99%

It is an empirical question whether the marriage partners of capitalism (in its totally mythical form as "self-regulating market") and representative democracy (in its totally mythical form as "popular sovereignty") are fully compatible, and practically functional, in conditions of emergency such as an economic crisis (particularly a crisis that is global). In the present situation, the finance banking system, which is not subject to the controls of any particular "government," contributed to a crisis; whether "the People" (Tea Party or #OWS) can do anything about it using the instruments available to the American government is an open question, particularly when the ideal of a self-regulating international market holds sway in public opinion and in practice.

*

The problem is that since the 1930s and 40s (and Taft-Hartley), there's no political language for talking about class directly in American politics. After all, Americans are all middle class by definition, up to a yearly income of $250K. There's no accounting for class differences between the owner of a small business, a well paid freelancer, a plumber, and person who works two jobs: they are all middle class. Hence, class distinctions are recognized as distinctions in culture (e.g. educational attainment, prestige of educational institution, patterns of consumption including books, religion or lack thereof, neighborhood, region, linguistic fluency, prestige of occupation, home-ownership, etc.).

#TeaParty v. #OWS: a tale of two movements

The Tea Party is a new iteration of a long-standing political tradition, classically defined as the "paranoid style" by historian Richard Hofstadter: a pot of conspiracy thinking leavened with a healthy dollop of nativism and covered with a poujadist lid. Far from being an independent political movement, the Tea Party is a creature of the Republican Party and has always sought its nirvana on the happy hunting grounds of right-wing conservative fears: fear of government, fear of a black President, fear of gays, fear of Mexicans, fear of Muslims. Establishment Republicans love the energy but loathe the substance of the Tea Party, just as level headed Republicans sought distance from the mania of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.

*

The #OWS crowd is the typical mix of left-wing and progressive causes one finds at any large demo. The symbolism of the mass gathering is, however, losing its efficacy as a carrier of political meaning. It is telling that only confrontations with baton-wielding and mace-spraying police (as opposed to Blackberry-wielding and derivatives-spraying financiers) have brought it wider attention: alas, the police don't run "Wall Street" or crash the Lehmann Brothers of the world. At some point, enlightened elements of the #OWS will figure out that engagement with the Democrats is the only means to bring about practical reforms. Clever Democratic politicians would be wise to leverage this left-wing angst. But short of an actual revolution, no new form of people's capitalism is likely to emerge and the youth of the nation must grow accustomed to conditions of scarcity that have beset most people at most times in history. The golden years of the housing and credit bubbles are gone forever.

*

Life in a declining empire: get acclimated

adieu american populism

John Edwards is out and his populist message is also out of fashion. Pundits will say his demise was a result of the presence of two "historic" candidates, or that his doubtful "electability" caused likely supporters to cast their votes and opinions for Mme. Clinton. However, his message also seems out of touch with the Zeitgeist. Eight years of Reaganism and eight years of Clintonian centrism have made the classic populist message "history." The dispute between the Progressive School of historical interpretation  (e.g., Charles Beard) and the Consensus School (e.g., Hofstadter, Hartz, et al.) has been resolved by empirical, political events, which have reshaped political psychology. Big Business needs tax incentives not regulation to serve the public interest (this is the Clintonian and Democratic Leadership Council mantra). The redistribution of wealth requires personal responsibility not more government social programs (the Clintonian welfare reform). Establishment Democrats and segments of Big Labour lined up with Clintonism, not the erstwhile inheritor of William Bryan Jennings (sans the monkey business). Fighting poverty and chronic under- and unemployment are no longer salable as political needs; and trial lawyers are as despised as environmental polluters, hucksterish pharmaceuticals, mal-practicing physicians, and scamming mortgage loan officers.