Oct
9
Populism (three different kinds)
October 9, 2008 | 4 Comments
Discussion in the comments section of my post on Brooks and Palin got me thinking a bit more about the issue of “populism.” That term keeps getting tossed about, and I think it’s important to define it more accurate in order to understand just what it is we’re talking about. I think there are (at least) three distinct types of populism.
1. Populism can refer to a specifc political platform. Indeed the latter half of the nineteenth century saw the rise of the Populist Party in the United States, led by the three-time presidential loser William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a Democrat, but he headed the populist wing of his party. Populism was particularly popular in the Midwest, though it was not exclusive to this part of the country. It could be described simply as the polar opposite of libertarianism. Populists tended to be social conservatives who favored extensive government involvement in economic affairs. This type of populism is still important, and could be used to describe the religious left in this country.
2. There is also a type of populism that can be either leftist or conservative in orientation, though I believe it tends towards leftist policy. It is the type of populism that can best be summarized by the expression Vox populi, vox Dei. This is the brand of populism that most bothers me. It is essentially a blind reverence for the opinions of the masses. It is the sort of populism that seeks to decide all issues by referrenda. It derides all those pesky institutional mechanisms created by the Framers that were designed to limit democratic exuberance. In short, it is a mass-democratic form of populism that pays little heed to constitutional limits on democracy.
3. The third form of populism is the mildest form, and this is the type that most aptly describes Sarah Palin. Unlike the brand mentioned in the paragraph above, it does not blindly place all confidence in the people. Rather, it at least acknowledges the opinions and wants of the citizenry. To me, it is little more than the essence of republican government. The people actually matter. Their voices should be heeded – but, instead of handing over all power and control of the government to the people, it still respects the constitutional boundaries created by the Framers. It recognizes that elites, especially today, do not even remotely consider popular opinion, and in fact often act in complete defiance of the people.
The most potentially troubling aspect of this type of populism is that populist politicians of this sort may pander. It is one thing to respect popular opinion, it is another to completely tailor your message so that it appeases most of the people. Admittedly, both McCain and Palin, in decrying “Wall Street greed” and talking about oil those nasty oil company executives, have been guilty of pandering. They’re telling people what they want to hear. This is where populism can quickly turn into demagoguery, though I don’t think we’ve reached that point with either Palin or McCain.
So when people like David Brooks accuse Sarah Palin of being a populist, he’s correct up to a point. But Brooks himself has been promoting the first kind of populism described above, though Brooks is not as concerned about social issues as were the original nineteenth century Bryan populists. And, to be honest, I think that the entire “Sam’s Club Republican” mantra put forth by Douthat and promoted by Brooks is a form of pandering. In fact, it’s a rather cynical form of pandering. Their platform is essentially to provide a pat on the head to middle class conservatives just to keep them in line long enough to vote Republican. They won’t go whole-hog socialist, but they’ll promote just the “right amount” of social welfare to keep people happy.
Maybe this qualifies as a fourth type of populism. Call it “elite” populism, wherein a cadre of elite pundits, whose only knowledge of real Americans stems from their reading of other elite journalists, promote a cynical social welfare program designed to keep “Joe Six Pack” happy. They don’t really know anything about Joe Six Pack, but they think they somehow have an understanding of Joe Six Pack’s political desires.
So, if we’re going to be governed by populists, let it be the sort who aren’t faking it.
Comments
4 Comments so far
“This type of populism is still important, and could be used to describe the religious left in this country.”
Actually, I think the first type of populism describes a WHOLE LOT of people on the so-called “religious right” (especially Catholics) who vote for Republicans mainly because of social issues.
I don’t think people on the religious right would necessarily agree with Populist economic principles. They may agree with the Populists on social issues, but I think they are less enthused about heavy government intervention in the economy. I emphasize heavy because they also probably are not quite libertarian economically, but probably somewhere in between.
Interesting and good analysis. I do think you have generalized, however, and in the process perhaps missed the crux of much of the modern day populist movement. I’m not sure such parallels can be made across the board. In other words, I would argue it’s hard to look at WJ Bryan’s populism and directly connect it to a current ideology today.
The world and modern life has simply changed so much.
In fact, I think your categories fail to find a proper home for what is arguably the most practiced form of populism today. Critics (when in a kind mood) may label it as America 1st-ism or (if not quite as generous) use put-down terms like isolationism or protectionism.
However, it would see to me that there is a vibrant form of economic populism that is alive and well. And I do not think it is not an ideology that would see to “dumb down” ideas. In fact, its roots can be grown in the economic principles that have worked for centuries. In the modern popular culture, I would say Lou Dobbs — hardly a dummy by reputation — has become the public face of this form of populism. And I’m not sure it has a close home in the 3 categories above.
It’s not so much that this group wants to withdraw from the world economy or the world community. Rather, it is frustrated with the anything goes economic global egalitarianism that subtly minimizes/replaces the other recognized roles of nation states.
For example, we may one day have solid grounds to be in a hostile state with China. But economic may make it impossible to do so. Who isn’t horrified that our energu policy sends money that ends up in the hands of Islamofascism? But after a decade of trying, we’ve learned it’s not altogether easy to prevent it from happening. Another example even closer to home is Mexico. There is no doubt that a real and strong border policy would improve countless areas of America life — everything from drugs on the street to unemployment, poverty levels, crime, taxing on various government agencies, etc. However, economic policies appear to have left us incapable to act.
Those are just a few examples of the discontent best echoed by this form of populism. And with the recent track record, those residing purely on the left or right could hardly make the case to be looking after such concerns. That’s why this group can hardly be lumped with your 1st category. To such people “extensive government involvement in economic affairs” is anything but the long term solution. However, the idea of “NO” government involvement in economic affairs only props up the current flaws and makes change all the more impossible. So this form of populist is thus left with the difficult task of finding solutions in the middle where arrows will come firing from both directions.
PS – I’m still very impressed with the selection of Sarah Palin and hope to see more of her in the future regardless. I agree she in many ways seems to fit into the 3rd category. However, a case can be made from her record that perhaps she also fits the 1st. This article explores the topic but not very thoroughly.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/09/on-palins-record/
[...] by monashgirl2009-06-13 – Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature saved by kiba402009-06-12 – Populism (three different kinds) saved by leiaki2009-06-12 – Libertarian Party UK sends copies of 1984 to MPs saved by [...]