Populism

So the dilemma facing contemporary liberals (and liberalism) is to enunciate a "progressive" political program at the same time that most liberals are scared stiff of what is described as "populism," i.e., a much more active participation by "we the people" in the process of decisionmaking and a concomitant distrust of established elites.

Various things were covered by this blog post that overall was in response to an article about how maybe it is time for conservatives to move past originalism since it restrains (ha) their goals too much.  This led to various discussions among legal minds, including at that blog.  But, this specific bit rubbed me (a liberal sort) the wrong way as well.  In what sense?

It is true that the classical progressive, shall we say, supported various things that advanced the professionalism of public policy, including administrative agencies.  But, such liberals also were among those that supported things like primaries and direct election of senators. What exactly are "most liberals" scared stiff of?  Even if Bernie Sanders by one account had a "30% plan" where he'd get a plurality and win in the end with the rest splitting the difference, his movement is populist, no?  If so, even thirty percent (and some portion of the rest) are "some."

As noted by my comment there, I want to say more on the popular involvement that I and many other liberals support to a greater support than is present now. I think we do have an obligation as a good citizen to be knowledgeable about public affairs, vote and in various ways engage with our government. A basic right, after all, is the right to petition.

Public hearings, not just confirmation hearings, are often ridiculed. But, they are important, including to hear from affected people and relevant experts, sometimes people who simply know what is being discussed (such as veterans in need of medical and psychological care).  Agency decision-making has a period for the average person to comment. This process, including court review (there is some opposition among liberals to conservative support of stricter review, but liberals too support court review of agency decision-making) various people and groups involve the people at large in decision-making as well. 

Running for office has various dubious aspects including the length and cost of campaigns. But, there too the public can have a major role. One person here thinks the party should pick the candidates, who would run in the general election. But, we (in a way at times open to caricature as seen in Around the World in 80 Days and other accounts) have a democratic tradition where the people are felt deserving to choose. This affects who wins elections, including local ones, and mass movements can significantly matter there. 

Having legislation by poll is not advisable, but there are many ways for the public at large to have more of a roll here. So, I'm open to certain issues being pressed to negotiation and a vote if the public decides it (e.g., a majority could have required NY to have a constitutional convention). This is a form of initiative. The 10A speaks of the "power" of "the people" and such things come to mind.  Also, proposals have been made to give people some voucher that can be used for political contributions. Moving power more to the people than corporations and other groups is a major possibility in campaign finance reform.

Finally, this counsels for an informed electorate, including civics education, both for children [I think a high school civics class should be like drivers ed -- the end result should be a registered voter.] but adults. We cannot have people talk (as one did to me) of "Trump passing" CARES Act. "Obamacare" is also the road to ignorance. The Affordable Care Act was crafted with a lot of effort by the Senate and House. The term misinforms the public.

I could add a lot more but do want to reference things like local community boards which provides a means for the average person to have a role in local government. Efforts can be made there to sponsor engagement with state and federal government as warranted.  There are a variety of ways, and most liberals are not scared of them, for the pubic to be involved in decision-making here from parents at schools and beyond.  Liberals might not like some of the results here, but many are very engaged. 

And, of course, there is the jury, an ever lesser used institution. Juries in some jurisdictions have stronger power to influence sentences, and fair representation of the society can often be more just there than a single judge.  The concept of the 'militia' also is the average person works together, under the leadership of government officials such as the governor or president, to serve public functions. They are part of the virus response. These days, a select group of the public serve actively in the militia. The public at large can have a bigger role there.

Populism very well might have problems. So, e.g., Prop 8 to the degree it was a popular movement (though a big issue here is that such ballot measures often only are promoted by select groups), was discriminatory.   Distrust of elites can be a distrust of let's say those at the CDC crafting a means to respond to the ongoing pandemic.  At some point, we do need to trust to some degree those who know things, we cannot rely on our common sense about things.  OTOH, even there, many liberals are distrustful of certain elites when conservatives are in power.

So, I think the comment has to be applied with caution.