Taibbi rightfully rips a NYT Op-Ed by David Brooks, “The Populist Addiction,” for its slimy attempt to portray populism as racist, divisive, as well as just altogether icky. Much better, Brooks opines, that the rabble outside the door knows its place and lets the wise ones continue their plundering.
Elites always pull this kind of crap when getting threatened. Apparently it’s our fault that we are upset at their looting. Dang, we are so divisive, aren’t we?
Actually, there’s a long history of populism in the US. Generally, it’s been a good thing, and populists have forced real change. The Populist Party of the 1890’s, formed by Midwest farmers who were getting shafted by banks, made a major impact for a while. They controlled state legislatures and fought hard against the imposition of corporate personhood. Works for me.
So when defenders of the banksters attack populism, ask yourself, why are they doing this. And just who exactly started the class war anyway?