Much of this critique seems to turn on the definition of "populist", a notoriously squirrely term. Was FDR a "populist"? I think you could make a very good case that he was: He styled himself as a champion of the little guy, he upended norms about the scope of government power, he even threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court to get it to rule his way. But his presidency is widely regarded as extremely successful, at least by the center and the left, and I don't think many would say that it was shot through with "demagoguery and corruption" in the way you claim any populist government *must* be.
I like that label applied to FDR, because I think his presidency was, in fact, shot through with demagoguery and corruption. He strong-armed the Court into going along with his overreaches, and it proceeded to issue reliably left-wing decisions for sixty years. He ruined the economy, prolonging and worsening the Depression. He had an inflated enough ego to run for a third term, and then a fourth.
The complicated part is that I think he was a decent wartime president during his third and fourth terms. But his high rating on domestic affairs? That's the left-wing version of how Republicans will feel about Trump in 50 years.
If we used the term “popular activism” instead of “populism” would we be too quick to denigrate it? Would we be too quick to worry about demagogue? Does the ever likely possibility of demagogues mean that every form popular activism or democracy is doomed?
Eugene V Debs (a socialist and labor union leader) typifies as an anti-demagogue when he told his followers, “No. I cannot lead you into the Promised Land. And I wouldn’t do it even if I could, because if I could lead you into the Promised Land, what would stop some other leader from turning you around and leading you out again? (I paraphrased this.) He, of course, meant that leaders and followers must work together to build a more perfect and less unjust society
I have trouble with the terminology used in the tile “Is Populism Possible without Democracy?” I think we should be talking about “authoritarian populism” or perhaps NOT even shying away with terms like quasi-fascism or proto-fascism. In earlier times what we are worried about was called “Bonapartism or Caesarism. But when popular excitement about an unfair system is being manipulated by certain elites to attack other elites and to scapegoat certain sectors of the population, we are really talking about modern day fascism.
When thinking about WHY we are asking if populism is possible without democracy, we should ALSO think about why we are NOT asking if democracy is possible without populism (as popular activism)! We should also remember (without succumbing to crazy conspiracy thinking or scapegoating the rich) that dangerous threats to democracy do NOT come only from popular failings and excitements.
To me “populism” is democracy — or rather that aspect of a “democratic rule of law” where the focus is only on “the rule of the people” without ENOUGH consideration of other important aspects of the “rule of law” side of the equation such as precedents (for stability), due process, (for stability and protection of individuals and minorities) along with equality of all before the law and (it deserves reemphasis ) protections of minority rights (which is also necessary for stability and a broad sense of legitimacy or “buy in”. Or, to put it another way, populism is that aspect of democracy that focuses only on the “rule of the people” without taking into consideration that democracy is also a “process”. But most importantly, “populism” may have too limited a view on what constitutes “the people.”
If you want to say that All democracy (or all “populism”) requires a demagogue then wouldn’t you have to say that FDR was a demagogue? Alastair Cooke (reporting back to England about the US in the 30s) pointed out that criticizing FDR in the wrong saloon could get somebody’s face punched in. That may make you want to say that “populism” is the “thuggish” side of democracy. But I just prefer to think of it as the aspect of democratic (popular) enthusiasm that lacks good leadership or self governing habits-of-mind necessary for rule of law and stability. Leaders who exploit this aspect of democracy (or democratic enthusiasm OR HUMAN NATURE) are the true enemies of democracy, the general good, the rule of law, and even of ‘the people’.
The original “Populist Movement” (or “People’s Party) in the US began in Texas among farmers and spread across the agrarian West while also making strong inroads and alliances with urban labor unions. You can see its legacy in all kinds of Cooperatives (including Cooperative Banks) some of which were not just inspired by the history but are institutional legacies from the late 19th century. The original Peoples Party made serious efforts to even organize across racial lines, but racism, antisemitism, and nativism were strong cultural currents that elites used to divide, discredit, and disorganize the Populists while more “respectable” and educated middle class types in the GOP co-opted most (but not all) of their causes as “Progressives” who get the credit for a large number of reforms that were also supported by Populists.
So if populism isn’t democracy, it is a crucial element of democracy. To equate populism with trumpism or fascism is to equate fascism and trumpism with democracy.
Populism is PEOPLE. Democracy is PEOPLE. WE the PEOPLE are not always wise, not always well informed, and not always good. We are all subject to grievances and resentments. We all have a difficult time understanding our complex politics and economics — and trying to figure out who or what is responsible for injustices in our society when they persist and when they grow. It is in our nature to define ourselves as a “people” in an exclusionary, aggressive, or hostile manner when we feel deprived and threatened. When we feel deprived or threatened, we ALL have more tendency to look for scapegoats and conspiracies. Demagogues are politicians and government leaders who exploit this tendency to excess in ways that appear unseemly. But it’s rare to have an effective demagogue who doesn’t have a lot of support and sympathy from other government leaders and members of ‘the opulent classes” (a term used by James Madison).
Populism has a long history of rallying around good leaders. FDR was one. Eugene V Debbs was another. So was William Jennings Bryan. None of them was perfect, but in terms of respecting democratic processes, they all (mostly) qualify as “good.”
Note that for democracy to survive, there must be rule of law. But also for “rule of law” to endure there must be democracy. And for both to reinforce each other in a positive and humane way, there must always be pressure for a broad definition of ‘the people” that is not exclusionary or oppressive. This kind of pressure which also tries to expand our definition of “person” and “citizen” (meaning a person with rights to participate in a democracy) is always opposed by our own tendency to exclude. And it is this anti-humane, anti-democratic tendency which can lead any of us to disparage democracy by calling it “populist” (as a slur) or by using terms like “woke” in a derogatory way to disparage the tendency to extend personhood to the excluded or oppressed.
If anything, the current trends that led to trumpism are not so much the result of TOO MUCH popular enthusiasm for organizing, politicking, and engaging with democracy, but a result of the TURNING AWAY from popular activism once the Vietnam War ended and popular victories were won under both Democratic and Republic administrations (but with strong Democratic majorities in Congress) during the 60s and 70s including Civil rights advances, rights of women (who were not truly full citizens until the 1970s), Medicare, Medicaid, Rights for the Disabled, etc. Let’s face it, certain business groups (mostly associated with the GOP) have been running down government and politics (read democracy and popular activism) since at least the 1920s. Those enemies of popular activism had major set backs under FDR in the 30s and from popular activism in the 60s and 70s. By the 1980s though, the enemies of popular activism succeeded in instilling anti government and anti political sentiments into the popular mind.
If we don’t like certain forms of popular activism, we shouldn’t denigrate all forms of it, we should look for examples of the kinds of popular activism that keeps democracy vital.
Democracy is a process and a struggle. It cannot only be learned about in school, or by talking, reading, and writing. It must also be learned through action and activism where mistakes will be made, but hopefully with the kind of leadership (or governance) that helps us learn from our mistakes. The ideal would be when that kind of governance is “self governance” that is widespread though the population where more and more individuals understand that “freedom” = “SELF control” not so that we are atomized, isolated, alienated and therefore vulnerable. But so that we can responsibly participate in many forms of self correction activism within the checks and balances of a rule of law democracy which is hopefully always developing to be more just, more humane, more compassionate, more inclusive, and more responsive to everyone’s needs and talents.
I'm in accord with Thomas Frank, it's always disheartening to have the meaning of words twisted, as has happened with "populism" . For a good history of its takeoff in America, and how egalitarian the movement was, try his Harper's article The Pessimistic Style in American Politics, https://harpers.org/archive/2020/05/how-the-anti-populists-stopped-bernie-sanders/,
or better, read his excellent book The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism.
Just found out that Noam Chomsky suffered a stroke a year ago and will probably not be returning to the public arena.
He said it best (and I’m paraphrasing). <<Democracy is constant activism. Maybe every two to four years you take time away from the work of democracy to go vote. But then you get back to work.>>
Is that “populism”? He made sure to point out that the most important people (for example the kids who sat down at the lunch counters down south ) were people whose names nobody remembers. Would he think it was better if everyone was doing some form of activism every day or every week or every month? I think so. Because to be committed to democratic RULE-OF-LAW activism would also be committed to learning and teaching, and that means *something like* “raising one’s own consciousness” and therefore contributing to the general level of consciousness (which probably DOES mean being aware of our species wide tendency to exclude and demonize) and therefore the levels of decency and capacity in world civilization.
The populist critique is mostly bankrupt; even when it finds legitimate faults, its solutions are awful. Populism is worth fighting whenever it turns up, while we continually work on incremental improvements to technocracy.
Much of this critique seems to turn on the definition of "populist", a notoriously squirrely term. Was FDR a "populist"? I think you could make a very good case that he was: He styled himself as a champion of the little guy, he upended norms about the scope of government power, he even threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court to get it to rule his way. But his presidency is widely regarded as extremely successful, at least by the center and the left, and I don't think many would say that it was shot through with "demagoguery and corruption" in the way you claim any populist government *must* be.
I like that label applied to FDR, because I think his presidency was, in fact, shot through with demagoguery and corruption. He strong-armed the Court into going along with his overreaches, and it proceeded to issue reliably left-wing decisions for sixty years. He ruined the economy, prolonging and worsening the Depression. He had an inflated enough ego to run for a third term, and then a fourth.
The complicated part is that I think he was a decent wartime president during his third and fourth terms. But his high rating on domestic affairs? That's the left-wing version of how Republicans will feel about Trump in 50 years.
If we used the term “popular activism” instead of “populism” would we be too quick to denigrate it? Would we be too quick to worry about demagogue? Does the ever likely possibility of demagogues mean that every form popular activism or democracy is doomed?
Eugene V Debs (a socialist and labor union leader) typifies as an anti-demagogue when he told his followers, “No. I cannot lead you into the Promised Land. And I wouldn’t do it even if I could, because if I could lead you into the Promised Land, what would stop some other leader from turning you around and leading you out again? (I paraphrased this.) He, of course, meant that leaders and followers must work together to build a more perfect and less unjust society
I have trouble with the terminology used in the tile “Is Populism Possible without Democracy?” I think we should be talking about “authoritarian populism” or perhaps NOT even shying away with terms like quasi-fascism or proto-fascism. In earlier times what we are worried about was called “Bonapartism or Caesarism. But when popular excitement about an unfair system is being manipulated by certain elites to attack other elites and to scapegoat certain sectors of the population, we are really talking about modern day fascism.
When thinking about WHY we are asking if populism is possible without democracy, we should ALSO think about why we are NOT asking if democracy is possible without populism (as popular activism)! We should also remember (without succumbing to crazy conspiracy thinking or scapegoating the rich) that dangerous threats to democracy do NOT come only from popular failings and excitements.
To me “populism” is democracy — or rather that aspect of a “democratic rule of law” where the focus is only on “the rule of the people” without ENOUGH consideration of other important aspects of the “rule of law” side of the equation such as precedents (for stability), due process, (for stability and protection of individuals and minorities) along with equality of all before the law and (it deserves reemphasis ) protections of minority rights (which is also necessary for stability and a broad sense of legitimacy or “buy in”. Or, to put it another way, populism is that aspect of democracy that focuses only on the “rule of the people” without taking into consideration that democracy is also a “process”. But most importantly, “populism” may have too limited a view on what constitutes “the people.”
If you want to say that All democracy (or all “populism”) requires a demagogue then wouldn’t you have to say that FDR was a demagogue? Alastair Cooke (reporting back to England about the US in the 30s) pointed out that criticizing FDR in the wrong saloon could get somebody’s face punched in. That may make you want to say that “populism” is the “thuggish” side of democracy. But I just prefer to think of it as the aspect of democratic (popular) enthusiasm that lacks good leadership or self governing habits-of-mind necessary for rule of law and stability. Leaders who exploit this aspect of democracy (or democratic enthusiasm OR HUMAN NATURE) are the true enemies of democracy, the general good, the rule of law, and even of ‘the people’.
The original “Populist Movement” (or “People’s Party) in the US began in Texas among farmers and spread across the agrarian West while also making strong inroads and alliances with urban labor unions. You can see its legacy in all kinds of Cooperatives (including Cooperative Banks) some of which were not just inspired by the history but are institutional legacies from the late 19th century. The original Peoples Party made serious efforts to even organize across racial lines, but racism, antisemitism, and nativism were strong cultural currents that elites used to divide, discredit, and disorganize the Populists while more “respectable” and educated middle class types in the GOP co-opted most (but not all) of their causes as “Progressives” who get the credit for a large number of reforms that were also supported by Populists.
So if populism isn’t democracy, it is a crucial element of democracy. To equate populism with trumpism or fascism is to equate fascism and trumpism with democracy.
Populism is PEOPLE. Democracy is PEOPLE. WE the PEOPLE are not always wise, not always well informed, and not always good. We are all subject to grievances and resentments. We all have a difficult time understanding our complex politics and economics — and trying to figure out who or what is responsible for injustices in our society when they persist and when they grow. It is in our nature to define ourselves as a “people” in an exclusionary, aggressive, or hostile manner when we feel deprived and threatened. When we feel deprived or threatened, we ALL have more tendency to look for scapegoats and conspiracies. Demagogues are politicians and government leaders who exploit this tendency to excess in ways that appear unseemly. But it’s rare to have an effective demagogue who doesn’t have a lot of support and sympathy from other government leaders and members of ‘the opulent classes” (a term used by James Madison).
Populism has a long history of rallying around good leaders. FDR was one. Eugene V Debbs was another. So was William Jennings Bryan. None of them was perfect, but in terms of respecting democratic processes, they all (mostly) qualify as “good.”
Note that for democracy to survive, there must be rule of law. But also for “rule of law” to endure there must be democracy. And for both to reinforce each other in a positive and humane way, there must always be pressure for a broad definition of ‘the people” that is not exclusionary or oppressive. This kind of pressure which also tries to expand our definition of “person” and “citizen” (meaning a person with rights to participate in a democracy) is always opposed by our own tendency to exclude. And it is this anti-humane, anti-democratic tendency which can lead any of us to disparage democracy by calling it “populist” (as a slur) or by using terms like “woke” in a derogatory way to disparage the tendency to extend personhood to the excluded or oppressed.
If anything, the current trends that led to trumpism are not so much the result of TOO MUCH popular enthusiasm for organizing, politicking, and engaging with democracy, but a result of the TURNING AWAY from popular activism once the Vietnam War ended and popular victories were won under both Democratic and Republic administrations (but with strong Democratic majorities in Congress) during the 60s and 70s including Civil rights advances, rights of women (who were not truly full citizens until the 1970s), Medicare, Medicaid, Rights for the Disabled, etc. Let’s face it, certain business groups (mostly associated with the GOP) have been running down government and politics (read democracy and popular activism) since at least the 1920s. Those enemies of popular activism had major set backs under FDR in the 30s and from popular activism in the 60s and 70s. By the 1980s though, the enemies of popular activism succeeded in instilling anti government and anti political sentiments into the popular mind.
If we don’t like certain forms of popular activism, we shouldn’t denigrate all forms of it, we should look for examples of the kinds of popular activism that keeps democracy vital.
Democracy is a process and a struggle. It cannot only be learned about in school, or by talking, reading, and writing. It must also be learned through action and activism where mistakes will be made, but hopefully with the kind of leadership (or governance) that helps us learn from our mistakes. The ideal would be when that kind of governance is “self governance” that is widespread though the population where more and more individuals understand that “freedom” = “SELF control” not so that we are atomized, isolated, alienated and therefore vulnerable. But so that we can responsibly participate in many forms of self correction activism within the checks and balances of a rule of law democracy which is hopefully always developing to be more just, more humane, more compassionate, more inclusive, and more responsive to everyone’s needs and talents.
I'm in accord with Thomas Frank, it's always disheartening to have the meaning of words twisted, as has happened with "populism" . For a good history of its takeoff in America, and how egalitarian the movement was, try his Harper's article The Pessimistic Style in American Politics, https://harpers.org/archive/2020/05/how-the-anti-populists-stopped-bernie-sanders/,
or better, read his excellent book The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism.
Just found out that Noam Chomsky suffered a stroke a year ago and will probably not be returning to the public arena.
He said it best (and I’m paraphrasing). <<Democracy is constant activism. Maybe every two to four years you take time away from the work of democracy to go vote. But then you get back to work.>>
Is that “populism”? He made sure to point out that the most important people (for example the kids who sat down at the lunch counters down south ) were people whose names nobody remembers. Would he think it was better if everyone was doing some form of activism every day or every week or every month? I think so. Because to be committed to democratic RULE-OF-LAW activism would also be committed to learning and teaching, and that means *something like* “raising one’s own consciousness” and therefore contributing to the general level of consciousness (which probably DOES mean being aware of our species wide tendency to exclude and demonize) and therefore the levels of decency and capacity in world civilization.
The populist critique is mostly bankrupt; even when it finds legitimate faults, its solutions are awful. Populism is worth fighting whenever it turns up, while we continually work on incremental improvements to technocracy.