I have NEVER, not once, criticized populism for being "less than revolutionary." I have criticized it for individualizing what are primarily systemic and institutional problems. I have said that it lacks ANY structural analysis, be it Marxist, feminist, critical race theory, Queer theory, ANY structural theory whether reform oriented or revolutionary. It is simply anti-elite--which is insufficient. See Kovel's critique:
http://www.publiceye.org/Sucker_Punch/Kovel.htm
I have NEVER, not once, criticized populism for "using themes that some on the hard-right find congenial." I have argued that when that happens, persons who consider themselves left populists have an obligation to explain how their analysis is different from hard right populism, and to stand up against the "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant" policies circulated by the right-wing populists around Buchanan.
That's what I asked of Nader when I confronted him at his speech at the ASA meeting in August 2000. He ducked the question. So there still is a BIG problem.
Max, I have known you for over twenty years and I really resent you misrepresenting my views. I would not do it to you. Why do it to me? Only a little Pinocchio?
Read the book: Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. (2000). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
Hmmmphhh!
-Chip Berlet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Organizations In Defense of Freedom
>
> You criticize populism for being less than
> revolutionary and using themes that some on
> the hard-right find congenial. Exactly what
> a literal coalition (that has no populist
> analog, far as I know) in defense of civil
> liberties is.
>
> You're only a little pregnant.
>
> mbs
>