The author seems to be describing a classic populist movement. The fact that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have had some success demonstrates that populist movements can be either right or left wing. The fact that movements are occurring in both hemispheres of the Americas as well as Europe shows the global nature of populism's appeal, even while populists themselves tend to be xenophobic. 

Fascinating times. We are to see how this latest surge in populism will effect our society given its ambivalent relationship with democracy. 

It would be helpful to state a bare bones definition of populism at the outset. Populism is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people. Simple enough. Who could be against rule by the will of the people?

Unfortunately, populism has a dark side. Populism is not content to merely prevent elites from having an out-sized role in society. Populist waves tend to deny any credibility to elites at all, branding them as irredeemably corrupt. Thus, as populist movements mature, they inevitably reject expertise, and are hostile to education, and science. Populist movements also tend to become xenophobic and highly nationalistic. And, I believe that populist movements can be very dangerous for these reasons.

While populist actors do not have as a primary aim to construct an authoritarian regime per se, they tend to be at odds with the principles of liberal democracy. In particular, given that populist forces endorse popular sovereignty at any cost, they are at odds with minority rights and unelected bodies. Taken to an extreme, populists can end up supporting a competitive authoritarian regime: a political system in which elections take place, but where serious democratic abuses against those who oppose populism are carried out.

Another recurrent argument made in the contemporary debate is that populist forces are demagogic, emotional and opportunistic, to the point that these are commonly seen as defining attributes of populism.
(Think Hugo Chavez)

One might rightly conclude that populism's direct opposite is elitism.  Those who adhere to elitism share the worldview of a  binary distinction between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite’, but think that the former is a dangerous and unwise mob, while the latter is seen as an intellectually and morally superior group of actors, who should be in charge of the government – technocrats are a key example of this.

Both populism and elitism share the same worldview. They just endorse opposite sides in the struggle.

However, I would argue that populism has another much more palatable opposite, pluralism.
In contrast to populism and elitism, pluralism is based on the very idea that society is supposed to be composed of different individuals and groups, all with rightful interests. Therefore, pluralists not only avoid moral distinctions, but also believe that democratic politics is about taking into account diversity and reaching agreements between different positions. Those who adhere to pluralism are commonly inclined to think of popular sovereignty as a dynamic and open-ended process rather than a fixed and unified will of the people. A good example of this is Barack Obama’s political discourse. While ‘the people’ is from time to time exalted, ‘the elite’ is rarely demonized and his speeches are not precisely characterized by highlighting the existence of a self-evident popular will.

While I believe that populism has a dark side, and can take dangerous turns,It is important to stress, however, that it is problematic to equate populism with an authoritarian ideology. After all, there is an intrinsic democratic principle in the language of populism: given that ‘the people’ is the sovereign, nothing should constrain its will. If democracy means rule by ‘the people’, no aristocrats, experts, religious authorities or foreign powers should have the capacity to take decisions that violate popular sovereignty. Instead of treating populism as an irrational drive buttressed by a bunch of ‘crazy’ folks, we have to accept that more often than not there is some truth in the claims advanced by those who adhere to the populist set of ideas. Whether one likes it or not, there is always some truth in the populist attack against the establishment

The more the elites govern without taking into consideration the ideas and interests of the electorate, the more legitimate the populist discourse turns out to be to certain sectors of the population. 

There is an important similarity between leftist and rightist populism: besides their different policy proposals, both types of populism are inclined to politicize certain topics that intentionally or unintentionally are not being addressed by the political establishment. Whereas in the case of right-wing populism this process of politicization is related mainly to immigration policies, in the case of left-wing populism this process of politicization is linked chiefly to economic policies. Thus Donald Trump warns of rapist Mexicans, and Bernie Sanders growls "Wall Street" at every opportunity.

 The open question is then, how to deal with populism? How does one hear the concerns of the angry, and frightened, while still defending liberal democracy, minority movements, education and liberty.

Last edited by Goose (7/03/2016 10:34 am)

Personally I feel that the notion of a rebellion against experts per se (which the article really did not address) is misleading. IMHO most people want two basic things - security (both physical and economical) as well as the potential for upward mobility.Within this country the stagnation of the middle class in both loss of good paying jobs it has attacked the core of those two items. 

You can blame globalization and off-shoring or even nowadays automation, but again IMHO all of these were bound to happen over time. It is certainly a hard thing for both societies as a group and individuals to adapt to some of these changes, but change we must. Part of that is education and re-training and part is to find new and better paths for those caught in the middle. 

One thing for sure without someone with vision as well as legislators to implement those visions we will be caught up in this issue for at least the near term. 

Some think Mr Trump's ideas will get us there, but again IMHO his proposals seem to me are ones that will make matters worse. Some of Clinton's ideas on infrastructure changes do hold a promise for some path forward, but we need to hear more. 

As far as crony capitalism you can make the case that Mr Trump himself is the embodiment of that notion. Capitalism itself is not necessarily bad, but if you look at the definition of crony capitalism it certainly is. When you look at some of the most successful people on Forbes list, MANY of them are ones that only recently through their skills have made it to the top. 

 

Last edited by tennyson (7/05/2016 10:43 am)