Populism and the U.S.
What is it and why are we hearing about it now
Among the various words cast upon thoughts and thinkers in today’s political climate, one which has seen a resurgence is “populist,” referring to the idea of populism. Used sometimes to compliment and other times to demean, it has followed that familiar trend of language wherein a word is bandied about so often that its meaning risks being lost. So we ask the question, “What is populism?”
When one first sets out to identify the nature of populism, they are met with many facts which, in a single set, seem rather contradictory. Donald Trump has been considered by some to have been a populist president[1]. The New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s series of governmental programs intended to bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression, was also considered to be a populist movement. Understanding that Trump and FDR sit at opposite sides of the left-right scale, what common thread binds them to the notion of populism? Just what does populism look like?
It is easy to think that the governmental style of the U.S. is inherently populist. It isn’t unreasonable to conclude that a government “by the people, for the people” would naturally favor the population at large, no? But let us be clear: democracy is not inherently populist. While that may sound contradictory to some, the point can be made clear in understanding the different foundational goals of the two political beliefs.
Consider the origins and aims of democracy and populism. While the democratic government of Athens — largely considered to be the first documented democracy — existed over 2,000 years ago, common notions of populism, as a political movement, did not arise until the 19th century. A democratic government is one in which the people can directly vote and influence legislation or one in which the people elect representatives to do so. Populism, however, is intent upon championing the common people’s aims and betterment against that of an institution or group of elites.
This sets the two at a potential juxtaposition. Though democracy is a government conducted by “the people,” exactly who those people are can be heavily restricted. This is quite obvious when one considers that in the aforementioned ancient Athens, women, foreigners, and slaves were forbidden from participating in the legislature[2]. This means that no more than roughly 30% of the population was able to vote at any given time.
Populism, in casting the common people against a society’s institutions or elites, would not support the ancient Athenian democracy. Populists might say that the ruling 30% of the populace would be cast as the elite and the institutions upholding them would have to be torn down, enabling the common people to participate in the democracy.
This establishes that a democracy is not inherently populist. With that delineation in place, the questions of what populism looks like and what forms it takes still arise.
There exist two easily identifiable forms of populism: democratic populism and authoritarian populism.
Democratic populism seeks to embody those aspects of both political lines of thought. Following populist ideals, it fights for the common people against an institution (i.e. a corporation) or group of elites (i.e. corrupt politicians). Following democratic ideals, it aims to bring about the desired changes through educating and empowering a nation’s populace to vote in favor of the best interests of the common people.
Authoritarian populism follows those same populist ideals but does not forward the belief that it can be achieved through liberal democracy. Instead, authoritarian populism favors the rule of one person who will direct the nation to the benefit of the common people. This is often done in staunch opposition to democratic process, wherein those liberal ideas which limit the power of any body of government must be undone in order for the autocrat to do what they will.
There exist critiques of both sides, and with good reason. To name one, democratic populism is reliant upon the understanding and voting patterns of a potentially widely-varied population. Some of these voters may be swayed against policies which would support or aid them in favor of what they are convinced is more important (i.e. religion, concepts of liberty, etc.). This threat amounts to the corrupting of a portion of the voting public. Authoritarian populism is based upon the undoing of liberal society itself — in an autocracy, there cannot be limits to the autocrat’s power. This unquestioned leader may then do whatever they wish without fear of repercussion from their citizens, who are forced to trust in them (i.e. altering taxation based on personal or political favor, imprisoning/executing individuals or peoples without due process, etc.). This threat amounts to the corrupting of one person in power.
The notion of populism is founded upon the separation of the common people and a ruling institution or elite. This commonality in social, economic, and political circumstances eschews from the historically normative means of separating people into groups (i.e. class, ethnic background). That being said, different populists believe in different means to achieving their desired goals: some favor democratic populism, wherein the liberal mechanics of a governing body are maintained (i.e. voting for policy change), while others favor an authoritarian populism, wherein the governing body’s mechanics (i.e. checks and balances) are undone to achieve the autocrat’s goals.
While the idea of streamlining the government by giving one individual total control to help the commoner may sound charming, it stands to reason that giving one person too much power risks too much on the infallibility of a single individual. The USSR’s communist leadership, preaching equal distribution of wealth, lived lavishly while the public wallowed in poverty. Caesar was given full control of Rome’s military during wartime and used it to proclaim himself the nation’s lifelong ruler. Essentially, the progress of civilization has seen the slow doing-away with absolute rulership precisely because without systemic protections for a populace, the elite can abuse that very populace without repercussion.
Where, then, does that leave us, the voting public of the U.S.? We have seen Donald Trump, who has been cited as an authoritarian populist, assume the presidency for four years. Did the lives of the common person in the U.S. improve? Do we believe we are better off than we were prior to his presidency? Returning to populism itself, is it a foolish notion based on naive idealism? Is it absurd to believe that any movement can favor the common good?
The answers to these questions inevitably vary from reader to reader. From the perspective of this writer, Donald Trump’s presidency did not see the rise in the quality of life that was anticipated by his supporters, despite whatever claims of populist notions were levied. His narrative followed one similar to the authoritarian populists of the past: one claims to work for the common person, is elected to power on this platform, and quickly begins consolidating their own power and wealth while engaging in cronyism.
The intent of this article is not to detail why or how Trump turned his back on his constituents. It is to discuss populism and its place within the U.S. political climate. To recognize the desires of populist movements and consolidate them with the goals of our nation, we will look to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution[3]:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These values, pursued for the people of the United States — all people of the United States — ring of basic human rights. One must consider whether these promises are being fulfilled and, if not, from whom are they withheld? Who is withholding them?
If anyone or anything is infringing upon these rights and you believe that that must change, you bear the marks of empathy, pragmatism, and the makings of a populist.
Barnard Street Tattler 