SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cogito who wrote (85175)9/18/2008 8:52:31 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541839
 
I think there's a clear contradiction there.

I'm just not seeing the contradiction.

"Populism" at one time infected the left.
Liberals are elitists.

I'm struggling with this one Allen. First of all, I don't see him saying the liberals are elitists. The word "liberal" appears exactly once, a reference to the "liberal elite," a recognized, I think, subset of contemporary liberals. And "left" appears exactly once, a mention of historical connection with populism. "Elitist" doesn't appear at all.

I don't see any connection and without an attempted connection, I don't see how you can have a contradiction. Brooks also said that prudence is acquired through experience. Does that contradict "populism at one time infected the left" or do the two notions simply appear in the same article?

It's hard to argue a negative. I don't know what to do with this question.

I don't see how referring to historical sub-groups of the left, which preceded the "infection" of populism anyway

It did? What period do you think was intended to be the lefty infection? I just assumed it was socialism and communism.

would dissuade anyone from seeing the contradiction in Brooks' thinking.

It was not intended to address the alleged contradiction. It was intended to support the notion of an historical lefty infection. I didn't read your post carefully enough. Senior moment. Sorry about that.