Philip Auerswald suggests that this is the key political and tribal divide.
the 21st century, certainly the 20th century going into the 21st, has been an era in which the largest cities have become even more dominant and have driven the advance of human society and human prosperity. . . .in a way, when we think about the origins of populist surges–and I really want to point out that this isn’t just the United States: that the point is this is a global phenomenon–that it is something that is really kind of the revenge of the country
This podcast with Russ Roberts covers many topics, all interesting.
I think Auerswald failed to rebut Roberts’ point that the more productive people are moving to the cities rather than the nature of the cities creating more productive people via “sticky skills” and analogies to intra-firm efficiencies. This may be true in certain cases, such as the VC investment model and flexible job market (without non-competes) in Silicon Valley, but it also seems like a lot of the smart people are moving there, so there is some kind of feedback effect going on.
His definition of populism as what rural people think seems to beg the question of how the origins of its current resurgence. I prefer to think of populism as simplistic solutions to problems that present the cause as the interests of the general populace being subjected to the elites. I see this behavior clearly in the words of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders- and anyone who says “the system is rigged”.