Why the Left Can’t Win: Mailbag Edition
Happy Sunday,
Off the top, just know that today’s newsletter is different. We’re doing a reader mailbag on the topic of the inability of left populists to get traction in US presidential elections. Also, remember Mother’s Day is next weekend. So make sure to do whatever you gotta do to be a good son/daughter/spouse, etc.
I closed a recent newsletter referencing Dusty Rhodes’ famous Hard Times promo. A promo in wrestling is a loosely scripted monologue that a wrestler gives, usually trash talking their opponent before an upcoming match. Hard Times might be the greatest promo in wrestling history. It features Rhodes working babyface (a good guy) in his feud with Ric Flair the “the Stylin’, profilin’, limousine riding, jet flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin’ n’ dealin’ son of a gun!” playing heel.
The Hard Times promo is in the running with Reagan’s Challenger speech and Obama’s speech to the DNC in 2004 as the best piece of rhetoric conjured in our lifetimes but instead of launching a political campaign or social movement, it was to promote a title match at Starcade ‘85.
Rhodes, the underdog, nails the populist rhetoric in the promo. He thanks fans for sending cards when he was injured. He says elites like Flair don’t understand the “hard times” everyday people face. He compares himself, his hard times, and his upcoming fight against Flair to a textile worker who lost their job when his factory closed. He then compares himself to displaced autoworkers. And he hits the emotional zenith comparing himself to a factory worker losing their job to automation, a “KUM-PEW-TAH,” as Rhodes pronounces it. He closes the promo saying that the World Heavyweight title belongs to “the people” and says he needs to repay the people for their love by defeating Flair.
Then, in last week’s newsletter we took a look at the success of left-populist figures in Latin America. One reader asked why I didn't define the term left-populist in the post. That’s a reasonable question. I try to keep the newsletters on the shorter side so sometimes I can’t cover everything. So let’s start there… I think it’s useful to break terms apart—that’s how I approach it in my classroom.
Populists are defined by two major characteristics: they claim to represent common people and they claim to despise and oppose elites. In their communication, they eschew complex or technocratic explanations for social or economic happenings, instead appealing to everyday people in common language. Think about the proto-Trumpian Know Nothings of the 19th century or The Kingfish Huey Long’s Share the Wealth campaign in Louisiana. As an aside, I low-key mess with Huey Long. We’re taught he was a “demagogue” because he took shots at FDR from his left and he’s called a “tyrant” by the right because he sought redistributive concessions from the wealthy. Given the antipathy he showed to both sides, it makes sense he’s painted as a villain in mainstream US media and history.
You’ll note in the definition above I twice said “they claim.” Trump was a populist but he repeatedly made clear his contempt for common people and his desire to always be viewed as a billionaire. I am still baffled that 40% of the electorate has been snowed by a tax dodging billionaire who claims to be a man of the people, but politics isn’t rational.
Right-wing populists embrace economic policies that concentrate wealth in the hands of the rich. This is why they run (and win) on divisive cultural wedge issues. Even the most low-information voter can see through trickle down economics at this point, inshallah.
This brings us to the “left” part of “left-populism.” The way US political discourse deploys the term “left” is almost always in discussion of cultural issues and often as a substitute for being an empathetic human being. But the “left” in the case of left populists is about economics: raising working people out of poverty, taxing the assets of the wealthy, and using the money from the second to accomplish the first. This brings us to the classic liberal dilemma about working class white voters. Entire careers (Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter With Kansas) have been constructed around the question of working class white voters voting against their economic interests. The answer is not that difficult—they’re voting against their perception of a cultural left, rather than an economic left.
Here are a few of the reader responses I got about why left populists don’t win in US politics. Most of the contributions lined up with what I was thinking, but there were some great insights.
H., a fellow Comparative Government teacher offered: Part of it might be related to culture. The US is so individualistic, whereas other nations are more communal, lending themselves better to left-wing populism. The US also had several generations affected by WWII and then the Cold War, which negatively impacted their views on anything they thought might be socialism or communism… But probably the biggest reason is that, while both forms of populism are anti-establishment, left-wing populists claim to support the rights of minorities, whereas right-wing populism is largely racist... It appeals to people who think undesirables are taking over their country from within. They believe it is possible to "go back to a better time."
This one resonated with me as you saw above. They say there’s no one as compelling as Dusty Rhodes, Trump or Boris Johnson on the left. Think about Dusty’s Hard Times Promo. It’s the ideal populist political appeal and one that the vast majority of politicians on the political left seem incapable of delivering in an authentic manner. R.G. said: [A]ll the people that had enough charisma to win the hearts of the people gave in to capitalism and went into the private sector. Only the asshats and bureaucrats ran for public office.
Reader G.R. talked about the resentment of white working class voters and the perception they’ll eventually take their rightful place among the wealthy some day, leading to their embrace of conservative figures, saying the “protestant work ethic and the American Dream™ make it very difficult for many Americans to see leftist policies as a good for most. Additionally, the idea that all Americans are displaced 1%ers keeps us from enacting taxes on the uber wealthy because “I dOnT wAnT tO pAy TaXeS wHeN i GeT riCh.”
Reader C.C. wondered: "Will a social media candidate (direct to the populous) be allowed to gain legitimacy? (Twitter spaces, Rogan interviews, etc.)—This is how Bukele won in El Salvador.... It looks increasingly unlikely as government agents, forces, edicts, or whatever... are capturing social media companies." Bukele is a really weird dude. He’s a cryptobro who has managed to rise to the highest office in the land as a political outsider. According to media reports he has +90% approval ratings, but I don’t have a grip on the extent to which polling in El Salvador is reliable. The jury is still out on his tenure but he’s earned the scorn of the IMF and assorted usual suspects.
Lastly, a reader who works as a Democratic Party organizer dropped several nuggets in reply. I quote him at length because I think he gets so much:
I have a few unscientific theories on your broader question of the left's unviability:
Reagan and Thatcher did a number on an entire generation that until recently was the huge majority of the voting population. Thanks to those two, Democrats and Labour tacked right (hello Clinton and Blair!), Republicans and Tories tacked far right (hello Trump and Brexit!). "The left" is often essentially center-right Democrats.
The electoral college and voter suppression efforts have not created favorable electoral conditions for a national progressive movement. This has been a problem for a long time and will continue to be one until it's systemically overhauled.
Importantly: speaking as a progressive and a local Democratic leader, the American left is disorganized, wildly out of touch with entire communities, and our methodologies are still steeped in both Ayn Rand individualism and white supremacy - and that's in addition to dominant conservative ideology and structural problems in our elections. We've been bad at sustained voter engagement, coalition building, messaging, and deep canvassing at scale. Bernie Sanders did not connect with most voters meaningfully and did especially badly with black voters who are critical to any national Democratic victory. That's not the DNC keeping him down, that's the left needing to fix itself.
Polls suggest this all will probably change as younger voters become a bigger share of the electorate, but for now progressivism is a hot mess operating under unfavorable political infrastructure that conservatives are better able to leverage because their ideology built and sustains it.”
I really enjoyed reading all the replies. There were several more but these covered the major themes.
As always, thanks for reading the newsletter. If you'd like to opine just hit reply on the email. I welcome your feedback (especially if you think I am wrong about something) and if you like the newsletter, share it with somebody you love.
See you next week!
As always, if you have any thoughts or feedback about the newsletter, I welcome it, and I really appreciate it when folks share the newsletter with their friends.