The notion that populism can be good or bad seems to signify a dark cloud of suspicion, or some extra burden of proof. ANY ideology can be good or bad. Communism or socialism, for example. You all can name the rest.
What Chip calls "historic currents with potentially negative consequences" -- producerism, anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism, majoritarianism, moralism, Americanism -- are similarly ambiguous outside of context. Any of these could be given a benign, progressive cast. Context is what matters. You could write a parallel list for socialism.
Goodwyn is described as having an axe to grind. Well don't we all. One such axe is the classic one of liberal elites, which I believe well predates Daniel Bell, but historiography is not my long suit.
The liberal elite criticism has been to equate criticism of the banking industry and specific bankers anti-semitism and conspiracism; to equate criticism of monetary policy with quackery; and to equate protectionism and/or economic nationalism with xenophobia and nativism.
Another axe is that of the anti-populist marxist. Criticism of banks or even monopoly in general is held to be incorrect doctrine. Support for farmers and proprietors, more incorrect doctrine, flowing into so-called "producerism," wherein defense of workers, farmers, and proprietors is equated with contempt for welfare bums. The radical view overlaps with much of the liberal view, but the rhetoric is a little different. Expansionary monetary policy is supposed to be 'impossible under capitalism.' What is insufficient becomes positively criminal, as per Carrol, since it distracts the masses from the correct line.
I'll leave it to Chip to judge how much of the preceding applies to him, and move more specifically to what he says, such as:
"Often, instead of challenging structures and institutions of power, they attack demonized scapegoats."
One could translate this, uncharitably, to be saying, instead of talking like academics, they act like politicians. I'm afraid demonization and scapegoating is the mother's milk of ALL popular politics. Just pause and reflect how much demonization could be found right here on LBO, from all political corners. Maybe Adlai Stevenson and George McGovern never stooped to such tactics, but we know what happened to them. FDR had the 'economic royalists.'
The "producerism" critique is my main interest.
Producerism could be boiled down to a vigorous but reformist critique of monetary policy and financial regulation, a protest of small proprietors and farmers against monopoly, and more recently to a laborite, protectionist critique of "free trade."
There is nothing in the essay that takes these issues on directly -- only an elaborate exercise in suspicion-by-association. Even worse, these issues are boiled down to a crude, symmetrical hatred of the top and the bottom.
In the same vein, some positive strands of 'producerism', such as support for industrial action, and an interest in cooperatives and public enterprises -- a hallmark of both the old movement (pre-1900) and some left contemporary vintages -- are not much in evidence in the critique. Connecting these ideas to modern vigilantism is outrageous and ridiculous. Producerism requires government. The modern cowboys are all anti-government, especially central government. The right-populists of the 1930's and after turned anti-government. The Birchers were anti-government. All these parties are described as 'producerist.' This is only possible if one guts the economic program of the old movement. I understand why elite liberal historians do this. It's elitism & ignorance of economics. As for radicals, well I guess they have an axe to grind.
I am a producerist. Certain financial & monetary policy can be shown to inhibit economic growth, and some manufacturers sympathize with my concern. This makes the financial sector an extremely ripe and appropriate target. I'm not hung up on private ownership of capital, in principle, though under assorted conditions I would prevent it, discourage it, regulate it, or tax it. I don't think those who are self-employed, who operate small commercial enterprises, or who direct traffic and guard prisoners are much different from other working people. And I think if you are able-bodied you ought to work. If anyone wants to score all that as bigotry, be my guest and enjoy your tiny audience. Politics will proceed elsewhere, regardless, just like in Seattle, which assorted radicals here have all kinds of problems with.
There is NO implication from this of any stigma towards welfare recipients or paupers. Although my knowledge of it is limited, I've seen nothing about the old populist movement which had the negative baggage attributed to 'producerism.' They certainly didn't have the welfare system to kick around. There was some religious and ethnic bigotry directed towards the urban Irish, who were Democratic, Catholic, and wet. EVen so, this would be beside the point if it could be shown.
It is wrong to attach bigotry to reformist critiques of finance, or to economic nationalism. They can be criticized for being 'not-socialism,' for being wrong, or both. Guilt by association should not apply. Otherwise everyone here could be condemned for opposing the economic blockade of Cuba, something recently condemned by Pat Buchanan.
After what seems to be a pretty harsh critique, Chip ends on a hopeful note -- that activists should try to engage grassroots, not condemn them out of hand. "Engagement" can take a lot of forms, some good and some bad. Like populism.
giggles to all, mbs