• Number2018
    591
    Before 2016 you had oligarchy on both sides of the U.S. aisle. In 2016 we had democracy/populism rising up from both left and right (Sanders and Trump). Trump toppled the oligarchic GOP primaries; Sanders was not able to do so, although he came close in 2020. Biden was the DNC oligarchy's answer to Sanders, for the DNC used its oligarchic resources to dramatically reshape the race after Sanders began winning in 2020. Harris was the DNC oligarchy's answer to Biden's poor debate performance. Harris' candidacy was expressly oligarchic rather than democratic, as she was an unelected candidate.Leontiskos

    It is a relevant brief account of recent U.S. history. I would just add that what you refer to as ‘oligarchy’ is likely an extremely complex agglomeration of political, bureaucratic, and corporate groups and forces. We do not know its exact structure and mechanisms, but it seems reasonable to assume that the ‘oligarchy’ progressively augmented its power and its detachment from the ‘demos.’ Otherwise, it is impossible to fully understand its chain of unprecedented missteps and risky strategies that led to Trump’s victory.

    There are lots of things Trump voters were voting against, but I think much of it was tied up with the unabashed oligarchy of the DNC (which is now also bound up with progressive theories which are out of step with the demos). It sounds like Laclau sees populism as a quasi-revolutionary movement borne out of frustration with the status quo. That makes sense and I think it is reflected in the 2024 U.S. elections (as well as recent elections in Germany, Canada, France, and elsewhere).

    (But with that said, it isn't necessarily revolutionary to elect the elected candidate over the unelected candidate in a democracy. Populism and democracy seem to very much go hand in hand in this case.)
    Leontiskos

    Your understanding of Laclau’s theory is quite similar to mine. He provides an elaborate conceptual framework for understanding the rare and precarious events of democratic eruptions.It is a valuable contribution to the discussion of our political realities, avoiding partisan clichés, stereotypes of mundane language, and biased media coverage. Another challenge is the incredible speed with which the political landscape shifts and the rapid alteration of related narratives. Who remembers Brexit or the COVID pandemic today? It is also quite frustrating to observe the reflections and commentaries of most of
    pundits and academics. Many of them seriously argued that Trump’s election marked the revival of Nazism in the U.S. or he constituted a genuine threat to democracy. So, I believe that Laclau does not sufficiently elaborate on the affective component of the populist process of 'constructing internal frontiers and identifying institutionalized 'others.' His book was published 20 years ago, and he could not have predicted the ubiquitous spread of the 'woke' attitudes and the overflow of various aspects of populist phenomena.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    But I remember that even amidst all the hubbub, the average Americans that I knew were not very concerned about it.Leontiskos
    That's one thing that can happen with Trump 2 administration, if everything would go nice and well also.

    Clinton's approval rating and Trump's reelection show that, for better or for worse, the electorate didn't take such proceedings seriously.Leontiskos
    Infidelity in the end isn't at all an issue, if you know the politician himself. It's just a thing that tells something about the politician before we know him.

    The media will undoubtedly portray Trump’s administration as a chaotic mess of incoherent policies.Number2018
    Indeed they will. Just like as actually the people inside the Clinton administration did and as the people inside the 1st Trump administration told how it was inside the White House. Quite chaotic and incoherent. I assume that Trump 2 will be similar. In the end, these administrations will simply appear as they arey, which is rather chaotic. Even so, a lot of those "incoherent" policies done by the incoming Trump administration will indeed get picked on by the next administration (just like many policies wered done with the Biden Administration) and hence will be a part of the long tradition of US policy in then end.
  • Leontiskos
    3.7k


    I was listening to a lecture by Rusty Reno and he describes populism in a pithy way as follows:

    Populism emerges when a significant sector of the population rejects the political leadership on offer.The Conservative Mind with R.R. Reno: At the End of Liberalism - 57:38

    I thought the lecture was quite good. It speaks to Trump populism indirectly:

  • Number2018
    591


    Thank you for sharing such an interesting lecture. At the 49-minute mark, Reno presents his thesis that 'we are on the cusp of a new era marked by a conservative consensus, and we are transitioning from a liberalism of open, or liquid society, toward a period of permanency and normalcy.' Does this thesis apply to the beginning of Trump's second presidency? The broad scope of executive orders and policy changes has been framed as an effort to implement the MAGA slogan and fulfill campaign promises. However, the plurality and complexity of the social, economic, and political agendas make it difficult to predict their long-term impact. Further, a clear trend toward the concentration of executive power is evident. It would be misleading to evaluate this phenomenon solely through the lens of certain interpretations of Trump's first administration, such as viewing it as a quasi-fascist authoritarian regime, a catalyst for chaos, or merely a populist movement. Instead, the growing consolidation of power is rooted in reversing the entire course of the previous administration while continuing its path for implementing far-reaching, emergency-style policies.
  • Leontiskos
    3.7k
    - I'm glad you found the lecture interesting. I don't think the lecture had much to say about Trump. If I recall, the only reference to Trump was a reference to Trump's wall as a conservative symbol, although there is likely an implication that Trump's re-election was driven by the sort of conservatism Reno defined.

    I liked his points about conservatism and progressivism being relative and non-ideological (and populism being neither inherently left nor right). That is, conservatism values permanence and progressivism values change, and apart from that core the doctrines are all historically contingent. Thus a doctrine will not ultimately be a sign of conservatism or progressivism, unless that doctrine is viewed under the aspect of permanence or change. To take an example, slavery was a progressive issue during the Civil War, but now it is a conservative issue. We view anti-slavery laws as a permanent fixture that ought to be conserved.
  • kazan
    315
    Apart from brief references to Euro populism, this discussion of Laclau's Theory of Populism seems to have evolved into a US political echo chamber only.
    Populism is a worldwide happening.
    Would anyone like to try Laclau in a more international court?
    No issue with the specific, but a wider stage may present a more interactive play.

    Sorry about the mixed metaphor.

    broadening smile
  • Leontiskos
    3.7k
    It is a relevant brief account of recent U.S. history. I would just add that what you refer to as ‘oligarchy’ is likely an extremely complex agglomeration of political, bureaucratic, and corporate groups and forces. We do not know its exact structure and mechanisms, but it seems reasonable to assume that the ‘oligarchy’ progressively augmented its power and its detachment from the ‘demos.’Number2018

    Yes, that is definitely true.

    Your understanding of Laclau’s theory is quite similar to mine. He provides an elaborate conceptual framework for understanding the rare and precarious events of democratic eruptions.It is a valuable contribution to the discussion of our political realities, avoiding partisan clichés, stereotypes of mundane language, and biased media coverage. Another challenge is the incredible speed with which the political landscape shifts and the rapid alteration of related narratives. Who remembers Brexit or the COVID pandemic today? It is also quite frustrating to observe the reflections and commentaries of most of pundits and academics. Many of them seriously argued that Trump’s election marked the revival of Nazism in the U.S. or he constituted a genuine threat to democracy.Number2018

    Agreed. Good points.

    So, I believe that Laclau does not sufficiently elaborate on the affective component of the populist process of 'constructing internal frontiers and identifying institutionalized 'others.' His book was published 20 years ago, and he could not have predicted the ubiquitous spread of the 'woke' attitudes and the overflow of various aspects of populist phenomena.Number2018

    Right, and this is reminiscent of Girard's work on the scapegoating mechanism.

    I don't know quite what to make of the 'woke' phenomenon, nor am I certain how it relates to populism. If Reno is right, then an age when the bourgeoisie sees themselves as being progressive (change-oriented) and in solidarity with the demos/poor is an age of decadent progressivism, which is an inflection point when the tide begins to turn. It may be that the high-flown ideology that populism is now resisting goes hand in hand with the 'woke' phenomenon.
  • Number2018
    591


    I would like to elaborate on the point that
    his points about conservatism and progressivism being relative and non-ideological (and populism being neither inherently left nor right). That is, conservatism values permanence and progressivism values change, and apart from that core the doctrines are all historically contingent. Thus a doctrine will not ultimately be a sign of conservatism or progressivism,Leontiskos

    I believe Nietzsche’s style of value critique can help us understand the affinity between 'conservatism' and 'progressivism' as Reno defines them. He could clearly articulate the two different sentiments behind both systems of values. However, to become political platforms, both must manifest within the same global digital medium, adhering to its structural fields, temporalities, and rules of engagement. The dictates of this medium inevitably transform any system of values into a populist mode of expression. At this point, Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier and the formation of political subjects remains highly relevant. Moreover, once in power, there is a phase of implementation, and Trump’s second administration can serve as an experimental setting for this. So far, MAGA seems to function as a façade for the vast concentration of executive power, which is where it reveals its affinity with the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society.'
  • Leontiskos
    3.7k
    He could clearly articulate the two different sentiments behind both systems of values. However, to become political platforms, both must manifest within the same global digital medium, adhering to its structural fields, temporalities, and rules of engagement.Number2018

    Well, one could argue the point of whether those specific conceptions actually do manifest concretely in political platforms. In the U.S. the two-party system makes it easier to map, but one could conceivably argue that the Republican Party is not conservative and the Democratic Party is not progressive (in Reno's senses). But I think there is something right about applying that conservative/progressive lens to the political sphere, given the way that permanence and change are fundamental aspects of life.

    The dictates of this medium inevitably transform any system of values into a populist mode of expression.Number2018

    But why? If for Laclau (as also for Reno) populism is a revolutionary desire for change from the status quo, then why must any system of values be transformed into a populist mode of expression?

    and Trump’s second administration can serve as an experimental setting for this. So far, MAGA seems to function as a façade for the vast concentration of executive power, which is where it reveals its affinity with the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society.'Number2018

    Well first, can a empty signifier function as a façade? And if not, then it seems that MAGA must be more than an empty signifier. But perhaps you are not claiming that it is MAGA per se that is the empty signifier?

    Second, for the sake of argument let's say that MAGA is all about concentrating executive power. Still, what does that concentration have in common with "the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society'"? Trump seems to be using the power of the executive to do just the opposite, and all concentrations of power seem to have a conservative bent (in the sense that they want to maintain that power - they want permanence qua power).
  • Number2018
    591
    The dictates of this medium inevitably transform any system of values into a populist mode of expression.
    — Number2018

    But why? If for Laclau (as also for Reno) populism is a revolutionary desire for change from the status quo, then why must any system of values be transformed into a populist mode of expression?
    Leontiskos

    I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle. There is a threshold that separates academic or pedagogical exposition from entering the contemporary digital arena, where opposing parties face off. The rules of engagement within this medium shape how the encounter is framed, prompting both parties to rely on affective appeals and present themselves as advocating for urgent change from the status quo.

    and Trump’s second administration can serve as an experimental setting for this. So far, MAGA seems to function as a façade for the vast concentration of executive power, which is where it reveals its affinity with the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society.'
    — Number2018

    Well first, can a empty signifier function as a façade? And if not, then it seems that MAGA must be more than an empty signifier. But perhaps you are not claiming that it is MAGA per se that is the empty signifier?
    Leontiskos

    Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier refers to a vague and transient, yet potent and dynamic, sense of solidarity. Who can explicate the precise meaning of MAGA? Its significance has likely fluctuated over time, and even its primary interpreter, Trump himself, would likely define it differently today than he did before the elections.

    for the sake of argument let's say that MAGA is all about concentrating executive power. Still, what does that concentration have in common with "the enactment of a 'liberalism of open, liquid society'"? Trump seems to be using the power of the executive to do just the opposite, and all concentrations of power seem to have a conservative bent (in the sense that they want to maintain that power - they want permanence qua power).Leontiskos

    MAGA is not just about concentrating executive power. But the logic behind its implementation takes on a dynamic of its own, one that eludes pre-existing discursive or ideological frameworks. Take, for example, the latest executive orders on tariffs that the Trump administration is set to impose on Canada and Mexico. These policies go far beyond simply reversing the course of the previous administration. While you are correct about the conservative bent, no one can accurately predict its consequences in today’s environment.
  • Leontiskos
    3.7k
    I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle.Number2018

    I don't see why the "digital medium" gives every system of values a populist mode of expression. For example, when the incumbent uses that same digital media to promote the reigning values, what is at stake is not poplism.

    Laclau’s concept of the empty signifier refers to a vague and transient, yet potent and dynamic, sense of solidarity.Number2018

    Okay.

    MAGA is not just about concentrating executive power. But the logic behind its implementation takes on a dynamic of its own, one that eludes pre-existing discursive or ideological frameworks. Take, for example, the latest executive orders on tariffs that the Trump administration is set to impose on Canada and Mexico.Number2018

    Trump has touted tariffs for a long time, so I don't see this as "the logic taking on a dynamic of its own." Tariffs are basically a simplistic approach to the "America first" mentality that is inevitably bound up with MAGA.

    If populism requires a shift from pre-election promises to post-election actions, then it's not so clear that it fits Trump, because he has a surprising tendency to fulfill his promises. Or at least to try. And maybe that's a problem with Laclau: populism can function fine even when the signifier is not empty. Sometimes the people know what they want, and there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in the signifier. Sometimes the desired change has a clear direction.
  • Number2018
    591

    I’m referring to a situation where a system of values becomes the foundation for large-scale political struggle.
    — Number2018

    I don't see why the "digital medium" gives every system of values a populist mode of expression. For example, when the incumbent uses that same digital media to promote the reigning values, what is at stake is not poplism.
    Leontiskos

    Formally, you are correct, as the incumbent should have defended the status quo. However, let’s reconsider Reno’s lecture. Doesn’t his thesis—'we are on the cusp of a new era marked by a conservative consensus, transitioning from a liberalism of open, or liquid society, to a period of permanency and normalcy'—align perfectly with a populist mode of expression? The affectively charged statement suggests that, for Reno (and many others), we have been experiencing a long-term, accelerating deviation from a state of equilibrium. Yet it’s impossible to simply halt this sentiment and its causes. As a result, in the last U.S. elections, both parties were contending for control over the accelerating dynamic of change. The shared digital medium significantly amplifies the image of the moment’s decisiveness that also manifested in Reno's thesis. For example, in this context, Musk spoke of the 'last free elections,' while Democrats warned of the end of democracy after Trump’s win. In this situation, the opposing value systems became a springboard for the further re-enforcement of the will to power.

    Trump has touted tariffs for a long time, so I don't see this as "the logic taking on a dynamic of its own." Tariffs are basically a simplistic approach to the "America first" mentality that is inevitably bound up with MAGA.Leontiskos

    Perhaps you are not aware that, alongside imposing 25% tariffs on Canada, Trump repeatedly suggested that Canada could become the 51st state. After the recent episodes of imposing and delaying tariffs, most Canadians believe there is a serious threat to the country's sovereignty. Does this also 'inevitably tie in with MAGA'?

    If populism requires a shift from pre-election promises to post-election actions, then it's not so clear that it fits Trump, because he has a surprising tendency to fulfill his promises. Or at least to try. And maybe that's a problem with Laclau: populism can function fine even when the signifier is not empty. Sometimes the people know what they want, and there isn't a great deal of ambiguity in the signifier. Sometimes the desired change has a clear direction.Leontiskos

    Laclau’s theory seeks to address a decisive yet transitory moment in the intrusion of the political. It may be incorrect to attribute to his notion of populism a universal explanatory capacity. But what can be the relevant analytical model for describing the current events in the U.S.? I understand and largely share your position regarding USAID in the thread 'The Mask Plutocracy.' However, could you elaborate on the significance of these events, beyond merely stating that Trump’s voters approve of what has been done so far or that it all aligns with the MAGA spirit? Doesn’t this statement tautologically highlight the ambiguity of the slogan? While people may intuitively know what they want, there is still considerable uncertainty about the consequences of their actions. Likely, the latest events make sense in the U.S., but on the international stage the extraordinarily of some of Trump’s team’s agendas and interventions has become the subject of fearful interpretations and can trigger a chain of unforeseen reactions.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.