A Day With The New Populists

A Day With The New Populists
|
Open Image Modal
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, center, greets the crowd before speaking during the annual St. Patrick's Day Breakfast in Boston, Sunday, March 16, 2014. Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, left, and Rep. Stephen Lynch, right, look on. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

WASHINGTON -- Populism is fashionable in Washington these days.

That's for good reason. Strong currents of dissatisfaction with the nation's capital, with government, and with big business are sweeping through the country.

Populists of different political stripes gathered at two forums Thursday, separated by a few miles. One group talked of conservatives moving toward a more populist agenda, of a concern for middle class and lower-income voters that they've lacked. The other group, a liberal gathering, referred to themselves as "new populists."

The first event was at the American Enterprise Institute, a longstanding conservative think, for a forum on "Solutions for the Middle Class." Just before noon, I left AEI's downtown offices, across the street from the National Geographic Building, and headed for the Washington Court Hotel, near the Capitol, to hear Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speak at a "New Populism" conference hosted by the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group organized in the 1990s to push back against the Democratic Party's drift to the middle under President Bill Clinton.

It was an interesting contrast. But the similarities in rhetoric were surprising. The two groups diverge, of course, in their ideas for how to help poor and middle class people rise. But to some degree they're both trying to solve the same problem: How to help the little guy in an age when the system seems rigged against him.

9:28 a.m. -- AEI President Arthur Brooks argues, "The reason for free enterprise is not for the rich. The reason for free enterprise is the poor." Brooks is moderating a panel with Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). He launches into a complaint about the cost of licensing for someone to get their real estate license, and the cost imposed by government regulators for women to get a license for braiding hair. He rails against the barriers to making money placed in the way of lower-income people.

The conversation moves on to the minimum wage. Scott, the first black U.S. senator from the South since 1881, says the impact of minimum wage requirements on military bases in South Carolina has been "devastating," citing the closure of McDonald's and Subway chains on the bases.

Lee says that there are ways to help people rise from lower incomes, but that the way to do it is to take on "crony capitalism" and get rid of special favors for big business. He mentions two fights currently splitting the GOP. Some conservatives are trying to get rid of the Export-Import Bank, and recently fought against reauthorization for the Overseas Private Investment Corp. Democrats and establishment Republicans largely favor both, but a growing number of conservatives see them as corporate welfare.

9:39 a.m. - A woman in the audience asks a question about helping workers with disabilities. Cantor gives a noncommittal answer: "I look forward to looking at that further," he says. Scott, meanwhile, tells the story of a young woman whose parents found a school that could help her overcome learning disabilities when she was in elementary school. He uses this as an argument for greater school choice. He then points out the example of Walgreens, which has a warehouse in South Carolina, where 40 percent of its employees have special needs. It's the company's most productive warehouse, he says. His point? People should be viewed as having potential to be productive and healthy individuals, and not necessarily as charity cases.

9:52 a.m. -– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) walks in to the 12th floor events room at AEI, trailed by a small entourage. He is wearing a dark suit and a purple and blue tie, and sits in a chair against the wall, near the stage. Brooks is wrapping up the panel.

"Each one of us ... are angry enough to fight for better policy, but that's not the question," Brooks says. "The question is whether we have enough love in our hearts for every American to fight for better policy." The crowd applauds, and Cantor makes his way toward McConnell, shakes his hand, leans in and shares a brief word with the Republican Senate leader, and smiles. Lee comes behind, and offers a much briefer handshake and smile.

Brooks then introduces McConnell. "He has won a big primary victory and I'm sure he's pleased about that," Brooks says. McConnell's expression does not change, and he stares straight ahead. But when McConnell steps to the microphone, he cracks a joke about the primary. "Well, I'm happy to be here, especially, especially under the present circumstances," he says drily, with a slight smile. "If things had turned out differently in Kentucky Tuesday, this could have been a fairly awkward presentation." The audience breaks up in laughter.

McConnell praises what he calls "reform conservatism," which he describes as "a good initial answer to the question of how government can be used to help, help, not hurt, working Americans across the country, whose wages have remained stubbornly flat throughout the Obama era, even as the cost of everything from college tuition to health care continues to rise.

"Many of these Americans have come to feel that government is working against them, not for them, and reform conservatism is animated in large part by a desire to prove that at least one party in Washington remains determined to change that," McConnell says.

McConnell says the idea that the GOP is a party of the rich is "a cheap and dishonest caricature," but then acknowledges that Republicans are partly to blame for this impression. "It must also be admitted that in our rush to defend the American entrepreneur from daily depredations of an administration that seems to view any profit-making enterprise with deep suspicion, they have often lost sight of the fact that our average voter is not John Galt," McConnell says, referring to the protagonist from Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged.

"For most Americans whose daily concerns revolve around aging parents, long commutes, shrinking budgets, and obscenely high tuition bills, these hymns to entrepreneurialism are, as a practical matter, largely irrelevant, and the audience for them is probably a lot smaller than we think," McConnell says. "So I do think we do well as a party to get down to the basics ... let's talk less of job creators and more talk of job earners."

10:07 a.m. -- McConnell begins a series of broadsides against Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.), for centralizing power in the Senate, getting rid of the filibuster in some cases, and not allowing more debate or amendments to legislation.

"Senator Reid has done tremendous damage to the Senate, tremendous damage to the Senate by arrogating to himself powers that have traditionally been reserved for committees and individual members," he says.

McConnell vows to restore the filibuster and uphold its place in the Senate if the GOP retakes the Senate this fall.

10:26 a.m. -- McConnell finishes and quickly exits the room. The next panel is moderated by National Review's former Washington editor, Kate O'Beirne, and features Ramesh Ponnoru of Bloomberg View, Ross Douthat of The New York Times, Yuval Levin of National Affairs, Reihan Salam of the YG Network, and Pete Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Wehner, a former senior White House adviser to President George W. Bush, begins the session by laying out polling numbers about how many middle-class Americans think the GOP is out to help the rich, and not those with lower incomes.

Levin argues that conservative philosophy is better suited for an era when society is increasingly bottom-up, rather than top-down.

"America is in the midst of a transition from a way of life that's built around large consolidated, centralized institutions -- big government, big business, big labor, big media, big universities, big cultural institutions -- to a way of life that is built around smaller, more dispersed, diverse institutions and communities, where Americans have a huge array of choices in every part of life and they get to define their options and enable improvements in the choices they make," Levin argues. "That's happening everywhere except in government, and to me, that means the government we have and the approach to government is becoming less and les useful to society."

"The left today is stuck defending broken systems," he argues.

Levin says government should facilitate change and innovation and not try to centrally plan solutions to societal problems.

The pace of the panel goes up a few notches when Salam speaks. He talks a mile a minute. He is loud, and he is intense. He talks about how higher education is costing immigrant parents like his more and more money, and that without any accountability for the institutions, this is weighing Americans down with debt while delivering less value.

"It's not just about giving more money. It's about rethinking these institutions," he says.

11:12 a.m. -- The panel is taking questions. The AEI staffers have vice grips on the mic. They do not relinquish control to audience members under any circumstances.

Levin is again talking in sweeping terms about what conservatism stands for. "The alternative to progressivism is not radical individualism," he says. It is, rather, society. "Society consists of the things we do together, one of which is government, but by no means the most important one or the most central one, or the one that serves us best," Levin says.

Ponnoru agrees. "It's a much better answer than conservatives are often inclined to give, just to respond to collectivism with the kind of rhetoric of commercial individualism," he says of Levin's comments. "That's part of what's wrong with the over emphasis on entrepreneurship that we see, that sometimes tipped all the way over into Randianism, with an implicit message: 'We'll cut your taxes and you can solve your own problems,' as opposed to, 'We'll help communities thrive, we'll reform institutions so they are supporting you instead of trying to direct your life.' We can't cede the entire field of community over to the left."

11:50 a.m. -- The ballroom at the Washington Court hotel is packed. It has a higher ceiling than the AEI events room. The audience is surprisingly similar to that at AEI, maybe even a good bit older, if a bit more racially diverse.

11:58 a.m. -- While a panel that incudes former Obama adviser Jared Bernstein finishes, Warren shows up at the front of the room to the side of the stage, wearing a big grin and a red jacket. She remains standing as former aide Damon Silvers introduces her as "the people's champion, the tribune of the 99 percent."

As Warren takes the stage, the sun is shining brightly through a skylight directly onto the rostrum where she is speaking, illuminating her like a natural spotlight. She mentions her new book. "Books are part of how I fight," she says.

Warren tells the story of her fight to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and says big banks spent $1 million a day lobbying Congress to try to stop it. She praises the power of popular support that she says helped win that battle.

But she also implicitly hits former President Clinton for helping create the problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions, and explicitly raps President Barack Obama for not doing more to fix the problem.

The effect of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton, was "anything goes," Warren says.

She says "too big to fail" is more of a problem now than it was before the 2008 financial crisis, citing statistics that the six biggest banks are 38 percent bigger now than they were in 2008. She had hoped for accountability on Wall Street in exchange for the bailout money, she says, but "what we got, and I want to be clear this is under both administrations, was nothing, nothing and nothing, out of that."

"Wall Street has been rebuilt," she says. "But the rest of the economy not so much."

"The Treasury Department under both administrations shoveled money out on a no-strings-attached basis," she says, and mentions, to some horror in the room, that she is co-sponsoring a bill with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to restore key elements of Glass-Steagall.

She also rails against free trade agreements as venues for corporations to make secret deals with the government to get preferential treatment.

Near the end of her remarks, Warren characterizes conservatism in the very way that those at the AEI conference earlier in the day were hoping to change.

"When conservatives talk about opportunity, they mean opportunities for the rich to get richer, for the powerful to get more powerful," she says. "Deep down, this is a fight over values. Conservatives and their powerful friends will continue to be guided by their age-old principle: 'I got mine. The rest of you are on your own.'

"But we're guided by principle too. It's a simple idea: We all do better when we work together and invest in our future."

The first person to stand up and ask a question of Warren encourages her to run for president, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as her running mate. "I appreciate the thought," she says. "I am not running for president."

The crowd loves Warren. She calls on them to respond to her with "a good strong amen" as she runs down a list of priorities, and the crowd obliges. She has the politicians' wave down as well, alternating arms and flashing her megawatt smile as applause washes over her.

12:29 p.m. -- Warren wraps up. The event organizers, as part of the $35 registration fee, are providing bag lunches, with Saran-wrapped sandwiches, apples and potato chips.

I go up the street to Bistro Bis and get a burger and fries for $16 instead. The maitre'd tells me that the restaurant is closed Friday because there are no reservations. Everyone is leaving Washington on Thursday, heading out of town for Memorial Day weekend.

That is, everybody who has enough money.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article mistranscribed McConnell's quote about the American entrepreneur to read "degradations" rather than "depredations."

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

10 States Where Income Inequality Has Soared
10. New York(01 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 67.6%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 60.5% (4th highest)> Income growth, bottom 99%: 22.2% (22nd highest)> Income growth, top 1%: 355.1% (3rd highest)Since 1979, the top 1% of earners have raced ahead of other workers in the state. The average income of the top 1% soared by 355.1% between 1979 and 2007, and it accounted for 67.6% of the total income increase. Further, in the wake of the financial crisis, the average income of the bottom 99% fell by 1% between 2009 and 2011, while the average income of the top 1% rose by 10.7%. The wealthiest 1% earned, on average, 40.5 times the income of the bottom 99% in 2011, more than in all other states except for Connecticut.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:Getty Images)
9. Florida(02 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 68.9%.> Real income growth 1979-2007: 38.8% (16th highest)> Income growth, bottom 99%: 13.8% (18th least)> Income growth, top 1%: 218.8% (17th highest)Florida’s top 1% captured 68.9% of the state’s average income increase between 1979 and 2007. The divide between the wealthiest percentile and the rest of the population grew even wider between 2009 and 2011, as the income of the top earners rose by 9.2%, while the income of the bottom 99% barely grew at all. The state’s top 1% earned an average of $1.14 million in 2011, while the bottom 99% earned an average of just $35,393 that year. Further increasing the divide between the wealthy and the rest of the state could be the loss of jobs in Florida since 2008, especially in the construction industry.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:Getty Images)
8. Hawaii(03 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 70.9%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 12.4% (4th least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: 3.9% (7th least)> Income growth, top 1%: 118.0% (9th least)Real incomes in Hawaii rose an average of just 12.4% between 1979 and 2007, barely one-third of the U.S. growth rate of 36.9% over that time and among the lowest in the nation. Yet for most residents, real income growth was not even as high as that. The average income of the bottom 99% of earners rose just 3.9% over those 28 years. By contrast, the average income of the top 1% of Hawaiian earners more than doubled in those years. The state’s inequality has receded to some degree since then, as the average income of the top 1% declined by 12.3% between 2009 and 2011. At the end of that three-year period, the top 1% earned 12.1 times what the bottom 99% did on average, the lowest such ratio in the nation. The state’s Gini coefficient — which quantifies inequality — was also one of the lowest in the nation in 2012.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)
7. New Mexico(04 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 72.6%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 14.0% (7th least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: 4.2% (8th least)> Income growth, top 1%: 119.3% (11th least)Nearly 73% of all income growth in New Mexico between 1979 and 2007 was captured by the top 1% of earners. However, the average real income of that top 1% slipped slightly between 2009 and 2011. Also, the difference between average incomes of the top 1% and bottom 99% was not as large as in most states. Despite the relatively small income disparity, a large percentage of state residents were especially poor. In 2012, 20.8% of the population lived below the poverty line, up significantly from 17.1% in 2008. Additionally, 7.6% of households had incomes of $10,000 or less in 2012. Both percentages were among the highest in the nation. The state has also had weak GDP growth in recent years, underperforming the national growth rate in each year between 2010 and 2012.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)
6. Oregon(05 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 81.8%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 13.5% (6th least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: 2.7% (5th least)> Income growth, top 1%: 127.2% (15th least)Average income growth in Oregon was relatively low between 1979 and 2007, while the divide between the state’s top and bottom earners grew wider during that time. Average real income increased by 13.5% in the state between 1979 and 2007, the fifth lowest rate in the country. And the top 1% in the state accounted for 81% of that income growth during those years. In recent years, the income of the bottom 99% of Oregon earners may have benefited from the addition of 6,500 high-tech jobs between 2009 and 2013 — the average annual salary in high-tech manufacturing approached $100,000 as of last year. Much of the state’s population, however, continued to struggle. As of 2012, 20.1% of the state’s households received food stamps, the highest rate in the United States.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)
5. Arizona(06 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 84.2%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 17.0% (8th least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: 3.0% (6th least)> Income growth, top 1%: 157.8% (23rd least)In 1979, the top 1% of earners accounted for just 9.1% of all income in Arizona. By 2007, the top 1% accounted for a full one-fifth of all income. Incomes of the top 1% of earners soared by more than 157% during that time, while incomes of the bottom 99% rose by just 3%. Since then, matters have not changed. Between 2009 and 2011, the average real income of the bottom 99% of earners fell by 1%, even as incomes of the top 99% rose by nearly 6%. While real income growth in the state lagged the national rate over both periods, the state’s economy was among the fastest growing in the U.S. between 1979 and 2007. One possible explanation for why GDP grew as incomes remained flat is that Arizona added more than 1 million non-farm jobs between 1990 and 2007.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)
4. Michigan(07 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 101.7%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 8.9% (3rd least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: -0.2% (4th least)> Income growth, top 1%: 100.0% (4th least)Despite some good economic news for Michigan since the 2008 financial crisis, the state’s average real income growth between 1979 and 2007, as well as from 2009 to 2011, still trailed the nation as a whole. The wealthiest 1% enjoyed a 100% increase in average income between 1979 and 2007, while the average income of the bottom 99% dropped by 0.2% during those years. The income growth gap has remained wide in the years following the 2008 economic crisis. Between 2009 and 2011, the average income increase of the top 1% was 12.8%, while the average income increase of the bottom 99% was 0.2%. The good news for the bottom 99% of Michigan workers is that the U.S. auto industry has bounced back in terms of job creation and car sales.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:AP)
3. Wyoming(08 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the 1%: 102.3%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 31.5% (23rd least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: -0.8% (3rd least)> Income growth, top 1%: 354.3% (4th highest)While Wyoming’s wealthiest residents have enjoyed the benefits of the state’s immense resources, the average income of the bottom 99% of workers in the state slid by 0.8% between 1979 and 2007. The state’s overall real income grew by 31.5% in the same period, however, due entirely to a 354% increase in the average income of the top-earning 1%. The income gap continued to grow between 2009 and 2011 as well. Average income of the bottom 99% of workers rose 6.9%, and that of the top 1% increased by 13.6%. Roughly 12.7% of the state’s labor force worked in the agriculture and mining industries in 2012, the most in the nation.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)
2. Nevada(09 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the top 1%: 218.5%> Real income growth 1979-2007: 8.6% (2nd least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: -11.6% (2nd least)> Income growth, top 1%: 164.0% (24th highest)The average income in Nevada rose just 8.6% between 1979 and 2007, among the lowest increases in the nation. However, most of the state’s residents actually lost money during that time, as average real income dropped by 11.6% for the bottom 99% of earners. For the remaining top percentile of earners, average incomes rose by 164% between 1979 and 2007. As of 2007, the top 1% accounted for 28% of state residents’ total income, the fifth highest percentage in the United States. The gap between the top percentile and other earners has further increased in recent years. Incomes for the top 1% rose by 4% between 2009 and 2011, while incomes for the bottom 99% of earners slipped by a nation-leading 6.7%. Nevada has struggled with high unemployment in recent years, including an average unemployment rate of 11.1% in 2012, the highest in the nation that year.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)
1. Alaska(10 of10)
Open Image Modal
> Share of growth captured by the top 1%: All> Real income growth 1979-2007: -10.3% (the least)> Income growth, bottom 99%: -17.5% (the least)> Income growth, top 1%: 118.6% (10th least)The average real income for all workers in Alaska dropped by more than 10% between 1979 and 2007, making Alaska the only state where total income declined during that period. Despite this, the average income of Alaska’s top 1% of earners more than doubled, and incomes among the wealthy represented the only income growth in the state. Alaska’s average income per worker in the bottom 99% was $58,482 in 2011, second highest in the nation, trailing only Maryland. Due to the state’s high corporate tax collections, as well as no state sales or income taxes, Alaska has among the lowest tax burdens in the country. Alaska also benefits from its petroleum profits tax, which is paid by companies based on the value of the oil and natural gas they produce.Read more at 24/7 Wall St. (credit:WikiMedia:)