I think, to an extent, the academic left allowed themself to be shut out of the discourse by getting complacent post-watergate. Also, the insularity and fragmentation into specialties that is the hallmark of the academic setting has become the norm. In the 19th century, the populist left tried to unite (even if it ultimately failed). It seems now that the idea of unity is anethema. EDIT: The right has largely presented a unified front over the previous generation, with the corporate, libertarian, and social conservative wings lockstepping on most issues.Flex wrote:But how much of that is purely the fault of academics and how much blame resides in a media and establishment that actively works to maintain a disconnect between the two groups?Wolter wrote:That's the exact crux of the problem. The problem is that because the left has allowed itself to be painted as elitist and out of touch with the common man, the right has ALREADY filled the vacuum of populism. Until activists actually talk TO the working class, instead of ABOUT them to other activists, the Left is effectively dead in the water.
Obviously, the answer is both, but I wonder how much of the traits in the academic left are at least partly a response to being actively shut out of any meaningful national dialog.
But yeah, ultimately, there is a whole melange of reasons.