> Hi,
>
>
> Krugman:
>
> "The main lesson of Conason's book, however, is that hypocrisy works.
> Phony populism convinces the public that the greedy rich are regular
> guys; whining about the "liberal media" helps to entrench a de facto
> conservative bias; noisy tirades about morality convince voters that
> liberals are sinners; flag pins in the lapels of draft dodgers let them
> question the patriotism of critics."
>
>
> This IS all about the political right using Gramsci's theories to
> establish cultural hegemony through skillful framing of issues and the
> use of right-wing populist rhetoric that generally plays well to a broad
> audience in the U.S. What is puzzling is why the liberals and the left
> can't seem to break through this crap with a set of frames and messages
> that captures the public's attention.
>
> Some of them actually cite Gramsci.
=====================
*Even more* of them follow Mark Hanna.
Why leftists think the US right is infatuated with European leftists when so much of what those Euros discussed was developed in the US by nineteenth century apologists for the transformation from republicanism to corporate liberalism is part of the problem as well. Just because a few right wingers quote Gramsci doesn't mean they all pour over his works whenever they get themselves in an ideological pickle. It's better to understand the US right from within it's appropriation of US history than go fishing for deep clues across the Atlantic. It's part and parcel of why Theodore Lowi's "The End of the Republican Era" gets more attention from liberals than, say, Stephen Gill.
Ian