Reblogged:What Is a 'Populist,' Anyway?

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Populist.

Everyone uses the term and, unfortunately, politicians fitting the description are seeing success the world over. The term gets sprinkled around news reports like croutons on a salad all the time.

But I can't remember anyone giving a definition of "populism." From my view, it's one of those terms everyone seems to understand, but which raises questions as soon as one tries to pin it down: It cuts across left and right, so it doesn't seem to be an "ism" in the sense of being a specific set of beliefs and arguments one can wrap one's head around. But you can know a populist when you see one.

The dictionary isn't much help. Here's what Google belched forth:

a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

A political approach ... to achieve what, exactly? And what counts as an "establishment" or an "elite?" For what reasons -- good or bad -- would "ordinary people" feel that their concerns are ignored? Do they have a point, and would 'populism' actually help them? Why or why not?

Believe it or not, it only occurred to me this morning to see what, if anything, Ayn Rand might have said about populism.

I was not disappointed:

It is no accident that the state that elected Huey Long during the Depression is Trump Country today. (Image by U. S. Senate Historical Office, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)

The commentators regard [George McGovern and George Wallace] as opposites -- as the extremes of left and right -- and are shocked by the extent of Mr. Wallace's popularity. Mr. McGovern is the consistent representative of the New Left. But can one call Mr. Wallace a representative of the right? Yes -- symbolically and journalistically. No -- in fact, if by "right" one means capitalism. Mr. Wallace is a "conservative," which means a statist; and a "populist," which means an old-fashioned, anti-intellectual, non-ideological collectivist. He can match any liberal in attacks on the rich and in appeals to the "little fellows." He is behind the times: he sounds like a New Dealer of the 1930s. But he has the courage to attack some of the modern outrages which the Establishment protects by uncritical silence: welfare, busing, foreign aid, the U.N., the appeasement of Soviet Russia. People are relieved to hear these attacks, which are long overdue. ("The Dead End," in The Ayn Rand Letter, vol. 1, no. 20, July 3, 1972)

Freshen up the above by swapping out Bernie Sanders for George McGovern and Donald Trump for George Wallace (as I did some time back in a different context).

Oh, and keep reading past the bold for what could be a preemptive review/account for the popularity of "Rich Men North of Richmond."

In terms of a coherent belief system, there is no "there" there in populism, at least beyond what is already "out there" in the culture (and is likely at the root of the frustrations felt by those permitting themselves to fall under the spell of a populist). There is just a willingness on the part of a populist to channel anger and frustration -- without challenging any basic premises -- in the quest for political power.

The people so upset at the "establishment" (as they put it in the sixties) or the "elites" (as they put in now) that they would blindly revolt this way will pay for such blindness if they ever get their way. Their payment will be to get what they want "good and hard" -- when they learn that the primary goal of their supposed champion is political power and its trappings.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

Just "class war" by another name. Also, kept getting that song recommended to me on YouTube. Couldn't get past the first few lines. It's not hard to tell when a song is going to be more like slam poetry than music.

By the way, how did you find that quote on populism? Search on the lexicon came up with nothing. Is there a database I don't know about?

[EC]

10 minutes ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

Just "class war" by another name. Also, kept getting that song recommended to me on YouTube. Couldn't get past the first few lines. It's not hard to tell when a song is going to be more like slam poetry than music.

By the way, how did you find that quote on populism? Search on the lexicon came up with nothing. Is there a database I don't know about?

My guess is he still has the Objectivist Research CDRom which I unfortunately lost. Also, you got to love your phone listening to whatever you say or type and pushing an agenda, even though officially that's "crazy". 

 

 

 

 

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

Ha, I'd love to have a copy of that just as an antique.

Yeah, I try and tell myself the algorithm "just doesn't get me." But at the end of the day, was I expecting not to get right-wing content recommended to me?

[whYNOT]

Causality: the looming neo-aristocracy and centralization of controls, and intimacies between the "capitalist" corporates and the Gvt. that empower both, will have the (understandable if misguided) effect of 'a people's' civil revolt and rising populism to counter the state's power. I think one should blame the cause before disdaining the grassroots effects. Yes, the swell of populist adherents appears non-partisan, quite as the many plutocrats are bipartisan politicos and bureaucrats. ("The Uni-Party"). The latter have a single ideology in common, power and wealth and status. The rest of the divisions - e.g. the cult of personality -are minor issues, a pretence of democracy, to keep the population preoccupied while their nation is robbed.

Edited August 24, 2023 by whYNOT

[necrovore]

Now instead of Republican versus Democrat we have Establishment versus anti-Establishment.

It is the Establishment side that sorts people into elites and "little people," and who hope to keep themselves at the top while keeping the "little people" dependent and incapable of escaping. (The whole idea that the Establishment try to embody is essentially Platonism.)

Of course the idea of "anti-Establishment" is almost as useful as "atheist" because the term doesn't say what someone is for.

It would encompass collectivists who want to transfer power from the existing Establishment to another (theirs), who might be more properly called "anti-this-Establishment." It would also encompass individualists who don't want an Establishment at all but who want a free country. It would also encompass anarchists who don't want any kind of government or laws at all.

It's a mistake to package-deal these kinds of people. (Think who gains and who loses from such a package-dealing...)

The sorting of people into elites and "little people" is not merely a conceptual device, it is an enforced set of standards. You end up with two rules of law for the two groups. Recognizing that this has occurred is not the same thing as endorsing it or helping to create it.

A politician who tries to get the votes of the "little people" is merely recognizing the categories which the Establishment has already created. However, aiming for the votes of the "little people" does not say if you are an individualist or not; it doesn't even say if you are anti-Establishment or not, since the Establishment also hopes to win votes from "little people" so that they can at least maintain the appearance of having been legitimately elected.

Edited August 25, 2023 by necrovore

[tadmjones]

I’m sure if they ever have to suspend elections it will be for a really good reason, like probably to protect democracy from fascists.

[whYNOT]

Spot on.

Necrovore, you laid out what I was inching towards and missing. The "Establishment". The anti's will include some collectivists and most individualists, sundry contrarians and anarchists; the pro-Establishment segment composed mostly, maybe entirely, of collectivists. Is a new party called for? One with no baggage from the past?

Edited August 25, 2023 by whYNOT

[necrovore]

On 8/25/2023 at 12:51 PM, whYNOT said:

Is a new party called for? One with no baggage from the past?

Somebody (maybe it was Gus Van Horn, but I don't remember for sure) observed that because the U.S. has a "winner-take-all" political system, parties in the U.S. are more like the "coalitions" in other countries. Creating a third party (or running as an independent) tends to split the vote and therefore help the people you like least.

It would make more sense to create an organization just to promulgate ideas, which is what ARI was originally intended to be, but the main problem is that legal entities (including non-profits) can only exist with the blessing of the state, that the state increasingly makes its blessing conditional, and that the conditions increasingly are being set by Establishment leftists to the advantage of leftism and/or the Establishment.

(I think the ARI was intended to "infiltrate" the schools and universities, but now I sometimes wonder who has infiltrated whom...)

[whYNOT]

On 8/27/2023 at 11:12 PM, necrovore said:

Somebody (maybe it was Gus Van Horn, but I don't remember for sure) observed that because the U.S. has a "winner-take-all" political system, parties in the U.S. are more like the "coalitions" in other countries. Creating a third party (or running as an independent) tends to split the vote and therefore help the people you like least.

It would make more sense to create an organization just to promulgate ideas...

The time's right, and a ready-made alienated electorate, for the "Independent Party" - promoting, simply, individual rights - to emerge: strict barriers between state and economy, the 'natural' shrinkage of a bloated government and which transfers power away from the elitist-aristos-corporatocrats commanding the institutions. Those mission statements alone, and the vow to never form any coalitions that would quickly absorb and destroy the identity of this stand-alone party, would be a draw to those Americans (like I hear of and know of) who feel they have no longer a political home. My sense is of a certain 20% minimum, "populist" support at present, growing with future election cycles. The ideas need an outlet to concretely demonstrate that individualism/individual rights is a practical ideal.  

Edited August 29, 2023 by whYNOT

[DavidOdden]

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The time's right, and a ready-made alienated electorate, for the "Independent Party" - promoting, simply, individual rights - to emerge: strict barriers between state and economy, the 'natural' shrinkage of a bloated government and which transfers power away from the elitist-aristos-corporatocrats commanding the institutions.

In the US, we have a new “party” or movement, called No Labels (not yet an actually affiliable party, but I expect them to work towards actual party status in the next couple of years). You can read about their ideas here. More officially known as “Common Sense Majority”, it is, by self-assertion, what the majority believe (we’ll see once they start running actual candidates), and of course they use “common sense” since nobody would want to be senseless. They seem to have harvested the tops of all of the hot buttons that can be pushed in current politics – “solve today’s economic challenges before they become impossible to solve tomorrow” (we don’t care how, just do it). “Congress owes it to the American people to pass a budget every year, and to do it on time” (we don’t care what’s in the budget, just do it); “Our leaders must take action to get health-care costs under control to give all Americans access to quality health care and reduce our debt” (Obamacare and some tangent about debt). Also, “immediately regain control of our borders and stop releasing migrants who enter America illegally into the country” but also “create a path to citizenship for the Dreamers and a plan to attract more legal immigrants” (so you mean open borders? How do you resolve the contradiction?). Of course, the children are very important (“As a matter of decency, dignity, and morality, no child in America should go to bed or go to school hungry”, and of course “America should make a national commitment that our students will be number one in reading and math globally within a decade”). They are committed to government-supported environmentalism (“America needs to be able to build clean energy technologies”), and totally out of the blue in the national security section, “America should lead the world in the development of ethical artificial intelligence”.

In other words, vote for us and we will give you what you want, no matter what you want. I hear that they originally were going to be called Demopublicans but someone mentioned that the Libertarian party has been using that as a slur to indicate that political compromise is not actually a virtue.

[whYNOT]

On 8/29/2023 at 10:44 PM, DavidOdden said:

 

In other words, vote for us and we will give you what you want, no matter what you want.

"No Labels", free for all but not the individual, entrenches collectivism-statism and disappearing freedoms for everyone. Ending in groups each fighting for their ¬claims¬ and entitlements to be bestowed - or removed - by Gvt., as they do already.

Of course, ad hoc cases per "grouping", is the surefire way to destroy individual rights, the unbestowed freedom of action by an individual, pushing this desired end further back. I guess that contrast is the reason you brought this item to attention, David.

Edited September 17, 2023 by whYNOT