http://jweeks.org/22%20CC%20Populism.html
In my last comment I recalled the career of the great American progressive
Robert La Follette. La Follette and the Progressive Party of 1924 bring to
mind
political populism. The term “populist” is frequently used by the defenders of
the status quo to disparage progressives and their causes. A bit of research
suggests that the negative use in Europe copies the emerging practice in the
United States.
To take recent examples, a writer for the Bloomberg on-line news
described President Obama’s State of the Union address as “newfound populism”
that was “mere political posturing”. During the worst of the banking collapse,
the never-out-reactionaried Economist bemoaned a “populist backlash” that was
threatening to overwhelm sensible discussion about the long-suffering banks.
The use of “populist” as a term of insult is not limited to the right of
center. Moving along the left wing, it is used with equal intent to insult,
frequently in the context of anti-immigration and crime. Recently in The
Guardian, Polly Toynbee refereed to Tory "populism" on prisons policy (not as a
compliment, I suspect).
I strongly urge that progressives stop using “populist” and
“populism” as pejorative terms. The negative connotations that the words evoke
reinforce the reactionary discourse of capital and its surrogates. It fosters
the impression that the political views of the masses of the population are
volatile, potentially dangerous and more easily manipulated that those of the
better educated and more sophisticated. This specification of populism is
historically incorrect and analytically superficial.
The political philosophy of Populism treats society as divided
between a small, wealthy and powerful elite, and the vast majority of working
people. Its political agenda seeks fundamental change to redress the imbalance
in power between the two. To quote from the Cambridge English Dictionary,
populism supports “political ideas and activities that are intended to
represent
ordinary people's needs and wishes”. The CED has it right and critics have it
wrong.
When I was at the University of Texas, there was an economics
professor, Robert H. Montgomery, who had been called before the state
legislature in 1936. Doctor Bob (as he was universally known) was asked if he
was a member of any subversive organizations. His answer was the essence of
Texas populism, “Yes, Senator, I am a proud member of two: the Methodist church
that tells people they can speak directly to god without a priest, and the
Democratic Party that says people can rule themselves without kings and queens.”
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
