• Cover Story
• Table of
  Contents
• Contents By
  Topic
• Columns
  • Brownstein
  • Cook
  • Crook
  • Rauch
  • Stokes
  • Schneider
  • Taylor Jr.
• Regular
  Features
  • Hotline Extra
  • Inside Washington
  • Insiders Poll
  • K Street Corridor
  • People
  • The Week on the Hill

The presidency is "the only job in the Constitution that is charged with the responsibility of fighting for all the people.... I will fight for you!"

That was presidential nominee Al Gore, in his August 17, 2000, acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Now here's President Obama in Elyria, Ohio, last week: "So long as I have some breath in me, so long as I have the privilege of serving as your president, I will not stop fighting for you." According to The New York Times, Obama used the word "fight," or a version of it, more than 20 times in his remarks.

Meet Barack Obama, born-again populist.

An ancient strain of economic populism runs through the Democratic Party going back to William Jennings Bryan ("You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!") and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said that the "organized money" interests "are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred." There's only one problem: That's not the tradition Obama comes out of.

Obama is more of a progressive than a populist. What's the difference? Populism is a protest movement that thrives on resentment, the bitterness that candidate Obama disdained during the 2008 campaign. ("They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.") Populism thrives in hard times, like today's. Progressivism, in contrast, is a reform tradition that usually emerges in periods of prosperity. It draws on values that everyone can endorse, such as reform, progress, good government, hope -- and bipartisanship. The two great progressive presidents were Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

There has always been a large constituency of progressive Democrats -- affluent, educated, high-minded -- who don't go in for a lot of fighting. They think that too much fighting is why problems don't get solved in Washington. They want a visionary leader who can rise above partisan rancor.

Democratic presidential races have often produced showdowns between a populist fighter and a progressive visionary. The visionary Eugene McCarthy versus the relentless Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. High-minded rationalist Jimmy Carter versus tough partisan Edward Kennedy in 1980. Gary Hart ("New ideas") versus Walter Mondale ("Where's the beef?") in 1984.

In 1988, the Democratic contest pitted Michael Dukakis against populist Dick Gephardt ("It's your fight, too!"). In 1992, it was progressive Paul Tsongas ("I'm not Santa Claus") versus populist Bill Clinton. In 2000, Bill Bradley the dreamer went head-to-head with Gore the fighter.

In 2008, we had Obama the unifier: "The time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington." And Hillary Rodham Clinton the fighter: "Now, I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing. And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.' Maybe I've just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be."

Well, guess what? It's gotten hard.

After months of being defied by Republicans and insulted by the "tea party" movement, Obama is trying to show some fight -- but not against them, against the forces of greed and corruption (Wall Street, big banks, special interests). Obama's message to the tea party protesters: "It's my fight, too!"

Can his new populist strategy work? His administration bailed out the big banks and the auto industry. A lot of people in his administration have close ties to Wall Street. Moreover, fighting has never been Obama's thing. It conflicts with his "bring us together" mandate. And Democrats have always worried about the image of the angry black man.

Obama's largest problem may be to focus public anger on big money, which he argues has corrupted government. The populist firestorm seems to be aimed at Big Government, which has allowed itself to be corrupted.

Here's one bad sign for Obama: Most voters now oppose the economic stimulus bill that Congress passed and he signed into law last year. A year ago, 60 percent of the public supported the stimulus bill. Now 56 percent oppose it, according to a January CNN poll. They've turned against government.