Posted on 04/17/2017 7:00:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Leftists deride the “bad” populism of angry and misdirected grievances lodged clumsily against educated and enlightened “elites,” often by the unsophisticated and the undereducated. Bad populism is fueled by ethnic, religious, or racial chauvinism, and typified by a purportedly “dark” tradition from Huey Long and Father Coughlin to George Wallace and Ross Perot.
Such retrograde populism to the liberal mind is to be contrasted with a “good” progressive populism of early-twentieth-century and liberal Minnesota or Wisconsin—solidarity through unions, redistributionist taxes, cooperatives, granges, and credit unions to protect against banks and corporations—now kept alive by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Good leftwing populism rails against supposedly culpable elites—those of the corporate world and moneyed interests—but not well-heeled intellectuals, liberal politicians, and the philanthropic class of George Soros, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, who make amends for their financial situations by redistributing their millions to the right causes....
(Excerpt) Read more at newcriterion.com ...
Ping. Exceptional article on how Trump won.
Skimming, looks very good and I’ll read it in detail.
But it seems to me that Trump has the ability to make populism really work, because unlike most others in the end he really is not beholden to anyone, isn’t bound by political ideology or party, and doesn’t need the job.
I still marvel at how he basically hijacked the Republican party right under from under the establishment, and then hired it’s former head to be his chief of staff!
Maybe I should ping you on this.
Populism. A simple word, yet so very complex in the mean of reality.
The problem lies withing the facts of the Bell Curve of intelligence and comprehension. Mathematically the median is the popular while realistically those to the right are better informed to solve the issues at hand.
If one is to the left of the curve, they may not understand that we to the right, have a more secure and realistically logical plan.
We can blame it on stubbornness, testosterone, estrogen, or just plain bad parenting. What really matters is that we follow logic and never allow the lazy and those blinded by idiocy to rule us.
In theory there is no difference between theory and reality.
In reality there is a great deal of difference.
I read the entire piece, a well written, if not elitist tome from a respected and erudite professor of the classics. I doubt one in a hundred understand his arcane words and terminology used to express his points, but nevertheless a nicely written piece, and in consideration of its length, a lot of time and effort went into this, not unusual for the author. My one—but not only criticism—would be the last and final paragraph, a one-sentence denouement that fails to wrap up an otherwise scholarly article.
These three selections develop the pattern:
Trump soon was using the plural possessive pronoun, in speaking of “our miners,” “our vets,” and “our farmers,” in terms of endearment never heard of in past elections, as he assured the hurting middle classes that their pain was not preordained but calibrated, and that they were not the estranged but the soon to be rescued.
...the Democratic “blue wall” that had stymied both John McCain and Mitt Romney was largely a landscape of hurting white and blue-collar workers who were also culturally turned off by the Democrats’ identity politics mantras that had ignored class for tribal affiliations.
Trump suspected that elites like himself never directly experienced the downsides of illegal immigration: hit-and-run accidents, increased gang crime, drugs, swamped emergency rooms, crowded social service offices, and schools full of non-English speakers. Unlike his rivals, he neither ignored the real-life roughness of illegal immigration nor ridiculed as illiberal and worse those who experienced the consequences first-hand.
Hence the essence of a populist campaign: a sense that the difficulties of the middle class were deliberate that was helped immeasurably by Hillary's cheerful admission that they were and that she intended to continue them; a sense the the middle class were cordially, achingly tired of the incessant racist rhetoric around which the Democrat platform had coalesced; a conviction that the consequences of elitist policies were not felt by the elitists and were by the voters. That's the formula. It helped a good deal that each appreciation was well-founded in actual fact.
And one last piece in place:
Finally, Trump cemented his populist message by mocking political correctness.
That mockery proved accurate and deadly, and its appeal to certain Internet demographics were raw meat to a hungry lion. The truth about political correctness is that it's stupid and only maintained by outrageous bullying. It is terribly vulnerable to the ridicule it has earned.
And at last VDH's money shot:
What we learned on Election Day is that progressive culture—identity politics, radical feminism, boutique environmentalism, metrosexual careerism—appeals to no more than half the country, even if it’s the more influential and wealthier half. When Middle America found itself targeted by globalization and was culturally caricatured for its supposed irredeemable and deplorable habits by the smug winners of internationalism, is it a surprise that it looked desperately for a politician who promised to put them back to work and to honor rather than deride their manner of living?
And yet the losers still haven't a clue why they lost. "It was the Russians" is so pathetic one has to wonder that it can be repeated with a straight face by anyone over the age of 10. The radicals lost. The racists lost, the haters lost, and the media lost, and none of these is remotely capable of finding the answer in their own mirrors.
My sentiment precisely.
The article leaves out everything of importance about Trump: his intelligence, organizational skill, ability to turn detractors into supporters, hard work, commitment to keep his word, and more.
These are some of the reasons I voted for him, not the rationale carefully constructed by Hanson.
Trump has a unique way of throwing out red herrings to distract his opponents while drilling in on the issues that are important. This has exemplified his first 100 days and will continue to illuminate his entire administration.
VDH is highly perceptive and articulate but can[t quite separate himself from some coastal conceits, such as the trade deals and Mercantilist systems of the elite being “Free Trade.” They are not. They are managed and monopolistic trade that incorporates proactively redesigning nations and humanity for the benefit of a tiny oligarchy. It is all 21st century feudal in outlook.
Good article. A bit laborious, though. It could have half the length and have had twice the impact, IMO.
Tagging this for later. And they STILL don’t get it!
Amazing. Victor Davis Hanson ‘gets’ it.
Dang, how did Trump get so smart to figure all that out? Or maybe it’s just his Judeo-Christian work ethic and commonsense patriotism shining through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.