Hypothesis: 'populism' became a liberal bogeyman once the liberal romance with 'civil society' turned sour, driven by the realization that associative activity and mobilization is by no means intrinsically liberal.
-
-
With Jeet on this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Early 20C Progressives, liberals of their time, didn’t like Populists
-
Yes and no? I mean Woodrow Wilson, arch-progressive, had Bryan in his cabinet. I'd say progressives often worked with populists. One early splinter point was Scopes Monkey Trial.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
with Anton and Jeet on this
-
Synthesis!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There would seem to be three successive anti-populist moments: early 20th C progressives, mid-20th C liberals (as part of Cold War turn against mass society, etc), and early 21st C liberals for reasons Anton suggests.
-
I think that's reasonable but I see early 20th century progressives (at least some of them) as in uneasy alliance with populists, which sometimes included in-fighting. Real anti-populism came later.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure - reading Hofstadter, Bell on McCarthyism or Lipset on 'working class authoritarianism' certainly gives off that impression. But it wasn't the only dimension, of course.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.