Many opinion pieces describing the working class read like an anthropological dissertation on a recently discovered group of humans. They are measured and prodded, categorized by sociological attributes, and dissected according to attitudes and educational attainment. Mix it up with graphs and meta-analysis and here you have a definitive picture of the working class. Note that it is a picture but there is no understanding of what membership in the working class feels like nor how they have been betrayed and denigrated by the party who once supported them. They're not a market demographic that can be sold a product simply by a change of messaging. As to whether Democrats should abandon the working class in favor of progressive professionals, that ship has already sailed.
Defining the populist movement as "far right " is going to lose the war. The actual far right, whatever that is, has nothing to offer the working class and is not really a player. The use of the term is a tic signifying allegiance to faculty lounge policies that you otherwise decry. Consider Mr. Progressive, William Jennings Bryan. He had some positions that would no doubt horrify you, yet was the face of Progressivism for two generations. My favorite was him being anti-war.
William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State in 1915 due to his disagreement with President Wilson's strong stance against Germany following the sinking of the Lusitania. Bryan feared that Wilson's approach to Germany would lead the U.S. into World War I.
World War I was called "the war to end all wars" due to the scale of slaughter and destruction it caused. The sheer number of casualties, the introduction of horrific new technologies like poison gas and widespread machine guns, and the collapse of empires led many to believe that humanity would never again allow such a devastating conflict to occur.
As were the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who predicted that lasting peace and democracy would prevail in the Middle East as a result from the invasion of Iraq. This was the height of American exceptionalism.
Have to respectfully disagree. It is true that being populist doesn’t automatically make one “far right” but many on those on the far right are populists. It’s a variation of the horseshoe theory but it works. Far right populists are nearly as open to state intervention in the economy as their counterparts on the left. Where they differ is the intended beneficiaries, far right populists would want to exclude immigrants, for example.
Right and Left are an artifact of where people sat in the Assembly during the French Revolution. "Far Right" is pretty much defined today as people the Establishment doesn't like as long as they dissent from the boutique policies of The Groups. The real reason the Establishment doesn't like them is economic. If there is a Far Right, there has to be a Far Left but you never hear them described that way since they don't dissent from the boutique policies. You get outliers like J.K Rowling and Sahra Wagenknecht that the Establishment struggles to define. One definition of BSW is Left-Conservative. Huh. Any sane person would call them Left-Populist.
Many opinion pieces describing the working class read like an anthropological dissertation on a recently discovered group of humans. They are measured and prodded, categorized by sociological attributes, and dissected according to attitudes and educational attainment. Mix it up with graphs and meta-analysis and here you have a definitive picture of the working class. Note that it is a picture but there is no understanding of what membership in the working class feels like nor how they have been betrayed and denigrated by the party who once supported them. They're not a market demographic that can be sold a product simply by a change of messaging. As to whether Democrats should abandon the working class in favor of progressive professionals, that ship has already sailed.
Defining the populist movement as "far right " is going to lose the war. The actual far right, whatever that is, has nothing to offer the working class and is not really a player. The use of the term is a tic signifying allegiance to faculty lounge policies that you otherwise decry. Consider Mr. Progressive, William Jennings Bryan. He had some positions that would no doubt horrify you, yet was the face of Progressivism for two generations. My favorite was him being anti-war.
William Jennings Bryan resigned as Secretary of State in 1915 due to his disagreement with President Wilson's strong stance against Germany following the sinking of the Lusitania. Bryan feared that Wilson's approach to Germany would lead the U.S. into World War I.
He was right.
World War I was called "the war to end all wars" due to the scale of slaughter and destruction it caused. The sheer number of casualties, the introduction of horrific new technologies like poison gas and widespread machine guns, and the collapse of empires led many to believe that humanity would never again allow such a devastating conflict to occur.
And they were wrong.
As were the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who predicted that lasting peace and democracy would prevail in the Middle East as a result from the invasion of Iraq. This was the height of American exceptionalism.
In case you haven't noticed, MAGA shares your disdain for Neocons
Have to respectfully disagree. It is true that being populist doesn’t automatically make one “far right” but many on those on the far right are populists. It’s a variation of the horseshoe theory but it works. Far right populists are nearly as open to state intervention in the economy as their counterparts on the left. Where they differ is the intended beneficiaries, far right populists would want to exclude immigrants, for example.
Right and Left are an artifact of where people sat in the Assembly during the French Revolution. "Far Right" is pretty much defined today as people the Establishment doesn't like as long as they dissent from the boutique policies of The Groups. The real reason the Establishment doesn't like them is economic. If there is a Far Right, there has to be a Far Left but you never hear them described that way since they don't dissent from the boutique policies. You get outliers like J.K Rowling and Sahra Wagenknecht that the Establishment struggles to define. One definition of BSW is Left-Conservative. Huh. Any sane person would call them Left-Populist.
Re Adrian McKinty recommendation. Carrickfergus during The Troubles rendered with accuracy, wry wit and poignance.
Dermot Kennedy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFAeqs03fdk
Jim McCann and the Dubliners https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXdSt3yEGe0
Van Morrison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1NDqKqo9IM
Bryan Ferry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnl3Cs21-b8
Paddy Reilly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0S9bIOK790
Voters have mixed views on tariffs in the abstract. Wait and see is a reasonable response from people who have not studied economics.