BEWARE: the "Nonpopulist liberalism"
[font size="18"][font color="red"]T[/font][/font]he democratic establishment is preparing
it's "push back" against the rising Populist surge.
There's an article over at the WSJ which informs us as to what
the "Nonpopulist liberals" at the Brookings Institute are thinking.
Of particularly interest is the following:
Interesting, right?
William A. Galston is suggesting that Populism is
anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic?
That's quite a wedge he's put into the Populist Movement!
But why? Who reads the WSJ? Why would those readers
respond to a specious claim of anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitism?
Galston goes on to identify two Nonpopulist democrats...
Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton!
“Large forces—technology, automation and globalization—are not inherently malign forces,” he said. The task for Democrats is not to turn back the clock to the fleeting period when the American economy dominated the world. It is rather, Mr. Schumer said, to “figure out ways for the middle class . . . to be able to thrive amidst these forces.”
Huh? He needs to figure out a way for the middle-class to thrive?
Could his credibility go any lower when he feigns confusion
as to why the middle-class is NOT THRIVING?
And the "working-class"... oh well.
He must have forgotten about you?
Hey working-class, you still vote?
Apparently Hillary still needs to "find her voice".
Those "listening tours" must have given her so much
to consider she's still processing and as yet can't address
the economic disparity between the "have almost everything"
and the "have little to none".
There is some comment over at The Democratic Strategist
So there it is folks.
The "nonpopulists" are shaping their message.
Don't be surprised when their talking point turn ugly
= new reply since forum marked as read
And what they can't exploit, they'll crush.
Neo Liberalism at it's worse.. their's but a dime's difference between them and Neo Conservatives.. what we have to look forward to with up coming horse races and shrieking Washingtonian media spin doctors especially those manufactured from the "Brookings Institute! 
So I'm not in a position to say. The WSJ articles cited every morning by the C-Span host are always critical of liberals and their positions—either real or imagined. But I no longer even watch Washington Journal because C-Span appears to be nothing more than a propaganda mechanism.
When so much care is being taken to avoid siding with the interests of the general mass of citizens (i.e., democracy), then by logical default one is siding with elites. This is obvious. I suppose this is why the linked article (as those of that type usually do) downplayed common sense.
If one opposes the general mass of citizens, then of course it follows that a necklace of right-sized interest groups must be strung together in order to (appear to) get elected... not too big -- as to be too effective in empowering too many people too much, but not too small either -- big enough to win a given election, at least sometimes.
(I believe this is why so many phoney Dems hated Howard Dean so much for winning with his 50-state strategy. How dangerous! Omg, we can't have that! 
)
Bottom line: remove populism from liberalism and what's left is niche liberalism and neo-liberalism. All of this to avoid acting in the interest of the whole population.
Only very confused people would support that, or else those who are paid for.
Non-populist liberals claim the focus should be on finding answers, and yet... they have none! I wonder when these mythical answers are supposed to materialize? They have no legitimate agenda either (much like their pals, the Repubs). I predict a LOT of distraction coming from that wing of the party, paid for by a lot of money. Those two things are all they've got.