> I might add that right wing populism with its fundamentalist edge has
> also been a force in NA politics for at least the last 100 years. The
> difference seems to be a lack of left wing populism today. In that
> regard I believe there has been a retreat of the left away from the blue
> collar working class.
The reasons for this are very simple. The American Left, broadly speaking (including liberals), is not going to regain a widespread constituency until it adopts a populist, i.e. *libertarian*, program and rhetoric. This means that in order to beat the right wing, the Left has to look more anarchist or libertarian leftist.
But the left isn't going to do this, because it is still wedded to the pro-government, pro-capitalist Democratic Party. It hasn't been able to beat the right wing by aping the pro-government neo-cons and we all know that the liberals will never adopt any anti-government stance. People don't like government interference in their lives. They also know about the history of authoritarian leftism (i.e. the Soviet Union and China) and they want no part of that either.
This is what frustrates me about Tom Frank. His analysis is very perceptive, but he adopts the wrong conclusion: tinkering with liberalism. If you want to beat the right wing in the red states, you'll need to come up with a left libertarian program.
Meanwhile, while you blue state leftists discuss this quandary, we red state anarchists will be busy organizing without your help. ;-)
Chuck