Populism vs. Populism

It’s probably a mistake to read too much into one political race, even one, like Tuesday’s Senate race in Massachusetts, that could have a huge impact on health care reform and the rest of President Barack Obama’s agenda.

The fact that Republican Scott Brown may beat Democrat Martha Coakley in the bluest of blue states may have more to do with Coakley’s weakness as a candidate than voter dissatisfaction with Obama and congressional Democrats.

Brown’s victory, however, would give Republicans the 41 votes they need to block health care reform in the Senate. So both parties—and their allied interest groups—have poured money and personnel into the Massachusetts race.

Obama himself trekked up to Massachusetts Sunday for a campaign appearance designed to boost Coakley’s candidacy. In doing so, he unveiled his new political strategy: good old-fashioned antibusiness populism. That’s to counter the good old-fashioned antigovernment populism brewed up at Republican Tea Parties.

Massachusetts could be an early indicator of which brand of populism resonates more with American voters.

“It’s easy to say you’re independent and you’re going to bring people together and all that stuff—until you actually have to do it,” Obama said.

True enough. That "bringing people together" stuff hasn’t worked for Obama, and so he’s ditched it.

Instead, at the Coakley rally, the president offered up these slices of populist red meat:

“When the vote comes on energy, and there’s a choice between standing with big oil or fighting for the clean-energy jobs of the future, whose side are you going to be on?

“When the vote comes on taxes, and there’s a choice between giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest few and corporations that ship American jobs overseas or giving them to the middle class and businesses that create jobs here, who’s going to be on your side?

“When it comes to taking on the worst practices of the insurance industry that routinely denies the American people the care they need and leaves too many families one serious illness away from bankruptcy, who’s going to be on your side?

”When the vote comes on financial regulatory reform, and the choice is between standing with Wall Street or standing up for commonsense reforms that will protect consumers and protect our economy from future crises, who’s going to be on your side?

“Let me be clear: Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”

Expect to hear more rhetoric like this from the president in the coming months.

It’s his strategy for this year’s congressional elections, according to his press secretary, Robert Gibbs.

“That’s a lot of what 2010 is going to be about, to be honest with you,” Gibbs told reporters Sunday. “People are going to have to decide whether the people they have in Washington are on the side of protecting the big banks, whether they’re on the side of protecting the big oil companies, whether they’re on the side of protecting insurance companies, or whether they’re on the people’s side.”

The problem with this brand of populism is that when you’re on an antibusiness roll like this, it’s hard to stop. You keep running down the list of big, bad businesses until you’re left with hardly anyone who can actually give “the people” a job—except the government, of course.

Does Obama really want to go there?

---

Kent Hoover is the Washington bureau chief for bizjournals.