Organizations In Defense of Freedom

[Max Sawicky]

I don't read Kazin as particularly critical of
the original pop's.  He describes it all as a
rhetorical style, which does neglect (without
explicitly condemning) the internal theory,
but he sees such a style as a practical
political necessity.  At least, that's
what I thought he said to me.

mbs

Hi,

Canovan and Kazin are writing in opposition to both the apologists such as
Goodwyn, and those of the classical school such as Hofstatdter.  You simply
have
the dates of various interpretations out of order.

The most recent scholarship on populism argues that Goodwyn etc. were too
soft
on populism, while Hofstadter etc. were too hard on populism.

We can disagree about the more recent scholarship, but Canovan and Kazin are
hardly fans of Hofstadter and the classical school. Neither Canovan nor
Kazin
consider the US 1890s Populists to be "provincial rubes."

Kovel argues the lack of a populist structural critique point better than I.

"Now there are plenty of good populists, as I have said. However, so long as
they remain populist, they cannot rise above the implications of its basic
method, which is to personalize politics. The racism and scapegoating can be
restrained, but the need to focus upon some personnification of evil
remains."

http://www.publiceye.org/Sucker_Punch/Kovel.htm

-Chip