This thought was inspired by a skim through the recent Open Thread. (But its not a diary entry about the Dean campaign.)
One of the key pillars of the Dean campaign is its call to populism: Its Meetups, successful fund raising from small donors, expanded communication between campaign and supporters and among supporters through the Internet/Blogs and now, this recent "vote" on the decision to decline matching funds. There's no doubt that incorporation of these new techniques has certainly blown apart the SOP of political campaigning, exposing and exploiting the profound alienation of the populace from the electoral process that was the hallmark of the conventional political campaign. There is also no doubt that the public responds to this; it energizes supporters and is often the sources of inspiration that calls volunteers and supporters into action. And, if I understand the supporters correctly, this new approach to campaigns and campaigning is what accounts for the experiential dimension that many folks report: Dean "feels" different, No other campaign/election has ever spoken to me so directly, before, etc. Both campaign and candidate are the story so far.
There's something there, but is that something democratic/progressive populism? Populism, of course, is not always progressive.
The same kinds of questions surround the California budget crisis and recent recall election. The Initiative Process is often presented as the truest exercise in "actual" democracy: what could be more democratic than taking legislative decisions directly to the voters? It is legislating by "vote". Similarly, the recall process, that provides the voters a direct action in order to hold elected officials accountable to the electorate. In an age of expensive, corporate media driven campaigns, public relation blitzes, and an economic climate in which the gap between rich and poor is greater than anything we've experienced in the last 50 years, do these electoral processes actually result in the "people's will" being met?
Is a populist democracy achieved simply by expanding access and incorporating the public/populace into the process? Sometimes we talk and act as if it is.
Populism has always been first and foremost about policies for me: what kind of society is envisioned, which interests pursued, what understanding of government is at work? But maybe that's me. Or maybe that's an outdated understanding? Markos is right that process is important; but I'd suggest it's a necessary but not sufficient dimension of democratic societies and populist endeavors. Elections alone do not a democracy make. Even dictatorships hold elections. And conducting a "vote" is not the same thing as "addressing the people's will". So votes, are not, by definition, populist processes. And polls, I would argue, are more often than not anti-populist exercises.
So, what is this thing we call populism?