Very well written, but reads to me like the sophistry it decries.
Part of the modern US trend of "progressive" intellectuals to turn everything into fodder for partisan politics and demonise the Republicans. I know that Republican intellectuals also do this, with equally laughable claims ("Democrats are far-left").
Hence, it's difficult to read this seriously. It even has the intentionally unsubtle implications, the literary equivalent of a knowing eye wink, and the willful misunderstanding of jokes as being some.dark portents... Granted, Democrats (the party that presided over a genocide) are not mentioned or lauded, but the superiority of Democratic persuasion is heavily implied, and this makes the whole argument shaky.
And it's drenched with spite for the people: populism is bad, because look at the masses being too stupid to understand what's good for them. I don't know, leftist populists seem to be on point about where the issues lie.
Long-winded comment to say: this is bottom of the barrel US team politics disguised as something higher, by quoting TS Eliot and using complicated words.
> but the superiority of Democratic persuasion is heavily implied, and this makes the whole argument shaky.
If you read it as one grounded in the US ... sure. Implied by absence, etc.
Mind you it's a Commonwealth author, grounded in Australia, commenting on the populism of the current US government and not paying any attention to US Democrats, US Republicans of yore (you recall, the pre Trump Republicans), or indeed paying paying much attention to the blinkered polarisation of the US bimodal political condition.
The location of the author doesn't really matter though, no? The mentions of non-US politics are about early XXth century pre-fascist European countries, otherwise it only mentions US politicians/personalities (including an obscure, to me, official and Kirk).
I'm not American, not even in a Commonwealth country, but I'd say that managing to mention Kirk while not mentioning the failings of American politics as a whole does indeed play right into the blinkered polarisation, for all intents and purposes.
> while not mentioning the failings of American politics as a whole
I've never seen that mentioned by the left, right or anybody else, wherever they might be - nothing but spotty and one-sided critics. Do you really think your idea about that is of superior quality?
You seem to like populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it, which makes talking about it entirely pointless. In other words, the devil is in the details.
So what I meant is: this article is sophistry grounded in US team-style politics, so the bias (or, uncharitably, manipulation attempt) has to be made explicit.
I do frequently see articles/posts criticising the dreadful illusion of US democracy. They come from thinkers and activists who identify as being left (not liberal), mainly, but also anarchist, libertarian, independent, or simply anti-genocide.
Here, I see an article that panders to one side, behind a veneer of sophistication and democratic ideals, and gestures at the ideology that is corrupt to 95% without mentioning once the one corrupt to 90%.
> populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it
Agree completely, but think the author reduces it to "bad thing for the unwashed" by not defining it.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-comi...