Via 3Quarks Daily comes a link to this article in the Boston Review by WIlliam Hogeland which looks at the century-old disconnect between liberals/progressives and populists. The question is often asked by liberals why populists seem to work against their own self-interests by embracing the political narrative of the right, which is far more interested in the success of the rich rather than the poor. Hogeland does a nice job of explaining the philosophical roots of populism, which tend to win out over the practicalities of leftist reform, and uses the career of William Jennings Bryan as an example of how populist movements are steered rightward by populist demagogues.
As Hogeland says, in the end Bryan was a political leader without any meaningful political portfolio. He lost several runs for the Presidency, but remained a divisive and polarizing figure well into the 1920s, when he finally exhausted his capital in the Scopes Trial. His political legacy, however, is alive and well even today. Toward the end of the article, Hogeland finally turns his attention to the Tea Party as the most recent inheritor of populist fervor and the all-too-familiar figure of Sarah Palin as the modern-day Bryan. Ultimately, though, he is mostly critical of contemporary liberals who seem unwilling or unable to escape the trap that populists have been setting for them for a hundred years.
