On Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 15:20:38 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: > >On May 14, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Bill Lear wrote: > >> So, how was Thatcher(ism) populist, except as I've outlined above? > >"Getting the government of the backs of the people" and "standing >tall" had actual popular appeal in the U.S. "Union excesses" had >popular appeal in Britain. As did "Britain isn't working."
Yes, there is "appeal" and then there is "populist". I suppose we are just talking about different things. It's easy to appear populist by talking about getting the government off the backs of the people, while putting ever more government control over people into place and getting government off of the backs of the wealthy. Ditto with "standing tall" --- appearing to increase security through a radical rise in bellicosity, or one's perceived stance thereto, while simultaneously making your country less safe, etc. >> Tom Ferguson and Joel Rogers *Right Turn* I think support my views, do >> they not? > >They don't explain why Reagan and Thatcher got elected and re- >elected. They explain movements in ruling class opinion, which needed >popular ratification. If "we" can't figure out the basis of that >appeal, then we'll keep getting beaten. It's not helpful to say it >was all chicanery. Ok, so let's get past the "appeal" part and get down to what they actually did for real working-class people. The rest is by definition chicanery. What did Reagan ever do of lasting value for the vast majority in America? Bill _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
