Uniting the Populists - Left and Right
I recently came across Daniel Nichols' post "Beyond Political Manicheism: a New Populism?". The basic point he makes is that the established political labels of "Left" and "Right" are basically obsolete and meaningless. When you honestly think about it, it's not difficult to come to this conclusion.
Political discourse nowadays is nothing but a bunch of loud-mouth commentators like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Phil Donahue, etc. basically shouting at each other and calling people names; either on their TV shows, radio programming, websites/blogs, or in newspapers and magazines. Then each side tries to portray their shouting matches as the ultimate battle between the forces of good and evil. Liberals are nothing more than Bin Laden's fifth column in America, and Conservatives are just Bible-thumping redneck hicks from the boonies who want to keep us all in "the Dark Ages"(*Twilight Zone theme playing the background*). And so on. This would all seem very entertaining if it weren't so pathetic, especially when taking into effect this is what counts for "intelligent" discussion on political and social issues.
Yet, thankfully, on both sides of the spectrum there are those who actually stand for deeply held principles. To these people, political discussion is not about obnoxious name-calling. Rather, to them political discussion is about the contest between different visions of the world and determining which vision will best serve the common good of society. In order to intelligently decide which vision is best for society, one has to know what on earth they're actually talking about!
Nichols notes another important similarity between these two (supposedly) different camps, they both operate on a populist agenda. Populists stand in opposition to the established powers and speak out for the needs of the common people, which they (often correctly) perceive are being ignored by the establishment. They call for democracy in its true sense; a government of the people, for the people.
Yet too often democracy (or even government in general) has been corrupted by powerful elites, which manipulate the systems of power to serve their own narrow interests. In his book What's Wrong with the World, G.K. Chesterton best described these menacing elites with the nicknames of Hudge and Gudge. Long story short, Hudge stands for Big Government while Gudge is for Big Business. Although on the surface they may seem to be deadly enemies, yet in reality they're more alike than different. And as Chesterton further explained, they both have a similar goal, to screw with the lives of the common man (nicknamed "Jones").
Chesterton's work, though written back in 1910, very much accurately describes the current situation of modern politics. Simply put, the Democrats are the party of Hudge while the Republicans are the party of Gudge. Politics sure does make a whole lot more sense now doesn't it? So what counts as political discussion to these two factions is pretty much battling over issues that only really concern themselves. Not only that, they both can depend on their own private armies of media agitators to sell their arguments to the general public and make it seem like that these issues actually concern the interests of the common man.
That or when a major issue does come up, the arguments given are extremely shallow or trivial; or even worse blown out of proportion as the only major issue that matters. Perfect examples of such are the issues surrounding abortion and gay marriage. Not that these issues are not important, but let's also remember that the world doesn't revolve around these issues either.
Anyways, back to the original topic here. The people who wish to stand up to the powers of Hudge and Gudge are the populists, who operate on both sides of the political spectrum. Just like their counterparts Hudge and Gudge, populists of both the Left and Right often have more similarities than differences, although come to similar conclusions from different perspectives. So who are the modern opponents of Hudge and Gudge? Nichols names them as none other than Pat Buchanan of the Right, and Ralph Nader of the Left. And rather than simply imitating the charade contest of Hudge vs. Gudge, Nichols (along with others) advocate that these two should unite against what really amounts to their common enemy. That is most certainly an undertaking worth pursuing.
Note: It is interesting how Nichols discusses the estranged relationship between the Left and populism. The Left often just caters to the interests of Berkeley-style elites. Yet this wasn't always so. The Left was actually often associated with populism until being hijacked by the elitist New Left that emerged in the 1960's. Nichols presents George McGovern as the archetype of an old-fashion Leftist populist. Maybe, but perhaps that distinction should go to none other than William Cobbett. Just my opinion.
Political discourse nowadays is nothing but a bunch of loud-mouth commentators like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Phil Donahue, etc. basically shouting at each other and calling people names; either on their TV shows, radio programming, websites/blogs, or in newspapers and magazines. Then each side tries to portray their shouting matches as the ultimate battle between the forces of good and evil. Liberals are nothing more than Bin Laden's fifth column in America, and Conservatives are just Bible-thumping redneck hicks from the boonies who want to keep us all in "the Dark Ages"(*Twilight Zone theme playing the background*). And so on. This would all seem very entertaining if it weren't so pathetic, especially when taking into effect this is what counts for "intelligent" discussion on political and social issues.
Yet, thankfully, on both sides of the spectrum there are those who actually stand for deeply held principles. To these people, political discussion is not about obnoxious name-calling. Rather, to them political discussion is about the contest between different visions of the world and determining which vision will best serve the common good of society. In order to intelligently decide which vision is best for society, one has to know what on earth they're actually talking about!
Nichols notes another important similarity between these two (supposedly) different camps, they both operate on a populist agenda. Populists stand in opposition to the established powers and speak out for the needs of the common people, which they (often correctly) perceive are being ignored by the establishment. They call for democracy in its true sense; a government of the people, for the people.
Yet too often democracy (or even government in general) has been corrupted by powerful elites, which manipulate the systems of power to serve their own narrow interests. In his book What's Wrong with the World, G.K. Chesterton best described these menacing elites with the nicknames of Hudge and Gudge. Long story short, Hudge stands for Big Government while Gudge is for Big Business. Although on the surface they may seem to be deadly enemies, yet in reality they're more alike than different. And as Chesterton further explained, they both have a similar goal, to screw with the lives of the common man (nicknamed "Jones").
Chesterton's work, though written back in 1910, very much accurately describes the current situation of modern politics. Simply put, the Democrats are the party of Hudge while the Republicans are the party of Gudge. Politics sure does make a whole lot more sense now doesn't it? So what counts as political discussion to these two factions is pretty much battling over issues that only really concern themselves. Not only that, they both can depend on their own private armies of media agitators to sell their arguments to the general public and make it seem like that these issues actually concern the interests of the common man.
That or when a major issue does come up, the arguments given are extremely shallow or trivial; or even worse blown out of proportion as the only major issue that matters. Perfect examples of such are the issues surrounding abortion and gay marriage. Not that these issues are not important, but let's also remember that the world doesn't revolve around these issues either.
Anyways, back to the original topic here. The people who wish to stand up to the powers of Hudge and Gudge are the populists, who operate on both sides of the political spectrum. Just like their counterparts Hudge and Gudge, populists of both the Left and Right often have more similarities than differences, although come to similar conclusions from different perspectives. So who are the modern opponents of Hudge and Gudge? Nichols names them as none other than Pat Buchanan of the Right, and Ralph Nader of the Left. And rather than simply imitating the charade contest of Hudge vs. Gudge, Nichols (along with others) advocate that these two should unite against what really amounts to their common enemy. That is most certainly an undertaking worth pursuing.
Note: It is interesting how Nichols discusses the estranged relationship between the Left and populism. The Left often just caters to the interests of Berkeley-style elites. Yet this wasn't always so. The Left was actually often associated with populism until being hijacked by the elitist New Left that emerged in the 1960's. Nichols presents George McGovern as the archetype of an old-fashion Leftist populist. Maybe, but perhaps that distinction should go to none other than William Cobbett. Just my opinion.
posted by Perun at
3:13 PM
1 Comments:
mobile app devlopment
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home