Henwood vs. Cockburn

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Fri Nov 12 17:07:09 PST 1999



> >The point about *all* populist dreamers is their nationalism.
> >to believe that anything progressive whatever can emerge from any position
> >even remotely tinged with u.s. nationalism is insane. Whether such
> >populists are hairy-chested he-men or progressive women journalists
> >from Texas, they stand in the way of serious organizing.
> >Carrol
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with Carrol on the stupidity of Cockburn dreaming of
> "a populist coalition of left and right on basic issues of liberty" and the
> impossibility of 'progressive nationalism' in the USA.
> Yoshie

For what it's worth, mainstream US political scientists have begun to use term 'populist' to identify folks who favor active role for government in upholding traditional social values (apparently sharing concerns of contemporary conservatives) as well as active role for government in providing economic security (apparently sharing concerns of New Deal-type liberals).

Identification of four ideological types in US - liberal, conservative, populist (some use term communitarian), libertarian - has supplanted liberal-conservative bi-polar paradigm. Study by friends and former professors of mine - Stuart Lilie and William Maddox (now deceased) - in early 1980s initiated this approach (_Beyond Liberal and Conservative_). They took a bit of flack because their book - an analysis of public opinion data - was published by Cato Institute (neither Stuart nor Bill are/were libertarians) which some said had vested interest in findings suggesting 25% of population was libertarian. Populists, meanwhile, scored at just under 20% of population.

As I said, for what it's worth... Michael Hoover



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list