Elites Beware: Eric Cantor’s Defeat May Signal a Populist Revolution

Democrats and Republicans need to ask themselves:’What side of the barricades am I on?’

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., delivers a concession speech in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, June 10, 2014. Cantor lost in the GOP primary to tea party candidate Dave Brat. 
National Journal
Ron Fournier
June 11, 2014, 7:09 a.m.

WEST CHESTER, Pa. — Ex­pect­ing House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor to win his GOP primary in Vir­gin­ia, I spent Elec­tion Day in Pennsylvania — in­ter­view­ing angry Re­pub­lic­ans, Demo­crats, and in­de­pend­ents about the rise of polit­ic­al pop­u­lism.

I was in the wrong state, but I had the right top­ic. Can­tor’s de­feat has less to do with im­mig­ra­tion re­form than it does with an un­even move­ment that should fright­en con­ser­vat­ive and lib­er­al polit­ic­al elites to their shal­low cores.

Amer­ic­ans see a grim fu­ture for them­selves, their chil­dren, and their coun­try. They be­lieve their polit­ic­al lead­ers are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted — un­able and/or un­will­ing to shield most people from wrench­ing eco­nom­ic and so­cial change. For many, the Re­pub­lic­an Party is be­com­ing too ex­treme, while the Demo­crat­ic Party — spe­cific­ally, Pres­id­ent Obama — raised and dashed their hopes for true re­form.

Worse of all, the typ­ic­al Amer­ic­an doesn’t know how to chan­nel his or her an­ger. Heav­en help Wash­ing­ton if they do.

“Amer­ica is for the greedy, for those who’ve made their buck or grabbed their power. It’s not for us,” said Helen Con­over of Ox­ford, Pa. She was eat­ing with two oth­er Chester County em­ploy­ees, Jen­nifer Guy and Kim Kerch­er, at the Penn’s Table diner. Con­over was the table’s op­tim­ist.

“This coun­try’s doomed,” Guy said. Kerch­er nod­ded her head and told me that she’s close to los­ing her house to a mort­gage com­pany and can’t get help from Wash­ing­ton. For years, their county salar­ies haven’t kept pace with the cost of liv­ing. “The rich get rich­er. The poor get be­ne­fits. The middle class pays for it all,” Kerch­er said.

Guy said she’s an in­de­pend­ent voter. Con­over and Kerch­er are re­gistered Re­pub­lic­ans. All three voted for Obama in 2008, hop­ing that he could start chan­ging the cul­ture of Wash­ing­ton. Now, they con­sider the pres­id­ent in­ef­fect­ive, if only partly to blame for his fail­ure.

“He hit a brick wall,” Con­over said. “The Re­pub­lic­an Party is not go­ing to let him change any­thing.”

I replied, “But it’s your party.”

“No,” Con­over bristled, “it’s not my party. I don’t have a party.” She paused, took a small bite of her sand­wich and ad­ded, “An Amer­ic­an Party is what I have.”

An Amer­ic­an Party — what does that mean? For months, I’ve heard that phrase or sim­il­ar anti­es­tab­lish­ment sen­ti­ment from voters in Michigan, Arkan­sas, South Car­o­lina, and else­where — whites and non­whites; voters who are poor and rich and from the shrink­ing middle-class; Demo­crats, Re­pub­lic­ans, and in­de­pend­ents. “We need Amer­ic­an lead­ers, not Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic lead­ers,” a con­struc­tion work­er in Little Rock, Ark., told me last month. Down the street from Penn’s Table, barber Stefanos Bouikid­is held scis­sors in his right hand while throw­ing both hands in the air. “How are things go­ing to change with cor­por­ate Amer­ica run­ning everything?”

At West Chester’s pop­u­lar D.K. Diner, a mil­it­ary vet­er­an who served five com­bat tours in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan said the only solu­tion may be a re­volu­tion against polit­ic­al elites. “We may need to drag politi­cians out and shoot them like they did in Cuba,” said a grim-faced Fre­d­er­ick Derry two days after a Las Ve­gas couple al­legedly shot two po­lice of­ficers. The at­tack­ers draped their bod­ies with a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, ac­cord­ing to ABC News, pinned a swastika on them and a note that read, “The re­volu­tion has be­gun.”

A vi­ol­ent re­volu­tion is un­con­scion­able. But what may be in the air is a peace­ful pop­u­list re­volt — a bot­tom-up, tech-fueled as­sault on 20th-cen­tury polit­ic­al in­sti­tu­tions. In a memo to his fel­low Demo­crats, former Clin­ton White House polit­ic­al dir­ect­or Doug Sosnik writes per­suas­ively about “an in­creas­ing pop­u­list push” across the polit­ic­al spec­trum.

At the core of Amer­ic­ans’ an­ger and ali­en­a­tion is the be­lief that the Amer­ic­an Dream is no longer at­tain­able. Pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions held fast to the prom­ise that any­one who worked hard and played by the rules could get ahead, re­gard­less of their cir­cum­stances. But in­creas­ingly, Amer­ic­ans have con­cluded that the rules aren’t fair and that the sys­tem has been rigged to con­cen­trate power and wealth in the hands of a priv­ileged few at the ex­pense of the many. And now the gov­ern­ment is simply not work­ing for any­one.

Amer­ic­ans’ long-brew­ing dis­con­tent shows clear signs of reach­ing a boil­ing point. And when it hap­pens, the coun­try will judge its politi­cians through a new fil­ter — one that asks, “Which side of the bar­ri­cade are you on? Is it the side of the out-of-touch polit­ic­al class that clings to the status quo by pro­tect­ing those at the top and their own polit­ic­al agen­das, or is it the side that is fight­ing for the kind of change that will make the gov­ern­ment work for the people — all the people?”

Which side of the bar­ri­cade are you on? Pop­u­lists from the right and the left — from the tea party and liber­tari­an-lean­ing Rand Paul to eco­nom­ic pop­u­list Eliza­beth War­ren — are po­s­i­tion­ing them­selves among the in­sur­gents. Sosnik poin­ted to six areas of con­sensus that even­tu­ally may unite the di­ver­gent pop­u­list forces:

  • A pull­back from the rest of the world, with more of an in­ward fo­cus.
  • A de­sire to go after big banks and oth­er large fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions.
  • Elim­in­a­tion of cor­por­ate wel­fare.
  • Re­du­cing spe­cial deals for the rich.
  • Push­ing back on the vi­ol­a­tion of the pub­lic’s pri­vacy by the gov­ern­ment and big busi­ness.
  • Re­du­cing the size of gov­ern­ment.

In Wash­ing­ton, Can­tor’s de­feat is be­ing chalked up to the tea party’s in­tol­er­ance to­ward im­mig­ra­tion re­form. While he paid a price for flirt­ing with a White House com­prom­ise, Can­tor’s great­er sin was in­au­thenti­city — brazenly flip-flop­ping on the is­sue. Typ­ic­al politi­cian. Worse, voters sensed that Can­tor was more in­ter­ested in be­com­ing House speak­er than in rep­res­ent­ing their in­terests. He spent more money at steak­houses than rival Dav­id Brat spent on his en­tire cam­paign. Typ­ic­al politi­cian.

“Dol­lars don’t vote,” Brat told Can­tor’s con­stitu­ents, “You do.”

Let this be the les­son taken from Can­tor’s loss. He is not the only polit­ic­al lead­er to lose touch with voters. In fact, ac­cord­ing to every in­dic­a­tion, the en­tire polit­ic­al class has lost touch. There is ample polling to sug­gest that a ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans voters don’t feel rooted in, or rep­res­en­ted by, either the Re­pub­lic­an or Demo­crat­ic parties. Change or lose power, folks.

At Penn’s Table, Guy, Kerch­er, and Con­over nod­ded their heads firmly at the men­tion of each of Sosnik’s bul­let points. They’re pop­u­lists, not op­tim­ists.

“I don’t see how it can hap­pen,” Kerch­er said of a uni­fic­a­tion of bar­ri­cade-busters. “You keep wait­ing for every­body else to do something about it be­cause you’re just keep­ing your head above wa­ter. I can’t take the time to worry about it, be­cause if I lose my job, I’m home­less.”

She paused and laughed sar­castic­ally. “Of course, then maybe I could get some help from the gov­ern­ment.”

Con­over is a bit more hope­ful, des­pite her doubts about the emer­gence of a Right-Left pop­u­list al­li­ance. “Do I think the three sects will come to­geth­er and align against the es­tab­lish­ment? No. They’re too fo­cused on their be­liefs,” she said. “Do I think there might be some group or some per­son who might tap in­to our frus­tra­tion and, un­like the pres­id­ent, ac­tu­ally change things? Yes. Yes, I do.”

Why the hope? Be­cause she won’t con­sider the al­tern­at­ive — voter apathy and the status quo. Nod­ding to Guy, her pess­im­ist­ic friend, Con­over chucked, “That would be doom.”

RE­LATED: “The Death of Net Neut­ral­ity Could Spark a Pop­u­list Re­volt”

What We're Following See More »
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
17 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
×