seek is equality, and economic prosperity and economic growth be damned.

- DBL

May 9, 2008 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reader "Phoenix Comment posted this, earlier on this page: [Smart, warm, genuine, tough as steel Hillary Clinton. How I would love to say "President Hillary Clinton". Keep calling her names. Keep writing things that try and take down her campaign. I just sent her campaign more money. Obama supporters and the media make it so much easier for us Hillary Clinton fans to practice saying "President John McCain".] I understand that this has been a long, often wearisome race, and that voters become invested in the candidate of their choice, so much so that criticisms of that candidate may sting and even provoke anger, but for the life of me, I cannot understand comments like the one above, made by a staunch Hillary supporter. It is the sort of thinking that reduces this entire election to a narrow contest of personalities, when in fact, this election is really a watershed. The petulant Obama vs. Clinton bickering so common these days on blogs and elsewhere, among their more outspoken supporters is, ultimately, a dangerous distraction. I am no fan of Hillary's, but there are stark, dramatic contrasts between the Democratic Party platform (either Obama OR Clinton) and that of McCain and the Republicans: On the matter of telecom immunity, on Iraq War policy, on the Webb-sponsored G.I. Bill, on the sort of Supreme Court judges each party's nominee would appoint (no mystery there - McCain's picks would quickly overturn Roe V. Wade), on Bush's tax cuts, on the environment, health care, etc. etc. Forgive me if I don't give a damn about arugula jokes. In light of all this, I cannot understand a voter who finds these issues to be somehow less compelling than intra-party bickering and personality clashes on the campaign trail. Maybe the heat of the campaign induces such passions that Clinton supporters who feel that they, or their candidate has been wronged are ready to use their vote exclusively to "punish" Obama and his supporters. But this strikes me as tragically short-sighted. What sort of Democratic voter looks at the foreign policy challenges ahead of us, considers the disastrous past 8 years, examines the statements of McCain and of his surrogates, and then decides to toss the Republicans his/her vote?

- Reader in LA

May 9, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Typical liberal B.S.... once Clinton's been defeated you make her out to be a conservative. What a joke! Anything you don't like must then be "conservative." You had the two biggest liberals in the Senate running against each other this year. You were so up the Clinton's butt when they were the darlings and now you can ditch them as you've moved on. Beliefs mean nothing to you, it's winning you care about.

- www.americandust.wordpress.com

May 9, 2008 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How odd Mr. Chait doesn't mention Barack Obama's answer to the capital gains question: it wouldn't be fair. Huh? Increasing federal tax revenue is unfair? Or Obama's demeaning comment on Billionaire's Row in San Francisco about those clingy voters in rural America -- while at the home of people made ugly rich by oil profits. Shame on Mr. Chait for finding no fault in Obama's condescending and elitist comments. I guess that is what argula does to one's brain.

- karen

May 9, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, it appears as though you have thoroughly wound up the NASCAR crowd. As little respect as I have for the American proletariat, their newfound adoration for a woman who is blatantly preying on the uneducated and uninformed and their deepest, darkest prejudices is striking nonetheless. My favorite argument: "Hillary has EXPERIENCE!!" Um...this may be the least experience candidate for the presidency this nation has ever seen. Or, in other words, would you allow your dentist's wife to conduct your root canal? Think about that honestly and answer to yourself.

- Straight Shooter

May 9, 2008 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it's a fantastic article, and I don't think it's "Clinton-bashing" like some other commenters. It's smart political analysis, and illuminates the thinking underlying to different modes of populism.

- Steve

May 9, 2008 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poor liberal populists-- working so hard for "The People," so unbeloved by actual voters.

- rocscssrs

May 9, 2008 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait is correct! The middle class IS carrying most of the tax burden. You don't see it now because the Gov't is going into debt, but the bill will come due! The tax cuts for the rich and rich corporations are not being reinvested in our nation. Take for example the oil industry - windfall profits but no new refineries. When the rich get tax breaks do you think they go out and buy a new Chevy or Ford? I'm guessing that it is spent on big items such as property, yachts, Ferrari's, private jets, etc... these purchases DO NOT help the American economy! Nor do they do much to help the global economy! Capitalism is great and it is the best economic system by far, BUT Unchecked Capitalism will create and economic chasism that will (and is!) destroy the American economy as well as the American dream. Now, when the bill for the Government debt (Debt from the Iraq War!) comes due who will pay it? Not you! Not the rich! Who will be paying it is MY Children! The children of the middle class! NO Way I want that!! Let the War profiteers like Haliberton and the oil company's pay for it!!

- Todd

May 9, 2008 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right on. Well argued.

- Jeff

May 9, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether some social conservatives "truly believe in social conservatism" or not is sort of not the point. I think what's suggested here (rightly, in my mind) is that to believe in social conservatism isn't really to believe in much --- just a dedication to keeping the proles distracted by "problems" they can't fix, antagonized by folks that aren't really their enemies. I think it's an utterly valid point, and an equally appropriate description of the role HRC has taken on. But then, I eat arugula.

- Brian in Montana

May 9, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your assertions about the political positions of Hillary Clinton are nonsense. The Obama Camp, spearheaded by Axelrod, has labelled both Clintons as racists, and now you want to stick the Redneck Conservative Populist label on Hillary Clinton as a sort of embellishment or reinforcement to the Racist label. This is a copycatting of the Rove style of doing things: accuse your opponent of exactly what you are yourself. Obama sat for 20 years in the pews of a preacher who picked away the scabs of America's racist wounds and rubbed salt in these wounds, ranting away that Blacks could literally blame all their problems on Rich White People. From the pulpit, Wright likened Obama to Jesus, and raged that the Romans who killed the Black Jesus were Rich White People. Obama has deliberately struck a racist chord in the Black community, modulating his speeches to mostly Black audiences to have a Black preacher feel and content. He declared, in a wonderful speech where he denounced his own grandmother, that he could never denounce Wright, but then proceeded to do so publicly a short while later. He derided Clinton with Malcolm X vocabulary in his 'hoodwinked' speech. When Hillary Clinton had a teary-eyed moment where she exclaimed that she didn't want to see the country falling back, Axelrod, in an illogical rant, accused her of not having sympathy for Black victims of Katrina. Obama and his supporters throw misogynist and sexist jibes at Hillary Clinton, and, after a very poor showing in a debate with Clinton, Obama slipped into a Jay-I got 99 problems but the bitch ain't one-Z imitation and metaphorically brushed Clinton off his shoulders, grinning away as his supporters whooped it up. Obama milks his populist appeal to unhappy Black Americans for all it's worth, winking to them that his other, ’Hahvahd’, side is all for show: then, he White wines it up to his elite Liberal friends, dismissing his racist and misogynist performances as political outreach. Obama does not have a good grasp of what his website says are his policies. He uh's and meanders in interviews and debates. He says that his intuition will be his guide in Foreign Relations (who needs a Senate Sub-Committee anyway?) and that this will stand America in better stead than actual knowledge. He offers to answer all about his shady Chicago past, and then runs away from the press, whining 'I already answered, like, eight questions'. He doesn't understand the economic policies on his own website, but doesn’t think that he has to work at this - his mid-campaign vacation on the beach was more important to him. He is younger than Hillary Clinton, and yet is visibly tired and failing in stamina, despite his vacation and daily exercise and careful attention to diet. He is petulant and whiny and arrogant and vindictive, and Michelle Obama also shares those qualities. From her well-paid corporate perch, she advises young Americans to not go into Corporate America. Most recently she gave a whiny speech about the fact that the ‘bar’ was always moving higher – as an example, she lamented that even thought they’d done all the fundraising and fought a good campaign, that Wah! Wah! Obama hadn’t been anointed yet. What’s a poor Black (well educated, part of the well-oiled corrupt Chicago political machine, living in luxury) couple from the ‘hood supposed to do?

- LDW

May 9, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The thing about further turning off Clinton supporters and risking losing them in November by continuing to write these types of articles is that we are pretty certain that Clinton supporters are severely lacking in their mental faculties and therefore struggle to read. Why else would they support her? Racism? Oh, wait...

- Articles of Organization

May 9, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait has me scratching my head once again. From where I sit, conservative populism in America is currently represented by "jingoism" and "racism". When John McCain states that Islamic fundamentalism must be eradicated under no uncertain terms, he is dipping himself within the waters of conservative American populism. When President Bush sat on his hands while the predominately black American citizenry of New Orleans suffered through the ungodly aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, he symbolized conservative populism in all of its splendor. Social conservatism is ideologically based where conservative populism is rhetorically based behavior. I agree with the thought that the conservative populist doesn't really believe what they are espousing; but uses conservative rhetoric as a cover in order to justify an action that may or may not be socially conservative. John McCain, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton are conservative populists. Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee are social conservatives.

- falconnetti

May 9, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Except that she doesn't really mean it.

- emccded

May 9, 2008 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An absolute distortion and misrepresentation of both conservative and liberal populism. Both are dominated by the rich just trying to get to different ends. There is no perfect system and there will always be influence from entities that should not be there. The true conservative view point (which, by no means is held up by many Republicians) is less government more free market. If we can keep businesses competing against one another and thriving, this will create a better environment for everyone (again, not perfect but workable) True liberalism gives much more power to government and places much more regulation on everything. It goes under the idea that people and business are not smart enough or criminal and will not do it themselves. They would penalize the productive members of our society (business and the rich) who supply the jobs.

- Karl

May 9, 2008 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. You sure brought out the racist nuts with this article! Someone nutty must have linked to it...

- Virginia Centrist

May 9, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"George W. Bush offered tax cuts to the middle class, but paired them with far larger tax cuts for the rich, so that, ultimately, the middle class bore a larger proportion of the tax burden." Chait, you're entitled to your opinion, but you have no right to make up your own facts, and here are the facts about who pays taxes: In 1996, mid-way under Clinton, the top 10% of income earners paid 63% of the total income taxes, and the middle class (50 - 90th percentile earners) paid 33% of the total income taxes collected, and the bottom 50% of earners, 4% of the tax total. Under Dubya in 2004, (after his evil "soak the middle class" tax scam according to you) the numbers became 70%, 27%, and 3%, respectively. Reference: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html So, the facts clearly show that the "filthy rich who got their taxes cut by Bush" now pay a greater share of the tax burden than they did under Clinton, the middle class pays lots less, and the poor got a break too. You had a good article there until you decided to base it on THE BIG LIE.

- dlrocdoc

May 9, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, many socially conservative politicians are pandering. Of course not all do, and those who are genuinely socially conservative are the scariest of all. These people really want to suppress a great deal of freedom because it either 1: offends their sensibilities, 2: offends their religious sensibilities, 3: to them, threatens their way of life, 4: is different and therefore threatening. Social conservatives are the largest threat to liberty in the world. Look at their crushing control over many countries in the Middle East. We are not talking a difference of ideology between American social conservatives and Islamic Theocrats, we are talking a matter of degree (thank the Lord it is a big degree). At least the social conservatives who are pandering are doing it to get ahead, which is at least a reason I can comprehend; true social conservatives do it merely to bludgeon those whose lifestyles they don't like into submission I guess. I can't really comprehend it. How can the private actions of another affect your personal religious values or personal moral values? Why does it affect you? Why must you force others into that mold? Social liberals coerce too, I guess, but in the words of J.S. Mill (crap now I've cited an author, half the people will stop reading if they haven't already), at least they are being forced to be free. Interesting isn't it? I think reasonable minds can differ on economic "liberalism" (true economic liberalism would probably be what we call conservatism) versus economic conservatism. I think that the ironic thing in this article is that the people each populist side hates are largely the same people. Where do you think these rich fatcats went to school, for the most part? And do you think these Harvard-educated liberals are making $30K a year? Come off of it. They're both bilking us for all we're worth. Populism is, by and large, a joke. Look at it this way. Would you rather have your kid drop out of high school and dig ditches and therefore be a "real" American? Or would you rather have them go to Harvard, get a joint law and business degree, and make a million in their first few years out, and become a rich elite? Pandering to jealousy from either perspective is asinine. The rich ain't screwing you as bad as the Dems would have you believe, and latte and arugula isn't as different from Dunkin Donuts and iceberg as the Repubs would. Now, both the Dems and Repubs are screwing you. The Republicans more right now, but if Hillary gets the nomination, you wait and watch THAT change.

- Libertyman13

May 9, 2008 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apparently, someone has given the CLINTON "ditto-heads" the following talking points because they are not smart enough to know why they are for Clinton -- they are being fed the following rubbish!!!: "One of the several reasons I support Senator Clinton for the Office of President of the United States is her practical multi-step approach to solving our country's problems. For example, addressing complaints and concerns about the high price of gas, I understood Senator Clinton to say that, short-term, we can ease consumers' burden by imposing a gas tax holiday and shifting the burden to the oil companies, through a tax on windfall profits. Long term, she proposed conservation and sanctioning OPEC through the WTO. One of the several reasons I do not support Senator Obama for the Office of President of the United States is that he omits from his list of 'qualifications' to the office...."

- IAMFOROBAMA

May 9, 2008 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I never comment on these but I thought this was the best political article I've read in a long while. Some of the comments here are classic examples of conservative populism. Ah, I can't wait for November!

- some guy

May 9, 2008 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chait, for penetrating insight and graceful exposition.

- Miande

May 9, 2008 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article. But too kind to Hillory. Her gas idiotic endorsement of McCain's moronic suggestion of reducing the gas tax is just too damned much! What a bunch of idiots! McCain is truly stupid, but Hillory is a hypocrite. She's smart enough she has to know better!

- Todd Peterson

May 9, 2008 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is amazing about this article is how almost every comment from an HRC supports the article's analysis: People complaining that BO is fake, he was really raised by his WHITE grandparents. Others attacking Chait for being a hack and so on. Truly amazing. What a perfect article, what perfect responses.

- Sirhc

May 9, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Virginia Centrist, the "racist nuts" you refer to would be RealClearPolitics. I'm sure they appreciate your nuanced opinion of their website.

- dlrocdoc

May 9, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some of your posters, Todd for example, have a weak grip on economic and political realities. Environmental restrictions, supported by liberal Democrat populists, account for the fact that no new oil refineries have been built in this country since 1976. They also account for our inability to take any reasonable steps to free ourselves from dependence on Middle East oil, like drilling on 2000 acres of the hundred thousand square mile Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, or drilling off most of our coast, or deploying modern clean coal technology or shifting the buk of our electrical generation to nuclear power, as the Europeans have done. Most economist agree that those who become rich get that way by working harder, and the rich who stay that way do so by keeping their money at work, reinvesting it. It is, however, a fallacy to think that the purchase of luxury goods makes no contribution to the economy. In terms of employment alone, the last time I checked, plenty of yachts, private jets,jewelry, etc. are made right here in the USA, and even foreign luxury goods require US distributors, salesmen and marketers.

- waynebo

May 9, 2008 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dlrocdoc is correct. Chait's formulation is sloppy: "the middle class bore a larger share of the tax burden". If he means that their marginal rates are now higher than rates for the rich, that is demonstrably false, even if the disparity was reduced. If he means that as a class they now pay more total tax dollars, that is also demonstrably false, as the total amount paid by the rich continued to rise as a function of rising revenue. There is no way that Chait's statement can be true.

- RickWodz

May 9, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why don't you just entitle your article "Why Don't Middle Class Morons Realize the Liberal Elite Knows What's Best and Bow Down Like Good Little Boys and Girls?" I love how Liberal Populism as you describe it is pure as the driven snow - "Liberal populism is mostly harnessed to a concrete legislative program aimed at broadening prosperity." Somebody get me a sick bag. And conservative populism is designed to randomly attack the virtuous liberal with no factual substantive base. You do nothing but bemoan "conservative populists" for attacking liberals on the sole gound that they are elitist? As my fellow poster dlrocdoc accurately points out in the previous post, conservatives actually have a reason for detesting a liberal snob such as yourself. Your commentary on tax policy is quite enlightening. Who would you say has fact on their side when determining who is shouldering a majority of the tax burden? Your attempt to paint the conservative movement as nothing but smoke and mirrors is sophmoric at best. My five year old could see through this.

- MSCON

May 9, 2008 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Talk about liberal populism! The idea that the profits of the oil companies don't improve life in America is ridiculous. In 2006 alone they invested approx. 110 Billion dollars in exploration and development of oil and gas resources in the USA. Do you think any liberal populists were employed in this process? Where did the money come from to engage in these efforts? Did liberal populists get to use any of the gas and oil products produced by these efforts? The economic illiteracy of some of the electorate never ceases to amaze me.

- hayek

May 9, 2008 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Conservative populism does not have anything to do with the conservative movement or ideals. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all individuals not in a central planning federal government enacting barriers that prevents equal opportunity. The tax system is regressive, punishing prospoerity and those that find a way to climb out of poverty and reach the middle class. Also check your facts sir - the upper income earners pay the majority of the income taxes collected by the federal income tax in terms of % of all taxes paid. populism is populism whether you try to paint it liberal or conservative. Both involve dividing people based on something and creating 'classes' of people. Conservatives believe that people are individuals and should be treated as an indivdual based on his or her merit. A person should not be treated as part of a group ratially or economically. It is liberals who put people in such categories, contrary to the principles that have founed this great nation of ours. That being said - so called 'objective' journalists that come up with every reason to support Obama are a disgrace. Report the news offer commentary, but try to be objective. Sir your are a hack of a writer.

- reply

May 9, 2008 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, it is absolutely unfair to say that "the conservative populist's social divide ran along racial and ethnic lines", implying that racism is the driving force. The distaste that many conservatives have in paying high taxes to support social programs, many of which are abused by people who do little to help themselves, whatever colour they may be, is understandable without reference to race. I am a fiscal conservative living in Canada, and I could not tell you whether or not proportionally more of my wasted tax dollars end up in the hands of "white" people or "brown" people. (With the exception of our "First Nations", which is a subject in itself.) But the idea that my views on government (over)spending are motivated by the colour of the recipient's skin is truly insulting.

- RickWodz

May 9, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, it is absolutely unfair to say that "the conservative populist's social divide ran along racial and ethnic lines", implying that racism is the driving force. The distaste that many conservatives have in paying high taxes to support social programs, many of which are abused by people who do little to help themselves, whatever colour they may be, is understandable without reference to race. I am a fiscal conservative living in Canada, and I could not tell you whether or not proportionally more of my wasted tax dollars end up in the hands of "white" people or "brown" people. (With the exception of our "First Nations", which is a subject in itself.) But the idea that my views on government (over)spending are motivated by the colour of the recipient's skin is truly insulting.

- RickWodz

May 9, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...MORE ON HILLARY SUPPORTERS WHO "THREATEN" TO VOTE REPUBLICAN .......... According to reports, recently, there has been a letter writing campaign organized by Hillary supporters who contact superdelegates in order to argue for her electability and attack Obama. Not much surprise there. However, the letters go one step further - and vow to support McCain if Hillary isn't the nominee. These reports reconfirm this weird trend among a segment of Hillary's base. I say "weird" because when a cult of personality trumps principled stands on real issues, it easily can become vindictive and destructive. Hillary's supporters believe in their candidate and don't like the idea of considering an alternative. Fair enough. But don't they care more about the kind of damage wrought by another Republican presidency?? ........... below.......... some excerpts from an eye-opening piece by Sam Stein. The link to the article is also posted below. Here's the first excerpt: .......................................................... "The letter writing campaign picked up steam late Thursday evening when several superdelegates confirmed that a coordinated effort had been launched, apparently independent of Clinton's campaign, to raise last-minute concerns about Obama's candidacy and present the specter of voter defections should the Illinois Democrat become the nominee ....... ........................ . . . In more than a dozen messages sent yesterday evening and shared with The Huffington Post, supporters of Clinton emailed a laundry list of political and exceedingly personal attacks on Obama's candidacy, including criticisms of his prior associations and claims that he, not Clinton, had played the race card. The letters underscore the high emotional pitch of the late stage Democratic primary as well as the utter conviction among many supporters of both campaigns that their candidate is solely worthy of the nomination. " ........... and this .................................... "...at least four superdelegates on the receiving end of yesterday's emails suggested that they did more harm to Clinton's cause than good.. . . . . . In one exchange, Donna Brazille, Al Gore's campaign manager and a stalwart of the Democratic Party, responded with frustration to a writer's threats of defection. "Honestly, this is the 9th email today," she wrote before 8:00 pm. "So I believe you're ready to not only destroy Roe versus Wade, voting rights, civil liberties and civil rights. Perhaps adding trillions more to the deficits through non-stop tax cuts to the wealthy and 100 more years in Iraq. Yes, please join Rush and McCain asap. The train has left. Catch it." " ............. One superdelegate, described in the report as a "red-State Democrat," is fed up with such threats to defect from the party. . . . . . . . . . . . . . He says: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ""I spent my entire life in the two reddest states in the entire U.S. so please excuse me if I fail to discern the nuances of the arguments sent my way this evening in what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to intimidate the remaining unpledged delegates by threatening to leave the party and vote for a third Bush term if I and others like me don't vote for Sen. Clinton," wrote the exasperated superdelegate. "I have been uncommitted throughout this campaign because I wanted to see how the candidates performed in a variety of settings. I am proud of them both. But I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don't vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides - but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn't support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed." " .......................................................Check out the report, written by Sam Stein, here:

-

May 9, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most people's interest." Disproportionate influence? Policies at odds with the people's interest? No kidding. The "people" have noticed. I expected better from Jonathan. His comparisons are all one-sided. To knock down the largest straw man: the wealthy. Demographically, the Democrats now have the most wealthy voters and, arguably, the wealthiest voters on their side: the Hollywoods, Gates, Buffet, and Heinz-Kerry to name a few, and let's not forget Soros who contributes millions to undermine the elections of a country he's not a citizen of. But I get it: at odds with the people's interest.

- mk

May 9, 2008 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Silly liberals! Isn’t it fun to watch liberals squabble and use the same identity politics they normally use on conservatives on themselves? LMAO!

- Rob

May 9, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, they didn't

- ched

May 9, 2008 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must echo the point in post 67. I found this article intriguing and informative until that point. Bush's original tax cut proposal was a 10% cut in all rates for all people. While Democrats made much of the fact that the cut in absolute terms would be, by definition, larger for the people who pay the most taxes in absolute terms (the "rich"), the cut in relative terms would be, again by definition, the same for everyone. The final tax cut plan actually gave a smaller % reduction in the taxes of the highest taxpayers, and a larger % cut to lower tax payers, so, therefore, by definition, it would result in the "middle class" bearing a smaller share of the tax burden than the "rich'. As post 67 makes clear, the actual result was exactly what the math would have told you at the time of the cut.

- Sean

May 9, 2008 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary supporters = Nader voters. Good riddance to people who have no idea what the Democratic party remotely stands for.

-

May 9, 2008 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Get rid of Clinton, Obama, & McCain. Bill Cosby for president!

- Kurt

May 9, 2008 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leave it to an Obama supporter to characterize any opposition to him as coming from "racist nuts". The reason that a large percentage of Clinton supporters, including me, will not vote for Obama in the fall is because we resent being called racists and we have perfectly valid reasons for opposing him.

- r-ennis

May 9, 2008 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Phoenix writes: Obama supporters and the media make it so much easier for us Hillary Clinton fans to practice saying "President John McCain". President John McCain, President John McCain, President, John McCain. There!

- MereMortal

May 9, 2008 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With internal chaos like this, McCain shouldn't have to spend a dime taking on Obama; how many people are going to vote for him, 30 or 40?

- The Laughing GOP

May 9, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton is the mistress of self-re-invention. I remember when I was undecided, during the Iowa caucus. The thing that turned me off about Hillary, at that time, was that she was running as the upper middle-class' candidate for president. She talked about the concerns of soccer moms; it was John Edwards who talked about working people. Even Hillary's campaign bus was called "The Middle Class Express." Of course Hillary and Bill are in the economic elite; that's why they've been able to pump a total of $11 million of their own money into their campaign; but Hillary found that the Middle Class "soccer mom" act wasn't working for her. So she tried another act. Now she plays the role of the "workin' gal." She may not deserve to be president, but I do see a nomination for the Oscar coming her way.

- matthawk

May 9, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton is the mistress of self-re-invention. I remember when I was undecided, during the Iowa caucus. The thing that turned me off about Hillary, at that time, was that she was running as the upper middle-class' candidate for president. She talked about the concerns of soccer moms; it was John Edwards who talked about working people. Even Hillary's campaign bus was called "The Middle Class Express." Of course Hillary and Bill are in the economic elite; that's why they've been able to pump a total of $11 million of their own money into their campaign; but Hillary found that the Middle Class "soccer mom" act wasn't working for her. So she tried another act. Now she plays the role of the "workin' gal." She may not deserve to be president, but I do see a nomination for the Oscar coming her way.

- matthawk

May 9, 2008 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sir, your definition of Conservative Populism is both ignorant and misguided. Clearly, you have no knowlege of what "Conservative Populism" is and prefer to define it within the context of what seems to be a very narrow-minded liberal ideology. Conservative populism chooses not to divide people along economic lines because it is more concerned (at this time in its history) with a person's social characteristics. Conservatives have been much more ciritical of those that are considered elites in this social than their liberal counterparts (simple example: Obama and the clinging comment) May I suggest you do a little more homework before you spew your proverbial tripe.

- Garrett Archer

May 9, 2008 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must say as a somewhat dispassionate observer who came into this entire election liking both Hillary and Obama, as well as McCain, that there is just no way to justify Hillary's conduct and argument for her candidacy - which is absolutely deplorable. Worse than paint Senator Obama as "the black candidate" she has gone one worse, she has labeled herself as "the white candidate." In the end, she is losing on every metric, but she just keeps arguing that nobody wants to vote for a black person. Even if she is right, which I doubt, that says a lot more about her worldview - and those of her supporters, who - in my view - have resorted to the worst kind of name calling and make arguments that make me ashamed to be voting in the same election as they are. Barack Obama's campaign, while not free of negativity, has been far more about the candidate and the issues. Yet, Hillary's supporters (which would have included me if she'd beaten Obama and hadn't run such a despicable campaign) are engaged in the same kind of bizarre triangulation and moving of goal posts that idiots like Limbaugh and Hannity complained about. It doesn't matter where Barack Obama went to school, nor Hillary or McCain. It matters who has demonstrated the greatest ability to understand the role of president, meet its intellectual and political demands, and to lead this country. Hillary has pretty much made the case that Barack Obama is black, makes good speeches, eats Aurugula and didn't support a gas tax holiday. I never thought I'd say this about her, but she worse than Bush and Rove, because she should know better. Senator Clinton should be ashamed of herself.

- Bing Crosby

May 9, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What this article misses (dare I say it... because of the elitist orientation of its author) is that all forms of populism appeal to an (often) rightfully aggrieved sense of pride many good, hard working, people feel. Left wing, Marx influenced, populists mistakenly think that everything can be reduced to economics and class, and cynically attempt to salve the pride of frustrated masses by promising to steal money from the rich for them... assuming the poor saps at the bottom have no other interests as living red-blooded men but are like themselves... hollow chested individuals only lacking the pampered materialism of the upper East side. Right wing populists, view the less well off a fellow travelers, whom left wingers can't seem to accept as prideful individuals. They view the masses as real people who don't want to be like their supposed betters, don't want hand outs that make them dependent, but do want recognition for who and what they are... without changing. They want their individual identity recognized. Be honest blacks don't vote 90% for Dems / Obama because of left wing populism, they vote that way because it reinforces their unique identity and makes them feel fully human. It is prideful-- and 'conservative' in the author's definition. Message to effete left wing populists, quit thinking you're better than us Red State populists, you're not.

- Red State Populist

May 9, 2008 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think this article really gets at how politicians act as if "Middle America" (uneducated lower middle class white folks) is vastly more important than the rest of us. How dare we feel good about our accomplishments if we are educated or make more money than others when "Middle America" is struggling to buy the latest Ipod for all their children because they weren't smart enough to get a better job. There are people struggling in this country. They aren't the "elites" and they ain't "Middle America".

- Bruce in NC

May 9, 2008 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Initially last fall I assumed I would vote for whomever the Democratic candidate would be this coming November. After the demonizations and branding of the Clintons as 'race baiters', I'm staying home in November. And no, I won't get over it. Articles like this are just driving nails in Obama's presidential aspirations coffin.

- RWhiz

May 9, 2008 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it's about time you retire the argument that conservatives are just a bunch of "rich hypocrites" vainly trying to identify with the little guy. You know, and we know, it's old. It is undermined by your own liberal stable of "White Knights", a.k.a. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, etc. etc. etc. Your false logic basically undermines your point -- having wealth neither makes you an elitist nor does it invalidate your ability to connect with the average American. Moreover, coming from TNR, I would expect you to understand that the "conservative" philosophy does not devalue the achievement of wealth -- but rather believes that individuals will achieve prosperity by their own merits and ability.

- Hamazasb

May 9, 2008 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let Obama keep taking his presumptious victory laps. It only solidifies for us Hillary supporters why we will NEVER support him. His arrogance knows no bounds. Le't let the game finish and see where WV and KY put us in the popular vote shall we? See if Obama has the cojones to do the right thing with Mi and FLA. Not that he has ever done the right thing in his life.

- Jodie

May 9, 2008 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dlrocdoc, thank you for beating me to the punch over the BIG TAX LIE. The percentage of taxes paid by "the rich" has indeed increased under George W. But liberal commentators never let the facts get in the way of their political agenda....

- OhioJim

May 9, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are crazy and even a bit bitter...get a life! The political process is what it is! May the people's candidate win!

- Tracey

May 9, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dlrocdoc, thank you for beating me to the punch over the BIG TAX LIE. The percentage of taxes paid by "the rich" has indeed increased under George W. But liberal commentators never let the facts get in the way of their political agenda....

- OhioJim

May 9, 2008 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

don't be a hater Debbie!

- Tracey

May 9, 2008 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The volume of hateful rhetoric spewed forth in these comments from offended Clinton supporters is profoundly disspiriting. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and Clinton Democrats will not vote for him, whether motivated by bigotry or sour grapes, why don't we just skip the November election and anoint John McCain to carry on the disastrous Iraq war and Bushian fiscal irresponsibility?

- bob

May 9, 2008 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love the "progressive" notion that white people who vote for someone other than Obama are somehow unintelligent. It reinforces the idea that liberals are smug elitists. I am far more educated than the average American, but I understand that common people are not idiots. If an ideology separates incentive from ingenuity and productivity - it is doomed to failure. Prosperity is a spectrum that falls precipitously as it is spread throughout the masses. So the question is - why reward the least productive with subsidies from the most productive? Why would the educated masses support this? Why won't the "unwashed" masses submit to what is best for them?

- Tex

May 9, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mike H, do you know the meaning of the word, "emaciated"? You do realize part of your complaint is that Obama is starving to death, don't you?

- Marci T

May 9, 2008 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I second Brad: "Mr. Chait, you have once again struck the proverbial nail directly on its head."

- Mizzou

May 9, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, and dlrocdoc jumps in with that old supply-sider nonsense that "up is down, left is right, and the middle class and working classes are doing better when we cut the taxes of the rich."

- Mizzou

May 9, 2008 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just learned that in MI in the general, you can't write a candidate's name in unless that candidate files. The election officials seem to explain you can notify the clerk two weeks ahead that you want space on your ballot for a write in, but if your candidate does not file, the office will not tabulate the votes. That is, they not only would not count toward the selction of electors, they won't even be tabulated. Now that sounds a little like a concern for the great Obama--Yes We Can?--surely he doesn't want The People cut off from organizing a grass roots campaign for a candidate. I have friends from all over who have said they will write in Sen. Clinton if she is not nominated. In Michigan, it won't work--it's a perfect way for the two parties to cut off grass roots campaigns, since, needless to say, someone who wants a future in a party cannot file to allow a write-in campaign to proceed. Somehow, my guess is, the Great Sen. Obama is quite happy with this, as with disenfranching Michigan voters for his coronation. Well, if I can't write in HRC, McCain it is.

- MereMortal

May 9, 2008 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really don't get the Clinton or McCain theory. Either you embrace Hillary's views of increased health care access, limiting the Iraq war, repealing the tax breaks for the wealth so our roads, schools, etc are better. In that case you are a hypocrit for supporting McCain. Or you embrace McCain's views and you were a hypocrit for supporting Clinton. Grow up people, there are more issues then flag pins that need to be dealt with (and all the candidates have their glaring flaws, the key is do you support their basic premise for presidency.)

- dood

May 9, 2008 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some of the things that the Obama run for president uncovers include: 1) Democrats are having a hard time living up to their ideals of fairness 2) Dem's are as racially conflicted as the Republicans 3) that racism is alive and well 4) that it is so easy to get Americans to focus on trivial matters while an elephant of "real" problems pass them by 5) Americans do not really study issues 6) we are truly headed for decline and not paying attention 7) We have cultural ADD and cannot stick to an issue. So very sad for anyone proud to be an American.

- Glenn F

May 9, 2008 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love arugula! Just had a salad of baby arugula, carrots, cherry tomatoes, and hard-boiled eggs. (No metaphor there.) But I am still not voting for Obama. Not voting for him, under any condition, unless Hillary is also on the ticket.

- thecandypoem

May 9, 2008 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go Mizzou! The wing nuts are on the loose, and one favorite talking-point is the issue of taxes. Yes, the rich are paying more in taxes since the Bush cuts. This does not mean that they didn't benefit more than other income groups. It merely means that they are making more money than ever, and of course are paying more taxes (even though their rate was reduced.)

- moz

May 9, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your ad hominem is insulting to your own intelligence. And remember, no middle names allowed in this contest.

- thecandypoem

May 9, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mizzou, facts are facts. Calling facts "supply-sider nonsense" doesn't make them any less true. Remember, name-calling is not a compelling counter-argument. Look it up: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls What I find frustrating is how a good magazine like TNR has acquired a rep for printing falsehoods (Glass, Beauchamp) as true stories, and now Chait is spouting lies to support his position, too.

- dlrocdoc

May 9, 2008 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, "THE BIG LIE" is the one told by the dupes who think that the only federal taxes paid are income taxes and that the income distribution is permanent and unchanging. Factoring in the regressive FICA, excise taxes, etc. the top 10% have gone from paying 52.2% of all federal taxes in 2000 to 54.7% in 2005. But their share of national income grew by more than 2% as well - under 31% to over 33% in 2005 (and more today.) So it's a wash if one ignores the principle of progressivity: a 2.5% increase in wealth should cause somewhat more than a 2.5% increase in share of tax burden.

- Foggg

May 9, 2008 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Hillary and McCain supporters have the same problem, a good problem for Obama: it is that they underestimate Obama. Yup, Obama is that geeky kid you kick up sand on the beach at...till... . Till he finally gets up, takes his glasses off, apologizes for what is coming... and you find yourself flat on your back with all the girls laughing at you. Except Hillary of course. She could have told you it was coming. Obama'08

- jed

May 9, 2008 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She had the opportunity to be gracious and historical Tuesday night. She could have chided Obama about "Indiana [as] the tie-breaker". And then she could have conceded the inevitiable. And tonight she could have made a historical note by recognizing this inevitability and then doing the selfless thing for the benefit of all of the party, nation, and the planet. Look at the cred she would get! But her s'piel?: "full speed on to the white house." "we were outspent 2 to 1 by my opponent, so go to hillaryclinton.com to contribute..." I mean, holy shit, lady! He doesn't take lobbyist/special_interest money. There is a primary-phase campaign donation limit for each person. Obama didn't put in $11.4 million of his own money, like Hillary did (you *are* allowed to put more than $2300 into your own campaign, because the U.S. Supreme court has ruled that spending your own money on your own campaign is constitutionally protected free speech). So why is Obama ahead by 2 to 1 in financial support? We've eliminated rich supporters mega-contributing to political effort (like Harry and Louise or the Swift Boat liars), except for the fact that Hillary has pumped $11 million of her own money into her own campaign. lessee, let's do the math. $_clinton = num_clinton_supporters × $_mean_clinton $_obama = num_obama_supporters × $_mean_obama now for either Obama or Clinton $_mean < $_max = $2300 Now, Clinton is definitely the candidate of what was the Democratic party establishment. "The Clinton Trademark". Michelle is not a former President of the United States. How is it that $_mean_clinton < $_mean_obama ? it can't be. So if $_mean_obama <= $_mean_clinton, there can be only one explanation for why $_obama = 2 × $_clinton. num_obama_supporters > num_clinton_supporters at least twice as many. why doesn't she do 1. the right thing? 2. the smart thing? 3. the thing that will make her look soooo much better and even give her some historical note and rehabilitate her image from being not as trustworthy (that's a polled fact) and definitely an ambitious relative of a president who considers themselves entitled to have the White House controlled by one of two family dynasties for 28 consecutive years?

- r b-j

May 9, 2008 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yo, moz! You are wrong about the facts as well. Here are the data: Under Clinton in 2000, the top 10% of earners got 46.0% of the total AGI, the 50-90th percentile of earners got 41.0%, and the bottom 50% got 13.0%. Under Bush in 2004, the numbers changed to 44.4%, 42.2%, and 13.4%. So under Bush, the share of the total income going to the rich declined, while the middle class and poor got more. All while the rich were paying a greater proporion of taxes and the middle class and poor were paying less than under Clinton. (Same references as above from the official IRS database.) Hey, it's fun to watch you and mizzou preach class warfare here, but it would be more convincing if you could put a few grains of truth into your argument.

- dlrocdoc

May 9, 2008 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

r-ennis, post 89 wrote:"The reason that a large percentage of Clinton supporters, including me, will not vote for Obama in the fall is because we resent being called racists and we have perfectly valid reasons for opposing him." How can you say that you have valid reasons for opposing Obama, when in the first part of the sentence you say you will not vote for him in the fall because you resent being called a racist? To me being called a racist by someone on a message board is far from a valid reason to oppose a candidate.

- rapple37

May 9, 2008 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AMEN.

- djc

May 9, 2008 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Foggg, Chait specifically addressed the issue of "income tax cuts," not FICA or federal gasoline taxes, etc. Stay focused. We're talking about his article, here. No matter how you cut it, it's the top 10% of earners who fund the vast majority of federal government activities. Why they get routinely painted as the "bad guys" amazes me, but class warfare is always popular with certain groups.

- dlrocdoc

May 9, 2008 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

outstanding piece JC.

- Thucydides

May 9, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait: Good show. A thoughful, reasoned commentary of something that happens in the political atmosphere, highlighted by the specific example of Hillary Clinton's ever-shifting candidacy.

- Nick Weintraub

May 9, 2008 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, when you write "If a liberal populist cites experts or numbers to back his position, that only proves to the conservative populist that he is out of touch. It's the intellectual equivalent of buying arugula from Whole Foods", that is poorly worded. It seems like you're setting up an analogy between conservative populism and Whole Foods and conservative populism's claims of liberal populism and buying arugula. I had to reread this line multiple times before I eventually realized that "intellectual equivalent of buying arugula from Whole Foods" is actually a metaphor reinforcing your original point about the claims that conservative populists make. Maybe this is because, as a college student, I have never stepped foot in a Whole Foods with the intention to buy anything, and I certainly have no idea what arugula is. (My diet consists mostly of pizza and beer.) Either way, I still think this is an example of ambiguous, and sloppy writing. Your analysis however is quite damning, and spot on. I too have wondered at some conservative pundits recent captivation with Hillary, and I think you have hit the nail on the head with your argument. B+/B

- Obie

May 9, 2008 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mike H., if you don't want everyone on the web pointing at you as the scared redneck, then move past his color and his name. He is not a Muslim, and even if he were, would it matter? The Christians have gotten us into a fine mess as it is with their joke of a "spiritual warfare". Just like there are the "gihad" Muslims that give all Muslims a bad name, there are ignorant Christians like you that give the whole faith a bad name. Please read and educated yourself before you go to the polls and include modern publications rather than just your trusty bible. You are a terrorist when you start attributing people to a faith solely based on their name.

- Casey

May 9, 2008 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dlrocdoc--I doubt you read the blogs on this site, so I'll provide the link for you: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/09/conservative-populism-continued.aspx

- Mizzou

May 9, 2008 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are an idiot, only a stupid rag like TNR would hire you, you dumbass

- Neil

May 9, 2008 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dlrocdoc - Actually, Chait was not "specifically" addressing income tax - he said "tax cuts" which would also include cuts on investment and estate taxes, both of which disproportionately (in fact just about only) benefit the rich. Every study I am familiar with from the CBO, economists and tax analysts does not agree with what you are saying. By simply comparing total tax share percentages by income bracket you are masking the fact that the richest Americans have gotten a LOT richer during the Bush years so they are naturally now paying a larger percentage of the total because they earn so much more. Check out what happened to the top 10%'s tax share percentage between 2000 and 2001 if this is unclear to you. You need to compare actual effective tax rates (what percentage of my income goes to the IRS each year) to understand what Chait is talking about.

- Nari224

May 9, 2008 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An utterly remarkable article - Although I brook no difference with Chait on his assertion that conservative populism is at variance with what the social sciences consensus holds, those same sciences now refute core economic policy preferences of liberals. Permanent income theory, the Laffer Curve, market reforms, etc have left liberal economic policy intellectually bereft. In actuality, the real hat trick that conservative talking heads pull off is citing the Cato wonks and still keeping the populist vibe. But to expose that by liberals, is to give up the game of not having economics departments on their side.

- thekossack

May 9, 2008 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just came home to my gated community in San Diego in time for my veggie meal. Ms. Clinton is the only ALPA in the race. Obama reeks of weakness and will not make the cut in the fall. Call me the non-bitter white voter with a gun collection. Going REP if O is the canidate.

- MRoss

May 9, 2008 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

doc, Yes, the top taxpayers might"fund the vast majority of federal government activities." But as they make 90% of all income, shouldn't they fund 90%? Why do they fund less? By your own logic you are defeating your own argument.

- moz

May 9, 2008 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

quite possibly the most ignorant, out of touch, and slanted article i have ever read. Elitism is a state of mind, not a bank statement. SOrry mr chait, but those who feel they are superior to the conformist banker corporate employee earning 250k due to driving a prius and reading the communist manifesto are the true elitists. The atheist who believes he/she is more enlightened than the christian is the elitist. Is the same true in reverse? yes, he/she earning vast sums of money and feeling superior due to this is an elitist. The christian who blindly states the atheist is in bed with the devil and feels a moral righteousness due to this "religious superiority" is indeed an elitist. Aside from your lack of knowledge on elitism, this statement was quite absurd and false, "George W. Bush offered tax cuts to the middle class, but paired them with far larger tax cuts for the rich, so that, ultimately, the middle class bore a larger proportion of the tax burden" You must be kidding me. Currently, a small percentage of the country pays well over the majority of taxes. Even with these tax cuts, "the super rich" (because apparently those making 250k are in the same boat as warren buffet in a progressive journalists eyes) still pay the majority of taxes. And yes mr chait, that extra 2700 to the family mkaing 50k is a big deal. That's not populism that's truth. The difference between liberal populism and conservative populism is liberal populism wants to give more money to the government to try and help the people. "conservative populism" lets individuals keep more of their money and spend it how they want. That's true populism in my eyes because the PEOPLE, not the government keep the money. The more money going to the government the less the PEOPLE have because the more the government has the more employees it needs the more beaurucratic is gets and thus that money never reaches the people its intended to help anyways. Finally, attack those making 250k as elitists, but the interesting thing is many of these are going to work their whole lives. I don't mean to interject a sappy personal antecote cause i don't need or want your fake sympathy there are plenty of people you give that to. My dad earns in between 150-225k a year. a few years back he took a risk (to earn a profit because yes basic economic principles tell us that the larger the risk the larger the reward, so the man working a job with no risk shouldn't expect the same reward as a ceo making job keeping decisions every day)the risk was ot invest in some property, it failed and he's in debt. the government doesn't pay him back, grant him a break or anything on his yearly income. he will work until the day he dies, and yet because of the income that is seen not the losses he's tryin to overcome he will always be seen as the rich that we need to take money from. Mr. chait you have done a perposterous job. Yes i know my spelling, syntax, punctuation, and diction need improvement but you aren't worth the time. plus, i know an academic elitist will totally ignore my arguments on here and tear my grammar apart instead. -New money and entreprenuers are not elitists they are the american dream, academia and eastern seaboard old money prevent the success of more americans than anyone earning a living through capitalism.

- dougk

May 9, 2008 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree. I will never vote for the nominee of 48 states Barack Obama. I am American first and a democrat second.

- Carol 17

May 9, 2008 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-

May 9, 2008 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PLEASE just turn off the comments on this site. Or, perhaps, limit comments to subscribers only. Depressing to be faced with idiocy this complete at the end of every article. You might remember the sensation of being part of a national conversation, a civil and intelligent marketplace of ideas--the illusion holds in print, but on the web these comments are almost always only an ugly delirious caricature of a decent conversation. I can only hope--as I'm sure you do--that what we read here is just an amplification of the worst and not a fair sample of your readership.

- wvgl

May 9, 2008 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Chait is sooooooo wrong ...its laughable...my my

- Paul Zelinski

May 9, 2008 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

moz--you're not understanding the line, because there was a typo: it should have read: Liberal populism posits that the rich wield disproportionate influence over the government and push for policies often at odds with most RICH people's interest. and to the poster who says BHO is getting 40-60% whites--in your dreams. He's getting consistently just below 40, and in the last two states closer to 30. He's where Kerry was--and he'll soon be where Kerry was going.

- desert dawg

May 9, 2008 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Liberal populism is mostly harnessed to a concrete legislative program aimed at broadening prosperity." In other words, RAISING TAXES AND INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. No Thanks!

- BK

May 9, 2008 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PLEASE READ, WATCH AND EMAIL THESE LINKS OUT NOW TO YOUR FAMILY, CO-WORKERS AND FRIENDS AHEAD OF THE WEST VIRGINIA AND OREGON PRIMARIES!! Obama’s Minister Celebrates 9/11 Only 5 Days After 3,000 Americans Killed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco Jeremiah Wright Says America Deserved 9/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8 Obama’s Racially-Divisive Preacher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA Obama Disrespecting US Flag & Anthem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo The Audacity of Barack Hussein Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwjnT4eJJvs The Audacity of Barack Hussein Obama 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeC8BE-2T_k Is Obama Wright? - Pastor Wright & Senator Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4 Obama’s Mentor - 9/11 Fault of Israel Association http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnI431s1r6s Obama - Cult of Personality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP7lUGn7HWk Name Obama’s Accomplishments if you can #1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o Name Obama’s Accomplishments if you can #2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0 Barack Obama: There Will Be Bamboozling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU The Two Things Senator Obama Accomplished http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/27/obamas-empty-change-message/ The Jeremiah Wright Lifetime Achievement Award http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg Gaza Strip Palestinians Campaigning for Obama http://youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g Barack Obama Doesn’t Want His Daughters ‘Punished’ With a Baby http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg Obama: Bitter Americans Cling to Guns and Religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJAl8a3d9Q Obama — We Are Building A Religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xtNr5-up0U

- Alan Srout

May 9, 2008 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Leave it to an Obama supporter to characterize any opposition to him as coming from "racist nuts". The reason that a large percentage of Clinton supporters, including me, will not vote for Obama in the fall is because we resent being called racists and we have perfectly valid reasons for opposing him." Yeah, I knew that would backfire. The Obamakids learned that little trick in college, where none in their fellow captive audience could possibly, you know, let them in on that corresponding dirty little secret.

- JTFaraday

May 9, 2008 at 9:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Conservative populism chooses not to divide people along economic lines because it is more concerned (at this time in its history) with a person's social characteristics." They sure are! They learned it from the liberals, who are also intently fixated on a person's social chacteristics. In fact, I propose further dichotomies: social liberals and economic liberals. The only question left at this point is-- why are Ron Paul and John Bogle the only people in America nailing the money managers for eating everyone else's arugula?

- JTFaraday

May 9, 2008 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mizzou, read my posts over on The Plank. As you will see, your doubts were unfounded.

- dlrocdoc

May 9, 2008 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Band of Sheep - Ode to HRC... If you are going to seriously pull this sh*t after the last 40 years of American history, it will single handily destroy any and all faith that I have left in this thing, as I have yet to see an executive branch that wasn't "in the family". The way in which this author and others can wrap their head around how diametrically opposed two liberal ideologies are is pretty tempting, but I rather not fixate on being right. This approach to politics and life is insane. It will be known as the signature quality of a generation that stood for NOTHING, and the greatest legacy you have burdened on your children.

- Mark

May 9, 2008 at 11:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's hard to see how anyone could disagree with the thrust of the article - whatever they think of Hillary. She clearly has argued that Obama supporters are elitists, out of touch wit "real" people. It's nothing short of astonishing that a candidate who promotes more and better education for Americans would villify the educated electorate who are a major part of Obama's base.

- Gerald McKee

May 9, 2008 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article utterly misses the point about populism. The fact of the matter is, the American populist tradition is neither liberal nor conservative in any contemporary sense of the term--although liberals and conservatives attempt to appropriate populist impulses for their own ends. In particular, populism in America has never been about the rich versus the poor; it's been about power and privilege, which doesn't necessarily mean money. At the root of American populism is the notion that this country is supposed to put the ordinary person at the center and guarantee him/her a chance at independence. This ordinary person is the soul of American virtue, primarily because she/he does the work of producing. BUT, the argument goes, there are privileged people who don't do "real" work, but who mainpulate their places in the system to benefit at the expense of those who actually do the work. These people usually have higher status than the "real" producers, but not necessarily; the Omaha Platform refers to "the two great classes--tramps and millionaires." It's not wealth, but privilege seen as unfairly gained that drives the populist bananas. That privilege may be economic [the liberal bugaboo, and traditionally seen as derived from manipulating money, stocks, etc. rather than actually growing or making stuff] or come from credentials or what Robert Reich calls "symbolic manipulation" [the "New Class" of the neocons]. But to a true populist, privilege is privilege, and efforts by the Chaits of the world to distinguish between "good" privilege" [their own] and "bad" privilege [those other people] will fall on deaf ears. This accounts in large part for the alleged "irrationality" of voters; they refuse to fit neatly into the boxes the chattering classes have prepared for them.

- David in Nashville

May 10, 2008 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am consistently confused by Clinton supporters who react with indignation that either Hillary or Bill Clinton (or other Clinton surrogates) might be accused of race-baiting. I'll grant you that Hillary's comment about how it took an LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was innocuous, but to blame Obama for "playing the race card" is a disingenuous. All he did was, after several days, call the comment "ill-advised." Since Hillary had been fighting off criticism about it, it's hard to imagine what else one might call it. "Ill-advised" is not the same as "racist" or even "wrong." He probably could have helped her more, but it was hardly his job to haul her out of a thicket, and to say he accused her of racism? Please. But comments that followed by Hillary surrogates, black and white, well, they went far beyond hers. There was Bill's response to the question, "What do you think about Obama saying that it takes two people [Bill and Hillary] to beat him?" Clinton responded, "Well, Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign, and Obama ran a good campaign here, too." If you can pretend not to see a blatant attempt to say, "If Obama beats us it's just because he's black" here, you're fooling yourself and not me, and not anybody else assessing this honestly. Again, the question had nothing to do with Jackson or race. Bill was waiting for a segue, but the day was getting old and he couldn't find a better one than this. It was mind-bending to watch. As was Hillary's quote about "Hard-working Americans, white Americans." You may think it's true, but it's hard to deny the implication that Hillary is trying to pigeonhole Obama as the black peoples' candidate. It's funny: her supporters want to make a big deal of Obama's problems with white voters. They're worrisome, true, but he did get about 40% of the white vote in both Indiana and NC respectively, the first being the birthplace of the modern Klan and the latter being the site of the Greensboro sit-in movements. If there's anybody with a problem attracting voters of the other race it's Hillary. Barack's been polling about 90% of the black vote. Before you insist that these voters are somehow racist, remember that John Kerry and Al Gore also got about 90% of the black vote when they ran for President, and Al Sharpton couldn't pull 20% of the black vote in SC in 2004. Blacks split they're votes about evenly between John Edwards and Kerry, leaving Sharpton with only 18% (Edwards got 36 and Kerry 32). And then there were the surrogates, and here things got really weird. I'll never forget the clips of Hillary standing up silently beside BET founder Ben Johnson who said when he said, "As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book -- when they have been involved." Later, he apologized and said he was simply referring to Obama's time as a community organizer. Now, that's clearly a lie, but to those of you who are about to defend his original statement: if it there was nothing wrong with it, why bother retracting it? And don't forget Billy Shaheen and the cocaine remarks, followed by Mark Penn doing a Mr. Subliminal serial repetition of "cocaine, cocaine, cocaine" on Hardball. Again, I'm sure most of you think there was nothing to it. Again, if there wasn't, why did Billy Shaheen resign? And then there was Andrew Young with his outer-space comment about "Bill having gone with more black women than Barack." Somebody, please, tell me with a straight face how it's been the Obama campaign dragging race into all of this (granting you all that the cocaine remarks need not be interpreted as racial at all, but simply dirty pool). Should I point out that through all this, Obama has been admirably restrained. He has rarely struck back. Have there been many mentions of Mark Rich? Cattle futures? Travelgate? Yeah, yeah, she's been vetted. America's heard all this, but a lesser man would have reached for the nearest rock and thrown it. Obama hasn't, and when he's had to throw an elbow, he hasn't been that good at it. This is something I think most Clinton supporters see as a weakness, which for many of them seems to be a synonym for "character." Look--I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but I'm disappointed in her. The political (if not technical) reality of this situation is that she has lost, and Obama is going to be the standard-bearer of her party, which is supposedly the party of most of her supporters. He is a flawed candidate. She would be too. She can either keep hammering on those flaws for the slim chance that she might be able to explode Obama and somehow keep from exploding her party, or she can admit a tough defeat and turn it into a victory in the fall.

- Matt Weiss

May 10, 2008 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice work Jonathon. Insightful article. I don't agree with it all, but it's not your job to write things that people agree with reflexively. I have always respected the Clintons and still will after the race is over and will gladly support her if she is the eventual nominee although I am supporting Obama now. It is my hope that those supporting Hillary can back away from the vitriol if Obama is the candidate and work on defeating McCain, who is a shameless flim-flam man bent on extending the sad Bush legacy of unilateral foreign policy and the economic war on the middle class (and below) to even more ridiculous extremes. My only problem in all of this is Hillary is not (I repeat, is not) a populist. How anyone with a Wellesley/Yale background can even try that to make that type of cultural contortion while keeping a straight face is beyond me. I know a bit about this, having grown up rural in the 1960s and not having running water or a dial telephone until I was six years old. Somehow, I don't remember anyone remotely resembling Hillary ever visiting the three-holer or calling us from a crank telephone. Bill at least had some sense of the "wrong side of the track" aesthetic. Hillary is so tone-deaf she probably confuses the Mormon Tabernacle Choir with Nine Inch Nails. Her posing has struck me as little more than a Hulk Hogan (an Obama supporter, by the way) turning "heel" in his old WWF days. Her "I don't listen to elitists" line managed to push a whole mouthful of Diet Pepsi through my nose. But even with my disenchantment with her approach in response to Obama becoming the front-runner, I still respect her as the passionate and intelligent human being that she is.

- Lundell

May 10, 2008 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Chait is accused of distorting reality when he says lower income people pay a larger amount of tax. They cite that the 10% higher incomes pay 70% of all taxes instead of 63% 10 years ago. In reality, this simply results from the fact that their incomes have increased far more that that of lower income groups. The increase from 63% to 70% is thus misleading. In addition, consider the person who pays $25,000 on a $100,000 income and the one who pays $1 million on a $10 million income. Which one has the biggest tax burden?

- Of facts and Perceptions

May 10, 2008 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can we say McGovern redux? What fun! It really is the emperor's new clothes in leftyville, and it just makes us conservatives so warm and fuzzy feeling. You truly are clueless about saint obama's electability -- but hey, you just keep that obama button framed and hung prominently on your wall so that all your guests will see it and know that you are a good white man, and no racist. You can show it to your grandkids, as well. This drama was long overdue, and the white middle class are not only paying very close attention, but are ready to sit it out or vote for a real uniter and isle-crosser like mccain.

- lars Rosen

May 10, 2008 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- liberal reformer

May 10, 2008 at 1:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read some of these comments and I can see why Clinton appeals to the so called uneducated. I'm in that middle class white male demographic and I'm more inclined to call my fellow glow in the dark people uninformed and just plain stubborn. Stupidity can be forgiven, it can't be helped. But all I'm seeing from the HillBillies is just plain ignorance, and that is a choice.

- Russ

May 10, 2008 at 1:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Morally challenged sociopaths attack Obama's authenticity using their own subversively corrupt compasses as their guide. We understand the latent hostility to everything that tend to fairness, the twisting of words, the presumed feelings ascribed to others, etc... Yet, had they the courage that this man has shown, and the ability to rise above their circumstance, then they would find something more constructive to do with their pathetic little lives than to write their evil little thoughts for dissemination and sowing of their evil seeds to other little evil hearts. In other words, stop living the vicarious life of an evil little troll.

- Emilio

May 10, 2008 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Note to the liberal, disastrous Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and right-leaning, effective John Howard of Australia (both of whom apparently missed Chait's truism): "Liberal populism is mostly harnessed to a concrete legislative program aimed at broadening prosperity. ... Conservative populism, by contrast, is a way of exploiting the grievances it identifies without redressing them." Chait, is this The New Republic or the Nation? Has the rise of the NetRoots Left scared you into dumbed-down simplicity? The roughly half of our citizens on the right are interested only in exploiting grievances, while the roughly half of our citizens on the left are the only ones with a high-minded interest in expanding prosperity? I am a consistent Democrat who has overwhelmingly voted and contributed to Democrats and to progressive causes my whole life, but this type of black-white typcasting is completely contrary to the American experience and frankly The New Republic. And, separately, so is your consistent and occasionally misogynist vitriol toward Hillary Clinton.

- DMehlhorn

May 10, 2008 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A whole article and 128 comments on conservative populism without one mention of the word "gun".

- wellbasically

May 10, 2008 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the few remaining Clinton supporters : Would you like some cheeze with your whine?

- B Elza Bub

May 11, 2008 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We should not have to sacrifice our ideals to make the less intelligent feel better about themselves...that is the false politics of the Rove types, and it has been adopted, unfortunately, by Hillary Clinton.

- John

May 11, 2008 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know the arc of your article needs it, but she was never an earnest policy wonk. She has never advanced any well thought out piece of legislation, and really never come across as an "expert" on anything. She positioned herself as one in the beautiful political masterstoke of her health care plan *failing*, but that was only as a counterbalance to the know-nothing right she was up against. Hillary, even more than Bill, cares about attaining political power and is only interested in policy choices 1) to dupe people into voting for her and 2) to frame a legacy for herself. The actual American people--they're just incidental. BTW, I'm no Obama supporter. He's far too interested in the government "helping" me, than I would like. He seems honest personally, which is better than I can say for McCain, but it's depressing that politics scares away any worthwhile, honest intellectuals these days.

- George

May 11, 2008 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a bunch of windbags comment here! Could we please stop this boo-hoorah nonsense between these two candidates? I support Obama. I'll vote for Clinton if she is nominated (God forbid. Just kidding.) As for Mike H's "red meat" junk, ignore it.

- JM

May 11, 2008 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dumb jerks make up the single largest voting in America today. You are all screwed and you've screwed the rest of us too. We apprciate your insistence on sharing your "American Dream" (TM), but really, no thanks, we've had enough. And could you turn down the racket and start picking up after yourselves? Jeez, you people are annoying.

- The Rest of the World

May 11, 2008 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, Obama will likely win this fall, but only because Hillary Clinton ignored your rants. See the excellent analyis at the NYT which, if anything, understates the case. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/weekinreview/11leib.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

- DMehlhorn

May 11, 2008 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am truly disappointed in all of the Hillary Clinton supporters...these are apparently the individuals who have actually polled positively every time GWB's approval ratings poll comes around. Hillary's staying in the race is proving to be the actions of a spoiler. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WISH FOR THE CLINTON /BUSH DYNASTY TO CONTINUE. More so...because she continues to obfuscate the issues we need to address, the DNC will never be able to paint McCain the way he needs to be depicted: as a war-monger, and a songbird for the Viet Cong. Even the people who can't stand Blacks know that their bottom line is at an END if either Hillary or John attains the office of the President of the United States. It's over...have the lard ready, and don't clench...it only hurts more that way. http://911liarsexposed.blogspot.com

- hANOVER fIST

May 11, 2008 at 9:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Conservative populism, by contrast, is a way of exploiting the grievances it identifies without redressing them." Wrong. The redress offered is conservative Supreme Court justices.

- RT450

May 11, 2008 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Conservative Populism--as exemplified by Buchanan--wants people to make a holy grail of their god-given place, in a hierarchical class system. There is no emphasis on rising, or development. There is no talk of raising the overall standard of living. It's no wonder that Patrick Buchannan fell for Hillary. With zero political talent, and zero ability to persuade, Hillary ends her campaign therefore going after the same people Buchannan went after. And he's rooting for her. And it's so painful for the die-hard Hillary fans to watch this unfold, that they can't admit to themselves that they never did, ever, really know who that woman was--who they are still cheering for.

- Gregor

May 11, 2008 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i would like People who are so vigilant in their opposition to Obama to list 3 reasons why they don't support him. Most of what i read is visceral in nature. I'm serious...i'd like to know.

- dave

May 11, 2008 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My goodness! The trolls are out in FORCE.

- LnGrrrR

May 11, 2008 at 11:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, it's folks like Phoenix above who make me almost ashamed to be a liberal. I can't believe I continue to support a political movement full of so many people who seem to want to lose at all costs. Phoenix, whatever "names" you think Chait was calling HR Clinton in that piece, they weren't there. He asserted that she's exhibiting a conservative populist streak and then offered evidence to back that assertion up. That's not the same thing as calling someone "names." But more importantly, if you're prepared to throw the entire liberal/progressive movement under the bus ("President McCain" = a conservative stranglehold on the SC for at least the next 40 years) because you got your feelings hurt in this primary, all I can say is that you must not have cared much about that movement in the first place. I'm sure the good people of Iraq, and Iran, and whatever other places Senator McCain would like to bomb once he's in charge, would totally understand your bruised feelings and how they forced you to vote for a third Bush term.

- Fast Eddie

May 12, 2008 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jbjd, are you serious? Have you read none of Senator Obama's achievements as a member of Congress? Or of his time in the Illinois state legislature, or organizing on the south side of Chicago? Do you actually believe the smear you're spreading about Obama and Ayers, are you simply framing it that way to be funny (nice try), or are you a Republican troll attempting to seed ill will among low information voters? (Incidentally, Chait, you should have mentioned something about low information voters here--you make it all about class without accounting for the ways in which those of higher socioeconomic strata can still remain "low information" voters by choice or by circumstance.) jbjd, I suggest you head back over to Hillaryis44 where you belong, or let us know that we're on Candid Camera. I could be wrong, but I give the average Hillary Clinton supporter credit for having a head on his or her shoulders, and in your case, it sounds like all you can do is parrot Hannity's talking points. Go back to the Rovian inferno from whence you came.

- jdc

May 12, 2008 at 1:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fortunately for the Democratic Party, there are enough new Democrats registering and voting, enough young voters, enough moderate Republicans crossing over, and enough Independent voters who have come on board for Obama that those HRC supporters whose conscience won't let them vote for Obama can either stay home or vote for McCain with a clear conscience. They will turn November from a blow-out victory for Obama into a simple win. I think we can live with that. What's sad for Senator Clinton is that her mostly geriatric supporters are long past the point of mounting a big GOTV effort on her behalf or John McCain's behalf for that matter. But Senator Obama will very likely have 1 million volunteers on the ground by election day in November, to match his one million campaign contributors.

-

May 12, 2008 at 8:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think that the two have to be mutally exclusive. Being for the little guy is going to mean that you are against the influence of the few. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

- Brad

May 12, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When did the uneducated lower class start reading TNR? The ignorance of the vast majority of the posts is staggering. Yikes! I like Obama, I voted for him, but he obviuosly isn't the sum of his hype. The Clinton, on the other hand, had no problem with words (like still believing in a place called "hope") until it was no longer useful or someone else better represented those words. Clinton isn't a conservative populist, she is anything she (and he) needs to be to win. It would be sad if it wasn't so insidiously cynical.

- peter in Austin

May 14, 2008 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close