In my posts - even my first one which was admittedly flippant - I think I always emphasized the important to be cynical of elites and to verify what we are told. I don’t think I ever said “reject” or “repudiate” everything we are told. This is like the distinction between our revolution and the French revolution. We created new law, they just through through out the law entirely.
Populism of William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, and even Ralph Nader is doomed to failure. The idea of a fair play and being treated equally under the law is mutually exclusive with ceding all the power to a big central government. As power and money are concentrated in one place, it only guarantee greater corruption and more effort at circumventing the rules for the well-connected.
Certainly, the ‘populism’ of the right today, is much more sustainable. It is a revolution against cronyism and crooked deals seeking a much smaller government.
All the regulations, rules, and reviews cannot really stop cronyism and special deals. The way to make it manageable to control and limit is with a limited government operating under clear and limited regulations, thereby reducing the potential take.
Your point about the founding fathers being ‘elites’ is well taken. They were in the sense they were the elites of the colonies, but they were not the elites of the British governing class.
They obviously had something great to offer and were critical to establishing a sound and lasting republic. I do not seek to emulate the French revolution and kill them all, I seek to emulate our revolution and carefully screen who I believe and follow.
Take care,
I seek to emulate our revolution and carefully screen who I believe and follow.”
One could say that is the heart of conservatism....