
T.S. Eliot, Populist - drjohnson
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/12/t-s-eliot-populist
======
charlesism
I'd love to read some comments explaining why we are upvoting this essay.

All I gleaned is that the author thinks "old money" people should have more
influence in society. Somehow that is what populism is about, and apparently
it's good.

Did I miss something?

~~~
programmarchy
Elites who are out of touch with the native culture or even hostile towards it
tend to cause populist reactions. Take SV elites for example. Bezos,
Zuckerberg, and Dorsey seem out of touch in a way Rockefeller, Carnegie, and
Ford did not.

~~~
dpwm
> Take SV elites for example. Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Dorsey seem out of touch
> in a way Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford did not.

You are not comparing like with like -- you even give it away in the tenses
that you use.

The first three are not like the last three. Rockefeller came after Ida
Tarbell after she investigated his trust and exposed some of the methods used
by Standard Oil. Carnegie went to extensive lengths to break worker unions.
Ford allowed his name, negligently or otherwise, to be put against a series of
antisemitic articles that were published in 1920s Germany.

The first three have spent considerable money on philanthropic efforts that
serve to bolster their names.

The last three haven't yet. They've still got time. We may know what's made
them unpopular now; we don't know what will make them revered in a hundred-
years time when any controversies will be lost as little insignificant details
in time.

~~~
programmarchy
I chose those tenses to put the characters into the context of their time.

Rockefeller oil, Carnegie steel, and Ford cars paved the way for the
Industrial Revolution in America. They were building things in America, for
Americans. Breaking worker unions and criticizing international elites were
not considered anti-American activities _in their time_ , despite our modern
proclivities. They were viewed as titans who built up American might. The
smear of "robber baron" didn't come until later when Matthew Josephson
popularized the term.

In contrast, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter are not building up American
industry and making it stronger; they're mostly parasitic and toxic. Facebook
has latched on to the desire of people to stay connected and become a tool to
manipulate public opinion and serve advertisements. Amazon is essentially a
giant middleman, which has helped demolish local mom and pops, by leveraging
structural advantages granted by the state to operate at scale. Twitter has
degraded public discourse to trolling and taken on the role of thought police.
I could go on.

Of course the Silicon Valley elites are out of touch. Their business models
take advantage of the little guy, which is why they _must_ show contempt
towards the little guy. They are elites without any class.

The industrialists were much more aligned with American interests. They were
elites, but also had class.

------
throwaway080383
Are the upper class not simply the descendants of those who were once the
upper echelon?

