Mort la revolution?
David Brooks discusses that oldest of topics: how to temper the competing appetites of the people and the elites. Our country, he says, has entered a populist moment:
These two attitudes – populism and elitism – seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.
Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue.
But populism, he says, “nearly always fails” because it can’t move from vehement criticism of the rich to concrete steps that can effect positive change. And anyway, he says:
In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy – one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.
[. . .]
In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.
This is ascribing an awful lot – in awfully contemporary terms – to Hamilton and Lincoln. But you decide whether Brooks is right.
-Sam
Related posts:
- Iran and just revolution
- Make it better David Brooks
- Sarah Palin, elitist
- The new Republican brand
- Populism and the future of conservatism
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
