[lbo-talk] Bartels on Frank, etc.

[Seth Ackerman]

mike larkin wrote:

> */Seth Ackerman <sethackerman1 at verizon.net>/* wrote:
>
>     To say that middle-income whites don't respond to populism means that
>     Dems have already tried a populist strategy directed at middle-income
>     whites. But where and when have they done it? Lower-income whites
>     vote
>     Democrat because Dem rhetoric evinces concern for "those left
>     behind."
>     But in their policy-rhetoric the Dems never evoke any conflict of
>     interests between the rich and "everybody else." So how could
>     mid-income
>     whites possibly recognize themselves in it?
>
>     Seth
>      
>     But the inability of people like Edwards (Mr. "Two Americas") or
>     Kucinich to generate much enthusiasm in 2004 can be shown to
>     demonstrate that middle income voters don't respond to "us versus
>     them" populism. That's why the term "working families" is so
>     noxious.!  It turns middle income voters off.
>

Actually, I think Edwards (who's no social democrat, of course) is a 
potentially winning candidate who will run again and have a very good 
chance. His Two Americas schtick worked quite well. Remember, the Dem 
primaries were happening in the middle of the Iraq invasion, with all 
the psychosis around national security that engendered, and Edwards had 
no foreign policy expertise. But his campaign was reminiscent of 
Clinton's campaign in 1992, whose policy centerpiece after all was 
universal health insurance (no specific plan proposed) and whose 
rhetorical catchphrase was that people who worked hard and played by the 
rules were getting shafted. And that worked. And then the first thing 
Clinton actually did once he won was NAFTA.

Kucinich had....other problems.

Seth



> ------------------------------------------------------------------------