Scan barcode
A review by arockinsamsara
The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism by Thomas Frank
3.0
Overall this is a great history of the populist movement, and it emphasizes the actual power in mass-movement based politics that focus on working-class solidarity. So for that history alone it is worth the read.
I don't think he is wrong that, generally speaking, the contemporary DNC has become a party of and for the elite, and that the term "populism" has become an invective that lumps all mass movements, or even the potential for them, into a category defined by the worst of what they can become. But up until his final chapter he doesn't seem willing to admit that the current GOP use the rhetoric of populism, and combine it with the demagoguery that has been the highlight of post 2016 GOP politicking, to win the support of nearly half the voting population. It doesn't matter that the GOP leadership have no intention to actually follow through with the promises their populist rhetoric makes, they still have the support of their voting base using such rhetoric, and therefor referring to their tactics as based in populism isn't necessarily misleading.
In his efforts to show the working-class, anti-elite basis for the development of first the Peoples' Party and then the concept of populist social action in general Frank really doesn't want to acknowledge that mass movements *can* be hoodwinked by charismatic hucksters who embody the elite class they pretend to rally against. I think the work would have benefited from a frank discussion about how mass movements that use the rhetoric of class-solidarity and populism do not always actually serve the will of the people. This wouldn't undermine the power of an actual populist movement that is actually focused on empowering the populace. In fact this would only have served to strengthen his claim about how a ruling elite/academic class has explicitly turned against populism, and how they spit that label as an invective against any movement challenging their power, because it shows that their claims can have a basis in truth, at least in terms of their opponents rhetoric, and not just in their desperate belief in their own meritocratic right to rule.
So, in short, it is a really useful history of the Peoples' Party and the populist movement within 20th and 21st century American politics. The criticisms he levels against those who use anti-populist rhetoric are valid and incredibly useful as a way of investigating why and how those in power work to maintain their power and denigrate their political and social opponents. It fell short in fully exploring the difference between the use of populist rhetoric and actual populist organizing, and the antagonism against each of those. But it is a quick read, never boring or lagging, and offers an important history without feeling either dry or preachy.
I don't think he is wrong that, generally speaking, the contemporary DNC has become a party of and for the elite, and that the term "populism" has become an invective that lumps all mass movements, or even the potential for them, into a category defined by the worst of what they can become. But up until his final chapter he doesn't seem willing to admit that the current GOP use the rhetoric of populism, and combine it with the demagoguery that has been the highlight of post 2016 GOP politicking, to win the support of nearly half the voting population. It doesn't matter that the GOP leadership have no intention to actually follow through with the promises their populist rhetoric makes, they still have the support of their voting base using such rhetoric, and therefor referring to their tactics as based in populism isn't necessarily misleading.
In his efforts to show the working-class, anti-elite basis for the development of first the Peoples' Party and then the concept of populist social action in general Frank really doesn't want to acknowledge that mass movements *can* be hoodwinked by charismatic hucksters who embody the elite class they pretend to rally against. I think the work would have benefited from a frank discussion about how mass movements that use the rhetoric of class-solidarity and populism do not always actually serve the will of the people. This wouldn't undermine the power of an actual populist movement that is actually focused on empowering the populace. In fact this would only have served to strengthen his claim about how a ruling elite/academic class has explicitly turned against populism, and how they spit that label as an invective against any movement challenging their power, because it shows that their claims can have a basis in truth, at least in terms of their opponents rhetoric, and not just in their desperate belief in their own meritocratic right to rule.
So, in short, it is a really useful history of the Peoples' Party and the populist movement within 20th and 21st century American politics. The criticisms he levels against those who use anti-populist rhetoric are valid and incredibly useful as a way of investigating why and how those in power work to maintain their power and denigrate their political and social opponents. It fell short in fully exploring the difference between the use of populist rhetoric and actual populist organizing, and the antagonism against each of those. But it is a quick read, never boring or lagging, and offers an important history without feeling either dry or preachy.