> By backlash I mean populist conservatism of the kind pioneered in
> -------------
>
> Blah, blah, blah. I don't buy it.
>
> I was immediately struck by the fact that race was never mentioned in
> this article---not once. In my view the core to understanding the US
> rightwing appeal to `backlash' is racism, pure and simple. Calling it
> `populist conservatism' is a Democratic Party white wash.
One of the chief reasons for the Left's continued marginality is its tendency to cling to outdated aguments and analysis. Thus, it is argued that contemporary "backlash" conservatism relies on racism. Chuck talks about George Wallace, but he doesn't give any examples of how contemporary backlash conservatives fan the flames of racism.
Because they don't do this anymore, unless they are fanning the flames of hatred against people in the Middle East.
Thomas Frank's argument is on target because he examines how contemporary backlash conservativism work. Chuck is giving this ideology too much credit for sophistication. It works on very simple levels. People who buy into this stuff passionately hate "liberals." Everything has been reduced in conservative backlash ideology into blaming the liberals. You can see how this operates by reading the most crass stuff at websites like Frontpagemag.com.
Chuck, do you know any Dittoheads or people who watch Fox News constantly? I suggest you talk to people like this and observe how often race comes up. Not very often.
These guys have all the bases covered. Last night I got a box of catalogs from AK Press, an anarchist publisher and distributor in California. I gave a copy to my father, who opened it and found the section of Noam Chomsky books. His first words were, "Noam Chomsky? What a jerk."
I'm looking forward to reading Frank's books. From what I've read and heard of his analysis so far, it jives with my understanding and experience with the right wing.
Chuck0