Obama's New Populism

No presidential campaign in this country would be complete without the three Ps of politics -- polls, pundits and populism. The first two Ps are more modern creations. But the populist candidate who claims to speak for the "people" -- against some political straw man such as big business or big government -- has a long history. Political leaders from both sides of the aisle have consistently and unabashedly utilized populist appeals. The run-up to the 2008 election, with John Edwards's missives against corporate power or John McCain's attacks on big government, has largely followed a similar script.

But this year, one candidate is taking a novel approach. While populist rhetoric has been generally cast in "Us versus Them" terms, Barack Obama is crafting a new style of populism -- an affirmative and unifying message that offers a stark contrast to the divisive messages of the past. To be sure, those messages have long brought success. But if Mr. Obama continues to rack up primary and caucus wins, it could lead to a redefinition of presidential campaign rhetoric.

Since the late 19th century, the history of populism in this country has followed two arcs. Neither has been terribly inspiring.

With his 1896 Cross of Gold speech and his attacks on the "idle holders of idle capital," William Jennings Bryan helped propel the prairie and working-class populism that would find a home in the Democratic Party. Though Bryan would lose that election (and two more), future Democrats took up the populist call. From Woodrow Wilson's defense of the "man on the make" to Franklin Roosevelt's broadsides against "economic royalists" to Harry Truman's attacks against the Republican reactionary with a "calculating machine" for a heart, Democrats consistently relied on aggressive, anticorporate populism to defeat Republicans.

As America became more prosperous, and many in the working class entered the middle class, a new bogeyman emerged: the government bureaucrat. Few politicians more brilliantly lacerated the expanding influence of the federal government than Alabama Gov. George Wallace (1919-1998). His attacks on "cultural elites" forcing social change offered a template for a new style of conservative populism. Though Wallace was a Democrat, it was Republicans like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who took up the populist attack on "big government." Even nominal defenders of activist government like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton chimed in.

Some Democrats continue to believe that a return to antibusiness populism would rally voters to their cause. But the only recent populist appeal that's succeeded on the presidential campaign trail is antigovernment populism. Here's where Barack Obama is so unusual.

Sure, he launches the pro-forma broadside against Washington "special interests," and in recent days he's stepped up his attacks on corporate America. But this is hardly the core of his message. As was summed up in his Super Tuesday speech with the memorable line "we are the ones we've been waiting for," Mr. Obama's focus is on "we" as opposed to "them." His opponent is decisiveness and rancor, and his political movement is among the most inclusive ever seen in American presidential politics.

After his victory in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama said: "The only way we will bring about real change in America is if we can bring new people into the process, if we can attract young people, if we can attract independents, if we can stop fighting with Republicans and try to bring some over to our side. That's how we win elections; that's how we will govern." He is not the first politician to speak in such unifying terms. But rarely has it been couched so clearly in the context of a populist movement.

The only recent precedent is, ironically enough, Bill Clinton. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention he said: "We've gotten to where we've nearly them'd ourselves to death. Them, and them, and them. But this is America. There is no them; there is only us." This vision of postpartisan politics never truly materialized, in part because the focus of Mr. Clinton's campaign was beating George H.W. Bush, but also because his political enemies were not so ready to move on.

Today, Americans' confidence in their governing institutions is historically low. Combine a decade and a half of divisive, partisan politics with a gnawing sense among millions of Americans that the country is on the wrong track, and it's little wonder that Mr. Obama's message is resonating so deeply.

Some argue that Mr. Obama's approach can never work; that partisanship, even rancor, is fundamental to political debate. History is on the side of the skeptics. Maybe the country is not ready for Mr. Obama's vision of national unity. But if his appeal is successful, he would take office with a mandate for change, and potentially usher in a new era of post-partisan politics.