Responses below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of
Michael Pollak
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:53 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Zoe Heller on Arianna Stassinopoulos
(Huffington)
>
>
> On Thu Feb 08 2001, Chip Berlet wrote:
>
> > Arianna Stassinopoulos (Huffington) is a classic
right-wing
> populist.
> > If you read her book and then cruise her website, she
supports tax
> > cuts for the rich, privatizing welfare and turning it
over to
> > "faith-based groups,"
>
> So do Al Gore and Joe Lieberman.
>
The issue is why leftists would support her, don't be obtuse.
> > and railing against government and wealthy elites, which
is what the
> > John Birch Society has been doing for years.
>
> So if Al and Joe started railing against government
elites, that would
> make them right wing populists akin to John Birchers? It
> wouldn't mean
> they'd moved left?
This is a trick question. Spare me the cheap rhetorical twists. I never said this or implied this. Try to be fair. If Al and Joe railed against elites, it would mean they were using populist rhetoric. Populist rhetoric can be used to move people to the left of right. I did not say that Arianna was like the JBS, my point was her anti-elite rhetoric did not automatically place her on the left, as can be seen in the right-wing libertarian populist rhetoric of the JBS.
> I thought for a classical right wing populist in your
sense,
> one needed a
> combination of anti-elitism, ethnic scapegoating and
> conspiracy theory.
> Are you saying that Arianna has elements 2 and 3?
No, I did not say that. Again, an unfair twist. Are you saying you intentionally misrepresent statements to make cheap argumentative points? When did you stop beating your dog? Are you claiming you are too stupid to understand my arguments? When did you start channeling for Socrates? Are you tired of this sophistry?
# # #
Populism=a style of organizing that seeks to mobilize "the people" against elites.
Right-wing populism=populism that has an agenda that moves issues to the right.
Repressive populism=populism that uses scapegoating to attack groups lower on the socio-economic ladder. Can be left or right. Often involves ethnocentrism.
repressive right-wing populism=as above, but rightist.
Conspiracism=a form of scapegoating that is frequently used by populists.
In practice, "classic" right wing populism in US history is repressive, and uses conspiracism to justify scapegoating, often using a narrative called "producerism." In short, we could not find an actual right-wing populist movement that was not ultimately repressive, although in theory, I suppose it is possible using great imagination to conceptualize one. Be my guest.
= = =
Adapted from the book Right-Wing Populism in America:
"Michael Kazin calls populism a style of organizing. This means populist movements can be on the right, the left, or the center. Populist movements can be egalitarian or authoritarian, and can rely on decentralized networks or a charismatic leader. They can advocate new social and political relations or romanticize the past. Especially important for our purposes, populist movements can promote forms of anti-elitism that target either genuine structures of oppression or scapegoats alleged to be part of a secret conspiracy. And they can define “the people” in ways that are inclusive and challenge traditional hierarchies, or in ways that silence or demonize oppressed groups."
"We use the term repressive populist movement to describe a populist movement that combines anti-elite scapegoating (discussed below) with efforts to maintain or intensify systems of social privilege and oppression. Repressive populist movements are fueled in large part by peoples' grievances against their own oppression, but they deflect popular discontent away from positive social change by targeting only small sections of the elite or groups falsely identified with the elite, and especially by channeling most anger against oppressed or marginalized groups that offer more vulnerable targets. Right-wing populist movements are a subset of repressive populist movements.
"A right-wing populist movement, as we use the term, is a repressive populist movement motivated or defined centrally by a backlash against liberation movements, social reform, or revolution. This does not mean that right-wing populism’s goals are only defensive or reactive, but rather that its growth is fueled in a central way by fears of the Left and its political gains. The first U.S. populist movement we would unequivocally describe as right wing was the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan, which was a counterrevolutionary backlash against the overthrow of slavery and Black people’s mass mobilization and empowerment in the post-Civil War South. Earlier repressive populist movements paved the way for right-wing populism, but did not have this same backlash quality as a central feature."
"We use the term producerism in a different way than Catherine McNicol Stock does in her book Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996). Stock portrays producerism simply as a form of populist antielitism, separate from (though sometimes coinciding with) attacks on people of color. In our view, producerism intrinsically involves a dual-edged combination of anti-elitism and oppression (in the US setting, usually in the form of racism or antisemitism, but also sexism and homophobia) and it is precisely this combination that must be addressed."
= = =
>Or that
> all you need is
> element 1, plus not being a leftist, to be beyond the
pale?
>
This is not a question of being "beyond the pale." It has to do with arguing that anti-elite rhetoric can mask right-wing plans. I think Arianna is a right-wing populist. I agree she is a libertarian. There is a connservative Christian libertarian movement that talks of "compassionate conservatism," and she seems to promote groups in that category, as does Marvin Olasky who coined the phrase. So I think that Arianna "combines anti-elite scapegoating with efforts to maintain or intensify systems of social privilege and oppression," and she promotes ideas like a tax cut for the rich and forms of "welfare reform" to fight poverty that are objectively right-wing in form and essence, therefore she can be called a right-wing populist.
Furthermore, the John Birch Society is often labelled "extremist" in a way that misrepresents their actual policy goals, which are libertarian and social traditionalist, just like most of the right-wing of the Republican Party. Similar to John Ashcroft, you know, the new Attorney General. Kind of hard to call the AG "beyond the pale." It's a meaningless label, just like "extremist" and "luantic fringe."
If you want to continue this discussion, please drop the "Socrates on Acid" persona. It's done better at this website: http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sclinic.htm
-Chip Berlet