As one of your questions indicates, there is some confusion as to the definition of the terms populism and populist.

One of the easier ways to discover their meanings is to look at the life and career of Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette. Back in the 1980s a survey was taken among historians to determine the greatest Senator of all time. LaFollette was an easy winner.

Populism, as Bruce stated, is not about pitchforks. It isn't about anger. I find that the best way to get people to understand it is to use a simple bifurcation, then appeal to the insight of Benito Mussolini.

Discarding single-minded self-interest, there are two political orientations. One is for people or one is for corporate interests.

You won't be surprised that many, possibly most, people don't always behave, vote and talk in their own best interests. That's why lower middle-class voters often support politicians who seem to devote their entire careers to tax cuts for the corporations and plutocracy.

So, we have those who are for the interests of the people. They are populists.

Then we have those who favor the interests of corporations. They are called fascists. Why are they called fascists? Because the most prominent of all fascists said so.

The following is a quotation from him: Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

I think I first heard about the populist caucus on Chris' website and am encouraged to see your ranks growing. It's great to see a group fighting for the middle-class and working to help small businesses.

You are truly hitting a niche that is on the verge of becoming much bigger.

Why? Because people are recognizing that the conservative "pro business" argument really means "pro big business" - the largest corporations and the most wealthy.

The middle class from the mid-80s to recently has bought into this trickle down theory, but the veil is being lifted and with the recent crisis, I think people have started to recognize the shift and see through the propaganda.

Why is it, for example, that so many are against "big government" yet, at the same time, are fighting tooth and nail (w/o realizing it) to help corporations consolidate and monopolize?

It's largely because conservatives have better PR and have worked much harder to craft a business message. This is why I think it's great to see a group focusing on the middle-class and small businesses.

If progressives could frame their arguments from a business standpoint and talk about the benefits of their policies to the business world, I think they stand a great chance of winning over the middle class and small-business target.

For example, if they were to make the case that the role of government is to ensure that the free market works. That free markets require:

- Fair competition
- Equal knowledge of buyers and sellers
- No organization of sellers to inflate prices
- Equal power between buyers and sellers

If the public understood that this is what makes a free market work and the role of the government is to help make this market work, think of all the things that could be accomplished. Here's a few examples:

- The revival of regulatory bodies such as the SEC
- Regulation of the mortgage industry
- Breakup of monopolies (i.e. "too big to fail")
- Consumer protection laws to make sure there is equal knowledge of information (all you have to do to see how this has fallen apart is to look at banking fees, how much the industry makes off them, and how they do this by using fine print)

If the proper regulations had been in place, many of the foreclosures wouldn't have happened because consumers would have been aware of the hidden costs of a sub-prime loan. Or sub-prime loans would be outlawed the way loan sharking is outlawed.

But what allowed this to happen? Ceding the business argument and the exurban middle class to conservatives.

Again, great to hear from you Bruce, and I also just e-mailed my Congressman and asked him about the Populist Caucus :).

Best
David

...Stan