Down with the People
I have a friend who, politically, refers to himself as a “populist.” He’s not ever been very forthcoming on what that means practically, although a quick peek at his magazine rack would reveal a smattering of left and right publications, with a bias rightward, if there is one. Books would include some far left titles, along with the fringe right. He comes across as very personable, and is even chummy with some limousine liberals who’ve moved out here from Chicago and whom I can’t stand. He’s much better at schmoozing with their ilk than I am, I’d have to say, and, despite being upwards of seventy years-old, still has most of his teeth. So he hasn’t done much gritting of dental ware for the sake of remaining friendly either. No mean feat.
While not a populist myself, I’m sympathetic; in fact, I once spent a few winters studying populism, focusing on its political history in the US. The journal Telos (http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/5_1/McNall.html) and the later work of Christopher Lasch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Lasch) piqued my interest early on, but it then blossomed from there to include an examination of the US Populist Party, the Grange movement, anti-politics, the militia movement, and so on. A worthy undertaking, to say the least, and there’s no denying the influence my studies had on my thinking then and to this day. Lots to be said for the sentiments; lots for populists to hang their hats on with respect to historical and political accomplishments.
One of my favorite titles for a piece on the topic of populism was, “Is Homer Simpson Fit to Rule?,” or something like that. It’s been a few years since last reading it, but if memory serves, the author was critical of the likes of Lasch and other “neo-populists” whom he thought romanticized the hoi polloi, along with the petite bourgeoisie — allies of Lasch, et al — attributing class characteristics to both social groups that neither fully possessed in any meaningful way.
Along the lines of the Simpson article, I once edited and published a very short-lived magazine called “Happy Worker,” the goal of which was to attack the Marxist tendency to romanticize/fetishize the working class. As a card-carrying member of that class (I was a Teamster at the time), I had difficulty reconciling what my Marxist associates saw and wrote regarding my blue-collar brethren, with what I saw and was experiencing.on a daily basis. I never knew a hint of the impact of the class struggle, nor even had the most meager of glimpses of signs that “false consciousness” had a chance to be overcome. Class contentment, not class resentment, was the order of the day.
So call me a class traitor, as one Stalinist geezer did at one point, or a snobby intellectual, as an old girlfriend insisted I was years ago, but I’m not at all convinced that “the people” — regardless of class — are fit to rule, nor am I at all certain that I want to be led by them. Not that there’s much to fear, given the high level of political apathy among all classes, and the general public’s glorious embrace of our post-modernist, tech-friendly pop cult version of bread and circuses.
About three years ago, I visited an old political associate and friend of mine whom I’d gotten to know via activist work and such that we’d collaborated on while I still lived in Chicago. He’s about twenty years my senior, still politically active in Madison, and is a former member of SDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society). He’s an intelligent fellow, a hardcore leftist, and has paid his dues over the years, fighting the good fight. I don’t agree with him on a lot of issues — didn’t even way back when — but I respect him. He knows his shit, to put it bluntly. So I was quite surprised, when during my visit, I noticed much younger male activist types giving my friend a hard time, not showing any of the respect that I thought a man of his background and personal history deserved. Indeed, there was one particularly petulant lad that I nearly came to blows with, given his awful treatment of my friend.
I bring this up because I firmly believe that experience — and knowledge and effort — should count for something. It should matter, not only in terms of how one is treated by one’s peers but how one is regarded more generally. If an individual takes the time, makes the effort, or pays their dues, he or she deserves to be taken more seriously than someone who hasn’t. Regardless of class, gender, race, or whatever. Leadership should be derived from those sorts of things, not “deemed” by virtue of living what some social scientist or political pretender has determined is a virtuous life.
More thoughts on this later.
