Rep. Darrell Issa didn't care that he was bucking his own president and party leadership when he led a rump group of back-bench Republicans against the financial bailout package last week.
The Vista Republican was dismissive of apocalyptic predictions of financial ruin, and he was unmoved by the plight of retirees panicked at the vanishing value of their investments.
They are “thinking like day traders,” he said, adding, “I want people to think like bankers.”
Issa said the retirees and holders of 401(k)s want “a one-day pop (in the stock market) and then I have to find a way to pay for the $700 billion forever.”
But there was one thing that did seem to concern Issa. One word he didn't want associated with his name. One word that would not mesh well with the fact that Issa may be the wealthiest member of the House, or just behind Rep. Jane Harman.
Issa's net worth has been conservatively listed as $160 million, but financial disclosure reports indicate he could be worth as much as $677 million. So please, whatever you do, do not call him a populist, even though many bailout opponents proudly wear that label.
“Yes, it was a popular thing to do,” he said of his “no” vote. “But I certainly am not a populist. I care about the businesslike activities. I care about getting the banking system running properly again.”
Issa may be just about the only politician this year who doesn't want to be called a populist.
This has been a banner year for populists on the left and the right, culminating in the first House vote rejecting the bailout – in defiance of congressional leadership, the White House and Wall Street.
For that is what populists do – they go against the political, cultural, media and economic elites, aligning themselves with what they see as the interests of common folk. From the very first colonial protest of King George III, there has been a distinctly American strain of populism and a decided distrust of the elites.
The Founding Fathers saw that and tried to insulate the fledgling government against it, with Alexander Hamilton warning against “popular passions.” But those passions could not be bottled up. From Andrew Jackson's veto of the Bank of the United States in 1832 through William Jennings Bryan's three runs for the presidency at the turn of the century and to this election, populism has been a fact of American political life.
In his current book, “The Uprising,” author and activist David Sirota warned that “an insurrection is on – a fist-pounding, primal-screaming revolt from a mob wielding protest signs, ballots, computer keyboards, shareholder proxies, and even, in some cases, guns.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton caught fire in the Democratic primaries only after she shifted to a populist pitch and cast Sen. Barack Obama as a cultural elite. Now, both Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain have cloaked their policies in a populist mantle, prompting an alarmed Karl Rove, President Bush's former political strategist, to complain in The Wall Street Journal of the candidates' “disturbing animus toward free markets.”
Obama and McCain, Rove said, “are busy demonstrating that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and irresponsibly populist.”
Rove's warnings went unheeded, though, and it seems that every politician today is a populist itching to slay the elites. Except, of course, for Darrell Issa.
George Condon is Washington bureau chief for the Union-Tribune.
George Condon: george.condon@copleydc.com
