Populism and the economic crisis

Something I have noticed since last week is that the outrage over the AIG bonuses has been described as "populist". Over at Marc Ambinder's Atlantic page, you might have seen the picture on the right.

When I hear the term "populist", I hear a slur, an insult. But before I go further, I want to take a second to define the term. Constitutional Scholar Jack Balkin writes:

As its name implies, populism sees itself primarily devoted to furthering and defending the interests and attitudes of ordinary citizens. It has traditionally been distrustful of large and powerful organizations, whether public or private. It views massive government bureaucracy and corporate privilege with equal suspicion. Moreover, concentrations of power and privilege held too long by the same persons lead inevitably to moral and political corruption. This view has two consequences: The first is a preference for regular rotations of positions of authority and power. The second is a preference for popular participation in economic and political structures that affect the lives of ordinary citizens.

You could say that any grouping of the "ordinary" citizens implies that there is some implicit group of "extraordinary" citizens and that that idea is insulting. On the other hand, denying that there are people with more power in any given group is not accurate. In this way, I have to recognize that I am ok with the term "ordinary" as a way of saying "not as empowered as others are".

All of this is to say that I am not insulted if this is the definition of "populism". But if it is, I don't think that it necessarily applies to the outrage over the financial crisis. I think that there is another dynamic going on though. The AIG bonuses, the money transfers, these all seem, if not illegal, then morally wrong. The "wrongness" of these actions has nothing to do with the "extraordinariness" of the people committing them.

I think it is the same outrage that one feels when:

• A local PT overcharges for Medicaid services she never actually provided,
• An executive director of a rehab facility steals money from her own organization,
• Two judges funneling kids into prison for their own profit.

Now, Ambinder has some analysis noting the implications of this outrage if it really is populist. But ultimately I think that the angry responses have more to do with a more basic sense of justice. Fraud is wrong, and it is deeply unsettling.