thasre
02-09-2009, 12:44 AM
Okay, so this article is called "The Meaning of Sarah Palin":
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-meaning-of-sarah-palin-14674?page=2
But I'm actually not wanting to turn this into a "let's-all-bash-Sarah-Palin" thread because I think far too many people have wasted far too much of their lives worrying about Sarah Palin. Actually, I just want to know if I'm the only one who disagrees with this sentiment from the article:
What was the Palin episode really about? The answer has much to do with the age-old tension between populism and elitism in our public life, which is to say, between the notion that we are best governed by the views, needs, and interests of the many and the conviction that power can only be managed wisely by a select few.
In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life.
Now, the meat and potatoes of this is pretty correct. But the identification of "economic elitism" with free markets and "cultural populism" with social conservatism seems backwards to me. And the same is true of the converses ("economic populism" = "socialist economics" and "cultural elitism" = "social liberalism").
Am I the only one who thinks that "economic populism" would be the kind that says that the populace ought to keep their money, do business with whom they choose, etc.? And that "cultural elitism" would be the kind of cultural perspective that says that elected officials should be able to dictate who you marry or have consensual sex with or what school you can go to, etc.?
Similarly, aren't the Democrats economic policies more elitist? - "Congress knows what to do with your money, because you don't!" And aren't their social policies more populist?
I ask this, because this sort of backwards thinking seems really dangerous to me. It seems like a way of telling "the people" what is best for them ("populism" being from the Latin word for "people", obviously):
"Oh, you should hate the rich and productive because you're 'the people' and the rich are 'the elites'! You should oppose gay marriage and support the drug war because it's what's 'best' for the 'common man'! That's what populism is!"
After a while, I feel like people start to *believe* that "the people" is some sort of actual, self-contained entity that has rights of its own! Real populism is what's best for each person individually, not "the masses"!
/rant.
I didn't mean this to go on so long, it just bothers me!
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-meaning-of-sarah-palin-14674?page=2
But I'm actually not wanting to turn this into a "let's-all-bash-Sarah-Palin" thread because I think far too many people have wasted far too much of their lives worrying about Sarah Palin. Actually, I just want to know if I'm the only one who disagrees with this sentiment from the article:
What was the Palin episode really about? The answer has much to do with the age-old tension between populism and elitism in our public life, which is to say, between the notion that we are best governed by the views, needs, and interests of the many and the conviction that power can only be managed wisely by a select few.
In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life.
Now, the meat and potatoes of this is pretty correct. But the identification of "economic elitism" with free markets and "cultural populism" with social conservatism seems backwards to me. And the same is true of the converses ("economic populism" = "socialist economics" and "cultural elitism" = "social liberalism").
Am I the only one who thinks that "economic populism" would be the kind that says that the populace ought to keep their money, do business with whom they choose, etc.? And that "cultural elitism" would be the kind of cultural perspective that says that elected officials should be able to dictate who you marry or have consensual sex with or what school you can go to, etc.?
Similarly, aren't the Democrats economic policies more elitist? - "Congress knows what to do with your money, because you don't!" And aren't their social policies more populist?
I ask this, because this sort of backwards thinking seems really dangerous to me. It seems like a way of telling "the people" what is best for them ("populism" being from the Latin word for "people", obviously):
"Oh, you should hate the rich and productive because you're 'the people' and the rich are 'the elites'! You should oppose gay marriage and support the drug war because it's what's 'best' for the 'common man'! That's what populism is!"
After a while, I feel like people start to *believe* that "the people" is some sort of actual, self-contained entity that has rights of its own! Real populism is what's best for each person individually, not "the masses"!
/rant.
I didn't mean this to go on so long, it just bothers me!