![]() It’s about protecting the interests of the lower classes against the predation of the uppermost elites. In particular, there is one incredibly absurd claim in the American Conservative essay that stands out:īut right-populism is not about egalitarianism. But this is exactly the question I’ll answer here.Īfter all, this was pretty much the subject of my 2020 essay in Palladium Magazine on the threat of this gentry to economic development and innovation. This is a question scarcely answered by Wyman’s historical and anthropological account, which asserts, on the one hand, the transhistorical reality of gentry as local administrators and centers of power, and the reactionary nature of this class on the other. ![]() Why shouldn’t we take the side of the gentry, with aristocracy being the logical conclusion of this power, when compared to the threat of distant Federal and corporate bureaucracies, he asks. There was a quick retort from the unapologetic reactionaries, however, written by Declan Leary of The American Conservative. Largely hereditary, reactionary, and sources of institutional power in many regions, Wyman’s intent appears to raise alarm bells about the danger of this class to the largely progressive readership who are more used to pointing the finger at big business monopolies like Amazon or Facebook. This gentry, in the modern American context, is defined by its ownership of both land and hard fixed assets which allow it to extract rents and run small to medium-sized businesses. Reading: Mick Labas.Įarlier this week Patrick Wyman, podcaster and historian, put up an article describing the American gentry in their historical context, their political and economic power, and their support for Trump. Nicolas D Villarreal argues against populist appeals for a common front between the working-class and small business owners.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |