Elitism and faux populism

Daniel Larison discusses the ridiculous phony populism on display at the GOP convention -- especially speeches by Cud'n Mitt (the multimillionaire former governor of Massachusetts) and Cud'n Rudy (former mayor of one of the world's great cities). He concludes:

The shamelessness of the utterly phony populism of Romney and Giuliani is what is most galling about Republican theatrics, since the same people who will pander to the small-town and suburban voter as the embodiment of American character are busily at work promoting the policies that seek to uproot people and transform their towns beyond all recognition. Phony populism of this sort is another form of condescension, the patronizing sort that treats Middle Americans as pets to be trained and conditioned to respond to the right signals, and what it will never do is allow anything remotely resembling a populist agenda (i.e., an agenda that actually serves the interests of the majority of the people) to gain purchase. What is so discouraging about the promotion of Sarah Palin is that it appears to be an effort to use a small-town American to blind a majority of Republicans to the policies promoted by the GOP that are antithetical to their own interests and it is working.

I concede the point, but only partially. Mitt Romney's populist turn at the convention reminded me of why so many people spotted him as a phony from the get-go. As repulsive as I found Rudy Giuliani's address (it brought to mind Jimmy Breslin's withering line about Rudy: "a small man looking for a balcony"), there really is something of an urban populist about the man, in NYC terms. Giuliani was not liked in Manhattan, and he wasn't liked because he refused to observe the rules set by the liberal establishment. Most importantly, he didn't follow their p.c. rules on race relations, and on law and order. They thought him a vulgarian. It's by no means a stretch to say Giuliani was arguably a populist in his political context.

Which brings us to the matter of defining populism. As I've been scratching here lately, populism is mostly a matter of culture for us. The philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell (who says he's likely to vote Obama, and won't likely vote McCain) puts it well:

so the left blogosphere and even mainstream dems, and even the daily show, are truly in a froth of hostility about palin. and i think they'd better ask themselves why. it's not, i think, that she's a conservative republican. what the hell did you expect? it's every detail of her life, and it's quickly getting into obsessive mode. and here it is: every detail of her life reveals her class, reveals that *she's not the right kind of person.* i know this sounds nasty, but bristol is in there big time. our daughters always have abortions. we pressure them to have abortions. again: how are they going to have the full college experience? the baby at home cuts into your beer pong. the fear and loathing is almost preternatural. let me say: this is suicidal. every word confirms that "elitist" charge, which is, obviously, extremely well-founded. and every word is another bullet in your own foot. the only politically expedient choice is to say nice things quietly, let things go on, and take it from there. the backlash is going to be vicious, massive. and for the first time in american history (i think), the vice presidential candidate will determine the outcome of a presidential election, and mccain will win.

And:

you've got to understand that "class" is not income-level. class is a semiotic system. it's affect, diction, alma mater, what you drink. it's how your house is decorated, no matter how big it is. it's hair style, musical preferences. those are the ways that sarah palin is wrong and barack obama is right, even though they both emerged from "humble beginnings." she just signs wrong, and what the hostility really shows is a very familiar liberal death-knell: we are supposedly in this to help people like you. but we despise people like you, from your head to your toes, coiffure to pedicure. we will help you if you put us where we ought to be: in charge of your life. but the idea that you could have power over us is not only scary and strange, it's some kind of cosmic misapprehension. it's on its face absurd and incomprehensible. this, boys and girls, is how you keep losing elections, and it's the way you'll chuck this one.

On the face of it is is absurd and incomprehensible, that Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, and the GOP, could pull a populist act. But not at all incomprehensible if you see class interests in terms of cultural identification. In an earlier America, when class had more to do with economic interests, an aristocrat like FDR could plausibly become the champion of the masses. But now, when a multimillionaire like John Edwards runs on conventional (i.e., economic) class warfare, he just looks ... off.

Does the culture war keep people from voting their economic interests? Sure, to a point. But I am not persuaded that on macroeconomic issues, the Democrats are all that different from the Republicans. On global trade, we have one party. The Dems are tax and spenders, the Republicans are borrow and spenders. Anyway, who am I to say that people of faith should default to materialist concerns with their vote?

UPDATE: The old culture warrior himself, Pat Buchanan, nails it here: