Move Over Thomas Frank
![]()
What's the Matter with Managerialism?Kansan, Caleb Stegall basically informs us that he is the real thing and the New Pantagruel (I'm Books Editor)is the Baffler of the thinking Christian Right. (Uhm- I haven't received the new issue of the Baffler yet- what gives?)
Anyway, BANG:
When Bryan fought for home, family and posterity, he tapped directly into the heart of the American middle classes. But the populist reforms intended to return political and economic power to the ordinary American were fatally flawed.
The introduction of the federal income tax, the nationalization of the railroads and the direct election of U.S. senators were all major reforms accomplished by the progressive populists of Bryan's day. But rather than putting a hedge of protection around home, family and posterity, each exposed the institutions of middle America to further exploitation. By empowering centralized planning authorities to directly control Americans' income, mobility and elections via taxation, bureaucratic infrastructure and national political parties, the populists ended up giving the elites far greater control of the people than they had previously had. - Caleb Stegall
Exactly. The populist reforms ended up creating the institutions through which the managerial elite utilizes its power against the interests of middle Americans. Any attempt to reform our political system with the benefit of Middle Americans in mind will take the libertarian position of dismantling neutering or otherwise bypassing the institutions through which the managerial elite exercises its power: the executive branch, the corporation, and perhaps even the university. The problem with the Baffler has been that it understands the problems: Democrat obsession with promoting elite social politics (abortion and multiculturalism) at the expense of economic justice; fake Rightist populism in the service of an aggressive elite driven foreign policy and state managed capitalism- etc etc... but it has no idea how to actually halt the proletarianization of the American middle class. Would any solution that Thomas Frank favors not involve employing several hundred or thousand ivy league elites to manage the empowerment of Middle Americans? Let's imagine how well that will go for five seconds. Thanks for participating in that experiment. Moving on...
The problem is that there does not seem to be a social class out of which a more nationalist elite can emerge. The paleo-conservative thinker Samuel Francis proposed that Middle Americans themselves can provide the social base for displacing the managerial elite -- the dynamic economy of the Sun-belt, the cultural alienation and resentment and on and on it went. But Middle Americans lately tend to be a passive bunch - enjoying living under the cultural authority of Vivendi, Murdoch and other multi-national media corporations. While Francis was correct in looking toward the left in search of a usable strategy for the Right obtaining power - specifically latching onto Antonio Gramsci's theories of cultural hegemony as the basis for political power, there currently exists no social base which can be lead into a protracted conflict with the managerial elite. Evangelical Christians have had some success at creating a (thin) counter-culture within American society but do not seem interested in obtaining and exercising political power in the long run. They are even less interested in ousting the managerial elite but instead look to baptize managerial society : federal environmental protection programs become "stewardship", wage laws become a form of charity, foreign intervention becomes missionary work and along the way Christianity becomes something else too.
Since the prospects for a peaceful Middle American Revolution seem dim, and Evangelicals are out, there are few options left. Either work hard to convince the managerial elite that certain nationalist policies benefit not only Midde America but the elite as well - or follow Reihan Salam in a romantic (but doomed) bloody revolution against the elites.
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
References (2)
-
Source: Populism nowFolk populism requires people willing to make sacrifices to defend what they love from encroaching destruction via spaghetti-like superhighways, foreign entanglements, megacorporations and megachurches, technological developments, mass media and hypermobility.All of these features of modernity are systems of control by other, less violent means. As Mr. Lasch cogently argued, they have the effect of harnessing and neutralizing populist discontent. How? By creating a cycle of dependence whereby -
Response: Populism Like You Mean ItWell, fine and good, but this is not "an actual political platform." This is a series of appealing but somewhat-general statements of principle. It's more specific than, say, the Distributist website that lists, as examples of places where Distributism has been put into practice, "Middle Ages Europe" and "Most of Middle Earth." (Excluding Mordor, presumably . . . and who really knows about the Haradrim?) But it's not quite ready for the prime-time of present-day U.S. politics.







Reader Comments (1)
and
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=302