Our ex-Sheriff, to ensure his inmates knew who was in control, served up green bologna. Susan Yeich's editorial attempting to define her love of American populism is similar. I would expect a social science researcher to do her homework and yet she seem vague about what "populism" is. Populism tries to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Like much of the Republican agenda it depends on fear, fear of foreigners, fear of poverty, fear of being left behind, fear that savings will be taken away. Behind it is a philosophy that if we pour money into the hands of a top ten per cent of the population who are already rich, the world will be a better place for everybody. To make their ideas stick there's a steady drumbeat that socialism which demands wealth be shared is a dirty word. The press constantly raises the specter of Marxism and Communism to frighten everyone into submission.

Contrary to Yeich's article, populism is not a "complex phenomenon," it is a simple matter of appealing to people's basic feelings. It is never going to make people better off or give them more opportunity. Populism does not create wealth. Greater opportunity and equality come from a stable economy which rewards labor and entrepreneurial savvy and investment. It is based on the idea of fairness and a free market economy. The American way surely has always been to help everyone get a foothold on the ladder of economic success whatever that "success" looks like. Captial investment whether from public or private sources has been the mantra driving our society.

Some Republicans question the very need for government but government is important because it establishes the ground rules for fair market practices and a legal regulatory system. Real economic progress has to come from widening opportunities and fair competition. The basis for wealth has always been the ownership of property. Ironically our housing market is an example of both the success and the failure of laissez faire economics. From the cardboard box on the street to a penthouse, there needs to be a clear pathway for people. Having thousands walking the streets or living in their cars exacerbates social problems such as alcoholism, drug use, mental illness and crime and the breakdown of family life, all of which eventually cost a lot of taxpayer dollars. Home ownership is the pathway to stability and success. But the state has to play a part in ensuring this pathway from the street to the rental market to home ownership. It did it successfully at the end of WWII giving opportunities to the millions of men returning from the war.

As an idea, populism is just rhetorical. There's no substance to it. Populism never fed people or put them in houses or gave them a standard of living. It's only a way of channelling discontent and making political hay while the sun shines. An appeal to populism satisfies an emotional need and bears no fruit except anger. Success comes from the management of the forces which drive the economy combining private and public investment. Public investment brought us the computer, the railway engine, vaccines, and a million other inventions which make our society work. How well we adapt to present circumstances will determine our future. Populism, like Arpaio's green bologna, we can do without.