Progressive Populism: Mission Impossible

George Packer raises an interesting question about Obama: Could the president have pushed a progressive populist movement to counter the right-wing populism on display?

George Packer offers an interesting report today about the political weakness behind President Obama. (And no I don’t say that only because he quoted me - but thanks!)

Obama has no larger movement behind him; the one he had ended on election night. After all the analysis of his political flaws and tactical mistakes (I’ve engaged in this cheap spectator sport myself), here is the heart of his political weakness. F.D.R. had the labor movement; L.B.J. had the civil-rights movement. Obama had Obama for America. His campaign was based on the man more than any set of ideas or clear vision of the future. Everyone knew what Reaganism stood for. No one knows what Obamaism means, which has allowed his enemies to fill in the blank.

That seems right and shrewd. Then follows this thought-provoking question:

Could the President have helped bring a progressive populism into being, by vilifying the banks and hammering his money-backed opponents from the start, as a counter to the right-wing populism that totally dominates the media?

Packer expresses himself skeptical. Count me super-skeptical, but for a different reason.

More to come...