Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
BEWARE: the "Nonpopulist liberalism" [View all]
[font size="18"][font color="red"]T[/font][/font]he democratic establishment is preparing
it's "push back" against the rising Populist surge.
There's an article over at the WSJ which informs us as to what
the "Nonpopulist liberals" at the Brookings Institute are thinking.
Of particularly interest is the following:
Populism offers many satisfactions. Its narrative is clear and easy to understand. It identifies villains—corrupt officials, unresponsive bureaucracies, arrogant elites, large corporations, giant banks, immigrants, even the Jews. It legitimizes outrage, the expression of which is one of the greatest human pleasures.
Interesting, right?
William A. Galston is suggesting that Populism is
anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic?
That's quite a wedge he's put into the Populist Movement!
But why? Who reads the WSJ? Why would those readers
respond to a specious claim of anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitism?
Galston goes on to identify two Nonpopulist democrats...
Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton!
In his controversial post election speech, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) made the case for a nonpopulist liberalism more interested in diagnosing conditions than in identifying enemies.
“Large forces—technology, automation and globalization—are not inherently malign forces,” he said. The task for Democrats is not to turn back the clock to the fleeting period when the American economy dominated the world. It is rather, Mr. Schumer said, to “figure out ways for the middle class . . . to be able to thrive amidst these forces.”
“Large forces—technology, automation and globalization—are not inherently malign forces,” he said. The task for Democrats is not to turn back the clock to the fleeting period when the American economy dominated the world. It is rather, Mr. Schumer said, to “figure out ways for the middle class . . . to be able to thrive amidst these forces.”
Huh? He needs to figure out a way for the middle-class to thrive?
Could his credibility go any lower when he feigns confusion
as to why the middle-class is NOT THRIVING?
And the "working-class"... oh well.
He must have forgotten about you?
Hey working-class, you still vote?
On the Democratic side, populist economics has found its voice; not so for nonpopulist liberalism. That is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’s most important test as she contemplates a presidential run.
Apparently Hillary still needs to "find her voice".
Those "listening tours" must have given her so much
to consider she's still processing and as yet can't address
the economic disparity between the "have almost everything"
and the "have little to none".
There is some comment over at The Democratic Strategist
So there it is folks.
The "nonpopulists" are shaping their message.
Don't be surprised when their talking point turn ugly
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read