For my next post, I want to cover two challenges to populism, and why current conditions make careful populism necessary nonetheless. Even though I don't like the word very much, I use the term "elites" here; it has use.

1) "Gladiator's" challenge to populism: The traditional challenge with using popular support as the true north for a political movement is the elitist critique that "the mob might be wrong." (Mob here used differently than Sirota uses in the description of the Montana House majority). As the Roman Senator Gracchus in Gladiator offers, "I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people." The mob was heck bent on games-to-the-death and laziness (and probably Xbox and USWeekly if those had existed), and certain "elites" were concerned that Rome was losing both its virtue and its competitive edge. Woodrow Wilson was like Gracchus (so was Teddy Roosevelt, but he inspired like Russell Crow's Maximus; I think his first inaugural included the line"on my signal, unleash hell"). Gracchus offers a defense of elitism in the contecxt of a misled mob.

2) Paid-for populism: A more modern challenge of populism has become sharper with the advent of paid television: popular support can more easily be bought now. Sirota's discusses "astroturfing" and also explores the eager run-up to the invasion of Iraq where an owned media convinced a watching public. And with media conglomeration, the financial control of communication channels isn't limited to paid advertising. So folks with the resources can guide public opinion, and wealthy cable flaks supplant Huey Long buoyed by big money advertising and distributed talking points.

To summarize the dual critique: the people can be wrong, perhaps particularly when the people's brain share can be bought.

However, I take neither of these critiques to mean that populism isn't still necessary in the modern context, or that elitism will save us. Part of this is that modern elites are so disconnected from the public interest. Ambition has become so linked to financial success, and relationships with financially successful people, that the cultural cues and social pressures make it hard for so many "leaders" to move their brains to public interest and healthy class-conscious thinking.

And Sirota makes a good point that to get to a place where the small room conversations are thinking about the big mass of people, that big mass of people is gonna have to wield more power. In order for us to have Gracchus, we might also need Huey Long...or at least his voters.