By Charlie Houston

Most of us do not remember this slogan from the late 1960s counterculture days. This was a dark time for the country, and “Power to the People” became a slogan for protesters against the Vietnam War, “the system,” and “the Man.”

There were many iconic photographs of a protester raising a clenched fist and holding a sign. Protesting males usually had long hair or an Afro; women had lank hair and wore uber-casual clothing.

It’s been years since I’ve heard that slogan, but now, consider “Power to the People” literally—and not in anger—as the political philosophy we call “Populism.”

Ancient History

In classical Athens, power rested with male citizens, who could vote directly on laws, wars and more. Today, that concept of direct democracy can be seen in some parts of New England and especially in the very rural Swiss canton of Appenzell. 

While direct democracy would seem to be pure populism, it wasn’t. Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed that direct democracy could become mob rule when the populace was sufficiently stirred up by bad actors. 

Very ancient Rome was ruled by monarchs—kings. Later, in its classical era, government was anti-monarchial, with authority vested in two consuls. It changed again during the Roman Empire, when various Caesars ruled. 

Notably, in both Athens and Rome, ambitious politicians would demagogue the citizenry and manipulate the resulting rage to their own ends. Sound familiar?

Our Founding Fathers

Jefferson, Madison et al feared direct democracy, which they felt could lead to mob rule. Their answer? Create a Republic with many checks and balances. 

I fear that today, people don’t realize their genius.

Populism Perverted

Louisiana’s notorious politician, the late Huey Long, linked a populist message with his authoritarian rule. Today we hear some politicians using populism as a rationale for “seizing the means of production.” That phrase is classical Marxism, and we need to beware of it. Other politicians speak of giving power to “the working class,” but seem to want to be in charge of those workers. That’s Leninism.

Populism as a Belief

My ideal would be a republican form of government where those in government truly served the citizens first, not business or Labor. I’d add one proviso: Term limits. Aside from that point, the only thing needed is an attitudinal change, not just by elected politicians but by the government staff. 

Locally, the County periodically surveys its residents, but the latest polls mean nothing. Earlier polls did.

The most recent polls asked questions like these: Do you like Loudoun? Are parks nice? Is housing expensive? Almost as a footnote, the survey mentioned a few areas where residents saw problems. 

Earlier polls skipped the feel-good questions and focused on problems cited by residents. Traffic and excessive growth were almost unanimously cited as complaints. (Today, data centers would be at the top of the list.) Obviously, nothing was done to alleviate residents’ main concerns. Has growth slowed? No. Is traffic better? No.

Seeing the major complaints feels more important than getting the “feel good” answers to the revised poll.

County Staff

Friends of ours complained to the County that their next-door neighbor was running a heavy construction business on a lot with residential zoning. Worse, his big machines were cranked up at around six o’clock in the morning. A zoning staff member arrived, heard my friends’ complaint and then went to see the contractor. Perversely, he spent that time suggesting zoning loopholes the contractor could use.

I recall that despite giant dump trucks and such, the County guy deemed the construction operation a “small business” and thus permitted by zoning. It’s hard to think that a yard full of heavy construction equipment is a “small business.” 

The staffer should have come at the problem from a different direction, and thought to himself, “This is a bad situation. How can I protect the poor homeowner?”

That’s what I mean by an attitudinal change.

Stakeholders

County government is supposed to be governed by our General Plan (which has a statutory requirement to be updated every five years, and it’s been six years since it was passed) Next came a new zoning ordinance a few years later. 

For each of these undertakings, the Board appointed a group of people to do the initial work. A “Stakeholders Committee” handled the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance Committee worked to create a zoning ordinance that embodied the ideas in the Plan.

Well-meaning supervisors envisioned these committees as being comprised of every group that had a stake in the outcome. The Stakeholders Committee ended up being heavily weighted towards business interests. The Zoning Ordinance Committee included developers and their cronies, who formed a majority.

This was very bad.

Both documents have serious flaws that hurt residents. For example, breweries are considered agriculture while “farm” is not one of the defined terms. There was heated debate about that as business members fought against such a definition.

A Second Chance?

The zoning ordinance always needs refinements or updates, and the General Plan is supposed to be updated every five years. I suggest the relevant committees be comprised of nine residents, none of whom have ties to business, and that those committees may have “advisory panels” of up to five business experts.

That would be populism as it should be.

Despite his MBA, a career developing office buildings, and being a capitalist, Charlie Houston has evolved into a populist.