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.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read