10
This concern about the relationship of anger to political action is related to
questions about the kind of modal citizen most desirable in a democratic regime. Much
attention has been devoted to this issue in liberal discourse. The liberal ideal promotes
rationality, prudence, respect for others and a certain minimum of public regardedness
(Rawls 1993; Ackerman 1981; Dworkin 2000). Critics of course contend that the liberal
citizen lacks a firm sense of virtue and is prone to privatism and appetitiveness (Sandel
1996; MacPherson 1977; MacIntrye 1981). What about the populist citizen? The
populist ideal promotes self sufficient equalitarian communities, a preference for stability
over progress and, of course, in periodic “populist moments,” a fierce attack on those
who are identified as threats to these values. Thus it is not surprising that those most
committed to the liberal ideal would view populist discourse as too simple, too irrational
and even hysterical and for even sympathizers to express concerns.
II
Philip Roth’s “American Trilogy” is devoted at least in part clarifying the values
and goals of the populist citizen and thus can be very helpful in potentially reconciling
populism and democratic theory. Roth’s ouvre has been described as an examination of
“representative Americans,” particularly in terms of post-holocaust Jewish identity
(Milowitz, 2000; Cooper1996), and Roth himself has described his task as “trying to
understand and make credible much of American reality”(1985). It is his American
trilogy, however, that explicitly attempts to portray Americans whose identity is formed
by the events of post-war America. “I think of it,” he has said, “as a thematic trilogy,
dealing with the historical moments in postwar American life that have had the greatest
impact on my generation” (McGrath 2000, 8). The lives of the characters in American
Convention