me: >>doesn't the neoliberal movement within social democracy (which Doug >>refers to) have some sort of popular base? ...
Bill Lear wrote: > Sure, but the popular appeal has been largely bogus, and, as I said, > based on appeals to fear and patriotism, etc. The policies have been > extremely harmful to the "popular base". By which you mean the working class, right? but what I'm suggesting is that these parties have wider popular bases than that. Social-democratic and labor parties have traditionally been cross-class coalitions (though likely not as much as the US DP). Cross-class coalitions seem needed to actually get elected in most places. me: >> ... a lot of "middle class" >>people (small businessfolk, professionals) vote for these "leftish" >>parties, didn't they? and some "enlightened capitalists"? don't these >>groups often find free-market mantras attractive? > I hardly see why "small businessfolk" should be seen as part of a > "popular" base, given they are a small fraction of the population as a > whole. along with professionals, these folks are often very articulate, have surplus cash to spend, and are highly motivated to push their political agendas. Some of them have more extra time than blue-collar working people. The old (Saint-Simon) appeal to the broadly-defined "working people" (those outside of the corporate elite) still resonates with many. Thus, these folks have some power and influence in social-democratic and labor parties. > The bottom line is this: the major parties pursue (very limited) > populist policies only to the extent they must when their faux > populist appeals fail and when true electoral competition arises. You seem to assume that "populist" is a good thing. Here in the US, there have always been right-wing populists along with the left-wing ones, while some populists have switched wings. (For example, Tom Watson, a major leader of the late 19th century People's Party in the US became a racist even though he'd been anti-racist previously.) "Populist" usually involves an appeal to the mass of "little guys" to fight the distant and powerful "elite." I can imagine that some of the labor and/or social-democratic parties appealed to the little guys in order to justify a shift to neoliberalism. That may not be "faux" populism, however, if it involved appealing to the narrow individual greed of the little guys. Instead, it's a right-wing kind of populism. By the way, I am not denying that these neoliberals have engaged in underhanded tactics or would do poorly when "true electoral competition arises." Of course, the old-style social democrats were not totally above such tactics either. Nor did they like true electoral competition that much. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
