Why populism leads to authoritarianism

ssu

I'd like to get feedback from the Forum on the following thought.

Populism in it's core idea, to take one definition by Jane Mansbridge and Stephen Macedo, is "the people in a morally charged battle against the elites". They continue:

All populist movements claim to represent “the people.” All conceive the ordinary or common people as morally good or oppressed and elites as corrupt or otherwise morally in the wrong. All see the relationship between the two as antagonistic.

When we define it like this, we can see that many successful political movements in history have either been or at least have sold their ideas with this kind of antagonism in mind, even if ideologically they have had a lot more in mind on what to do with the World. Marxism-Leninism saw the Capitalist elites like this: the Capitalists didn't care about the people, the proletariat, and hence the system would (and should) collapse. For the Nazis it was the International Jewry behind everything as the evil elite. Now days the populist movements and their leaders perhaps don't have such grand totalitarian plans to make a brave new World, but they sure are crowd that is eerily similar in their messaging and behavior.

The term "populist" is rather misleading as what easily comes to mind is "popular". Perhaps "anti-elitist" would be better. In a democratic system promoted policies should be popular and have the support of the people, and should not serve only those in charge. So why is populism something that doesn't support democracy and promotes typically strong leaders and authoritarianism?

Here the inherent antagonism kicks in. Firstly, we in the West live in democracies and here the idea is that the evil elites have corrupted the democratic foundations of our states and the morally good people don't get their say. If the economy is bad, it's because of this. Hence the answer isn't more transparency, more dialogue or more consensus. The system doesn't work, it's rigged. And this is the reason why in the end populists are against democracy and for authoritarianism: they don't believe democracy works. Or it's function should be to get them into power. Because this is a moral issue, just embracing the system won't do because the system is flawed. This is a battle. Hence engaging in a dialogue or seeking consensus isn't the answer. The populist movement is the only true representative of the people, others are the "sheeple" that follow loyally the elites. The core idea in populism also nurtures conspiracy theories, because everything is seen from a prism of "the elites being against the people". And when it's a struggle like this, any conspiracy will do when it shows how bad the elites are. In case of the populist it's simple: you have to replace the evil elite with yourself, the true representative of the people.

So why then are these movements have a fixation with strong leaders? The first reason is simply the battle: in a battle, you have to have a leader, not a colloquium debating issues. But the obvious reason is the idea that while the elites have control of the democratic institutions and there's the disfranchisement of the people, you need strong leaders to turn things around. The system doesn't work, so trust us to get it working for you!

Yet once in power a populist ought to have a foundational problem when the leader and his own crownies are in power ...and are the new elite. But it isn't: the conspiracy, the elites, just become international and have to be even more menacing. So if beating a dead horse keeps people thinking that you're moving on, then just keep on beating the dead horse.

Authoritarianism has always been seen as the cure for the failure of the democratic institutions. And especially when you have widespread corruption, the idea of evil elites isn't so far fetched. It is very easy to show the real failures of the system, and somehow the idea "I will correct this!" makes people to believe that the populist has the magic wand to solve the problems. What they end up actually doing usually doesn't work. Perhaps today the drastic measures of totalitarianism have historically been shown as disastrous as they are, so the new authoritarianism-light is the present day populism.

It just seems that there's no antidote to populism, no way other than the disillusionment after the populists fail when in power. Then you just hope you have the means to get them out of power.

Comments? Or have either missed or gotten something wrong?

Tom Storm

↪ssu

Interesting. You may be right. Yes, populist leaders of a certain kind are autocratic because they are generally insincere and know what to do to get elected in a certain context. There's an inherent predatory cynicism built into this process, so it would seem natural for such a leader to detest democracy and detest the average person along with it. Has it not been documented via various sources close to Trump that he hates his own base, viewing them as a bunch of unattractive losers? For a populism like his, authoritarianism seems to be an obvious end.

The term "populist" is rather misleading as what easily comes to mind is "popular". Perhaps "anti-elitist" would be better. — ssu

Yes, that's the take home message for me. Or 'popular prejudice'. Like the old 'migrants are destroying our culture and taking our jobs' trope.

But I also tend to think that most politics is populism - the attempt to capture popular issues and use tribalism to divide and conquer voters. Some exponents of this are more cynical populists than others.

When it comes to elites, the real target for self-described populist like Gore Vidal (in the US back in the 1970's) were the corporate and property classes. Vidal defined the hot issues of populism as turbo charged funding for schools and infrastructure, free healthcare, raising taxes for corporations and the wealthy, isolationism and an end to military incursions overseas, slashing the military industrial complex.

It just seems that there's no antidote to populism, no way other than the disillusionment after the populists fail when in power. Then you just hope you have the means to get them out of power. — ssu

Voters seem to be activated most by fear and self-interest. The easiest way to harness these in politics is to lie, divide and conquer and promote tribalism. For me it is the political process I fear almost as much as the type of populism it can promote.

SophistiCat

↪ssu

Yes, it's deeply ironic that the instincts of populist movements are invariably authoritarian, anti-democratic. They don't trust the people to govern themselves, and firmly believe themselves to be the best suited to hold all the power and the privilege - which, of course, is the very definition of elitism. They don't necessarily start out with the cynical plan to become the new elites in an authoritarian system, but that is what they end up doing anyway.

Tzeentch

Corruption of the elite causes populism (basically, wide-spread discontent among the people), which causes a rejection of the system since it is deemed to be corrupt, though it isn't necessarily anti-democratic, but it can be.

The important factor here is the cause of populism. It doesn't appear out of nowhere. It's a symptom of an elite that is increasingly corrupt and losing touch with the people, and reality. This is for example readily apparent in the US and Europe.

jkop

Authoritarianism has always been seen as the cure for the failure of the democratic institutions. — ssu

One example of a non-authoritarian possible cure to failed (representative) democratic institutions is direct democracy.

Populism, however, doesn't necessarily lead to authoritarianism. Basically, populism is a means for achieving something through the use of the cohesive force that can arise in crowds and populations.

Like fashion, political ideas compete and propagate in various ways. Sometimes it doesn't take much to succeed, the quality of an idea can be sufficient for it to become popular. But often it takes exposure, advertisement, or the help of influential individuals or institutions (e.g. media). Bad ideas or styles that wouldn't propagate on their own require more of the latter. Also bad ideas can succeed and reach a point of "critical mass' when they become self-sustaining. This has to do with the function of popular things in social contexts. It's harder to dismiss bad ideas when they are popular.

NOS4A2

↪ssu

The populist narrative wouldn’t be required if the state was truly democratic. Instead we get a representative government and a vast administrative state, all of which teams with people who want to run the lives of others.

Authoritarianism, and the people’s submission to the will of the state and her benefactors, is forever the modus operandi of those in charge, implicit in the relationship between rulers and ruled, and explicit in the manner with which they carry out its dictates. It couldn’t be otherwise.

Representative government is the rejection of pluralism, of the rule of the people, and an authoritarian system of the highest order. It has merely convinced people that one man can in someway represent thousands, millions, and this is a reflection of their own rule. It’s the greatest stroke of propaganda ever written.

What makes it all treasonous, though, is the promise that authority and the perpetual submission to it is there according to your own will. You chose this. This is what you want.

The reign of the elites is already authoritarian. The treason of the elites and their corruption is what breeds populism, nothing more.

ssu

Corruption of the elite causes populism (basically, wide-spread discontent among the people), which causes a rejection of the system since it is deemed to be corrupt, though it isn't necessarily anti-democratic, but it can be. — Tzeentch

Good that you point out this, because here lies one important reason why populism is in the end anti-democratic.

After all, if you have corrupt leaders, then obviously the antidote would be put them on trial, have stronger institutions starting from an effective justice system, more transparency. That's what you do with criminals.

Yet notice the difference where populism starts with: it doesn't think that it would be a few bad apples, it goes against a collection of people, the elite. The justice system is designed to deal with individuals, the populist starts from the idea that the whole system is rigged to serve the elite. The "ordinary man" cannot get justice against the elites. What populists are against is a vague group of people they assume to be this elite that actually works like a cabal. It is the hostility and the confrontational juxtaposition in the rhetoric and in the narrative, that the elite is against "the people", which goes far beyond just condemning some individuals.

Condemnation of a class of people isn't something that fits well with democratic thinking. So basically populists have a problem with democracy.

Hence just as

↪SophistiCat

noted above, these movements end up being authoritarian, because they don't trust democracy or that people could govern themselves. Perhaps because the elites have too much control of the people or will easily use their influence take that control. The populist movement is really out there to replace the elite with it's own elite dedicated to serve "the people".

And who are then these wonderful "real people"? Naturally they are the supporters of the movement, the agent trying to overcome this other. Hence it is these people that the populist has listen to, which the populist thinks is enough democracy. Others might be in cahoots with the evil elite.

The populist narrative wouldn’t be required if the state was truly democratic. Instead we get a representative government and a vast administrative state, all of which teams with people who want to run the lives of others. — NOS4A2

Yes, it starts from the fact that people aren't happy with the representational model. As @jkop mentioned, direct democracy is one option, but how does that work in societies made from tens or even hundreds of million of people is a problem for direct democracy. Representative government and a democracy already asks a lot from the society to work properly.

The reign of the elites is already authoritarian. — NOS4A2

If you think so, then likely you will think that any representative body is authoritarian.

ssu

In fact this is one of the reasons why the early Zionist like Herzl, Berdichevsky, Chomsky, Lessing, so on and so on deemed Israel should be SUPRA-NATIONAL vs SUPER-NATIONAL. — Vaskane

I assume this Chomsky you talk about isn't the Noam we know, because I don't think he's a zionist.

Nietzsche is a great philosopher to quote, but perhaps it would be better to make the link here. Or is it that Nietzsche thinks that democracy will get authoritarians elected? Well, when people have been really disappointed in their democracy (or basically in their whole society), they indeed have gone with of with the radical ideas.

Tzeentch

Good that you point out this, because here lies one important reason why populism is in the end anti-democratic. — ssu

No, I think this is too much of a sweeping statement. The PVV in the Netherlands for example is both populist and not anti-democratic.

NOS4A2

↪ssu

Yes, it starts from the fact that people aren't happy with the representational model. As @jkop mentioned, direct democracy is one option, but how does that work in societies made from tens or even hundreds of million of people is a problem for direct democracy. Representative government and a democracy already asks a lot from the society to work properly.

It works when there is no longer a republic, nor any people or institution which claims rights and dominion over the lands and the people that reside in them. Unlike fascism, communism, monarchism, or conservatism, democracy cannot work within a republican model. The fact that the model necessitates minority rule necessarily forbids the rule of the people.

If you think so, then likely you will think that any representative body is authoritarian.

If I request someone to represent me, for instance in a court, it requires that they know me and understand my wants and grievances. It is simply not enough, or a bold-faced lie, to say that a person can represent another without even knowing he exists. So it's a mistake to say such a body is representative, for all they can represent is themselves and the people they know.

ssu

↪Tzeentch

The are differences, of course. And of course, as it's so obvious in our times, the term populist can also be hurled as an insult on someone who doesn't actually fit the category

I would say that the True-Finns are populist too. Or at least they genuinely declared themselves to be "populist" in their earlier party program, although the actual program was far more of being popular (popularist?) and in the end on both occasions it has been in the administration (now it's on it's second time in a coalition government) it behaved quite ordinarily as a coalition member. And when your party program supports the Welfare state, your party leaders give aspiring speaches of solidarity to the the Ukrainian Parliament in Ukrainian (and get an standing ovation), and the party has disagreements with other populist or right wing parties in the European Parliament, then yes, all populist parties aren't cut from exactly the same mold.

Yet there is still something similar with the populist movement.

He says so himself: — Vaskane

Actually, I think that many people would consider themselves as Zionists in the way Chomsky considers him to be one. Yeah, that's old Noam. But I think that topic is for a thread at the lounge.

ssu

That it's about Israel and Palestine, well, maybe not challenge for proof then if you don't want to see it in your thread. — Vaskane

I think you misunderstood my reasoning here.

If this thread becomes political, meaning it discusses Israel/Palestine, then it's not a philosophical discussion and is sent away to the Lounge. People running the site don't want that crap here, because easily tensions rise. That was my point.

ssu

Get me? — Vaskane

Umm.. a bit hard to follow.

But then again, so is reading Nietzsche.

I came here to discuss how democracy is just another term for homogenization of the masses. A homogenized mass is easier controlled. Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd," can teach you that too. Same with Edward Bernays' "Propaganda." — Vaskane

Ok. Well, in such complex systems as our modern societies, the masses are quite heterogenous. Not as if we would be all peasants or hunter gatherers. Perhaps that's why you need "Propaganda"...or marketing.

So, do you think that control isn't needed? Just how we are controlled matters. Democracies, or should we be more exact and say republics (not excluding constitutional monarchies with parliaments) just have some safety valves that authoritarian and totalitarian systems don't have. Hence the difference isn't just about marketing, or polishing it to look better.

The populist has a very simply model on how this system of control works.

Paine

I think of it more as a group of people who yearn to hear what they want to hear versus the different options that are put on offer.

The many peasant revolts that died with the people who participated was an argument before proposing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Is there an example of Fabian tolerance which has a better result? Are not all these questions of what is helpful to be measured against contrasting views?

AmadeusD

Will get back to you once i've finished On Liberty.

Tzeentch

Many of this thread's participants seem to view "populism" as something negative, and therefore try to understand it in negative terms: "anti-democratic", "authoritarian", "truth-denying", etc.

I think this is fundamentally wrong.

"Populism" is a term that is used when a political elite continuously refuses to acknowledge problems that exist inside a society.

The person outside the political establishment who does acknowledge the problems (A Trump, a Wilders, etc.) is then called a populist.

The genesis of populism happens inside the political elite who, contrary to what their citizens believe, believe "there is no problem" (or have a vested interest in pretending there isn't).

This political elite forgets that it is there not to impose its opinions on its citizens, but to carry out the will of the people. Because this political elite does not want to carry out the will of the people, it attempts to persecute those who do as "populists".

It's a political elite who has somehow gotten it into their ant brains that they are the "rightful ruling class", and that what the people believe or want changed, solved, etc. is unimportant.

This usually goes hand-in-hand with a healthy dose of hubris and an inability to accept view points other than one's own (again, the current political climate is filled with this dogmatic "wrongthink" attitude).

It's indicative of a political elite that has gotten out of touch with reality, and with the people. The term "populism" is a symptom of a failing democratic system, and people who busy the term are probably part of the reason why the system is failing!

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪ssu

Authoritarianism has always been seen as the cure for the failure of the democratic institutions. And especially when you have widespread corruption, the idea of evil elites isn't so far fetched. It is very easy to show the real failures of the system, and somehow the idea "I will correct this!" makes people to believe that the populist has the magic wand to solve the problems. What they end up actually doing usually doesn't work. Perhaps today the drastic measures of totalitarianism have historically been shown as disastrous as they are, so the new authoritarianism-light is the present day populism.

I think such a trend goes back further than the advent of liberal democracy. If you look at how monarchs became a centralized locus of power, with a monopolies on force and the administration of the justice system in Western Europe, it was through the emerging urban middle classes and the peasantry supporting the monarchs against the feudal elite. There is a long history of "the people" supporting the centralization of power as a means of keeping recalcitrant elites in check.

However, in general, I think we tend to focus too much on the threats of totalitarianism. We look back to the last crisis, to Hitler and Stalin. Our dystopias generally focus on the role of a domineering state. Our classic literature is fixated on this problem.

Yet if anything, states seem to be decaying, and economic elites gaining more power and leverage. The 60 year stagnation of median wages, the steady drive towards most income in advanced economies coming from capital ownership, not labor, the growing share of all workers who work for large corporations, dramatically increasing market concentration across a variety of industries, etc. all point in the opposite direction. AI and automation stand to blow open this trend, already 50+ years in the making.

Particularly, mass mobilization of the "people" seems less and less relevant to winning wars. Gone are the days of massive corps-sized formations carrying out operations in warfare. Modern militaries are shrinking — both China and Russia embarked on a dramatic downscaling in order to strengthen their militaries. New technologies like autonomous drones, autonomous artillery systems, which are already being produced, will only compound this trend. This is crucial in that many historians point to the need to "mobilize the people," as a determinant factor in "the people" getting widespread political rights.

What happens when "the people" are largely irrelevant to winning wars? When small groups of professionals can outclass mass mobilized armies? IDK, it isn't something we've seen since the advent of the stirrup.

But I would point to an assessment made by Michelle Alexander in her "The New Jim Crow." There she says the problem for African Americans isn't that elites want to oppress them to extract their labor. It's that their labor is increasingly becoming irrelevant to elites. As she notes, African American communities with high rates of poverty are more the "canary in the coal mine," here than anything else. It does seem that most of "the people's" labor will become increasingly irrelevant, as will their ability to provide military service.

IMO, this points more in the direction we saw with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the advent of feudalism (although obviously it will take a quite different path), then the situation that gave rise to Hitler and Stalin.

↪Tzeentch

This political elite forgets that it is there not to impose its opinions on its citizens, but to carry out the will of the people. Because this political elite does not want to carry out the will of the people, it attempts to persecute those who do as "populists".

Is it? But then the "people's" will often is to do some pretty nasty things. Massacre the Jews, again and again, disenfranchise and segregate African Americans, etc.? Is it necessarily the case that Eisenhower was acting illegitimately when he federalized the Arkansas national guard to allow black students to attend school unmolested by rioters? Certainly, he was acting against the will of the people. Or was St. Bernard of Clairvaux abusing his considerable political clout in admonishing the Germans to stop carrying out pogroms on the Jews?

Consider that if authority is founded solely on the aggregate "general will" then there could be no challenge to a dystopia like "A Brave New World," since it is a society its citizens overwhelmingly support.

And there is to consider cases where the general will is too inchoate and divided to lead much of anything. Being angry about problems is not equivalent with knowing how to solve them.

ssu

↪Vaskane

Yet do note what Bernays says:

This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. — Edward Bernays, Propaganda

And it isn't just the democratic society, It's every society. That vast numbers of human beings live together simply necessitates cooperation, specialization of work and an economy. All this needs rules. One might be critical of them, but they are needed.

Tzeentch

But then the "people's" will often is to do some pretty nasty things. Massacre the Jews, again and again, disenfranchise and segregate African Americans, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're talking about constitutional/human rights, not the basic function of democracy.

Corrupt elites don't serve democracy - they undermine it and use it for their own gain. Yes, sometimes states do awful things, almost categorically enabled by the elites.

Tzeentch

There is a long history of "the people" supporting the centralization of power as a means of keeping recalcitrant elites in check. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is a wrong depiction.

Corrupt elites are often extremely powerful, since they have hollowed out the state (which formerly protected citizens) and put it infront of their own cart, leaving the citizen defenseless.

The only way to remove a corrupt elite is therefore by overpowering them, sometimes through mass voting, discontent/protests, sometimes through revolution and violence. This is something markedly different from "authoritarianism", since in one instance it is a means and in the other a goal.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Tzeentch

You're talking about constitutional/human rights, not the basic function of democracy.

Well, I assumed I was talking about the telos of governance in general, as defending/empowering freedom, ensuring justice, etc.

I don't think the function of democracy is readily apparent. Why is democracy good? Is it because it is good in virtue of what it produces, i.e., on average, better governance, or is it intrinsically good for people to select leaders or policies by voting?

Political scientists, with their aversion to pronouncing on norms, often focus on the former. Liberal representative democracy is good because of what it tends to provide in terms of better governance, economic growth, property rights, liberties, etc. Clearly, it doesn't always provide these benefits though, and it is possible for less democratic systems to sometimes outperform democratic ones on these metrics.

However, I can see an argument that democracy is a good in and of itself. It would seem to enhance citizen's freedom. Moreover, it can help foster a sense of ownership, getting citizens to identify with their state.

That said, it is clear that it doesn't always do this. Wealthy liberal democracies in particular tend to have citizens who say that are least willing to fight to defend their current system. Populist movements themselves seem to show that you can have elections without people feeling much ownership vis-a-vis the state. If demagogues are a real threat to democracies, and I would maintain they are, then it cannot be the case that the benefits of democracy lie simply in leaders doing what a majority of the people want.

In particular, crowds tend to be dumb. Large groups are not conducive to reasoned debate. Yet governance seems to call for such reasoned debate. The legitimacy of either elites of populist movements comes down to what their aims are. Being justifiably angry doesn't justify a groups policy ideas. The Cultural Revolution would be an example of a populist movement that was absolutely disastrous. The current US case is particularly dubious because you have a populist movement interested in securing minority rule, with an explicit focus on "we will get more support for the legitimate types of people," not "we will get more support from all citizens."

So, I would say populism can be bad for a state for the same reason a jury can obviously be less just than a judge in some instances.

The only way to remove a corrupt elite is therefore by overpowering them, sometimes through mass voting, discontent/protests, sometimes through revolution and violence. This is something markedly different from "authoritarianism", since in one instance it is a means and in the other a goal.

Yes, and historically this meant popular support that turned the French monarch into the "Sun King" of Louis XIV, whereas during the Hundred Years War the monarch couldn't even keep his nobles for raiding and annexing each others' land or implementing their own justice system in their lands.

Of course, yes, people eventually began to chaff under the new locus of power, and so you get the move towards constitutionalism and democracy. Authoritarianism isn't the ultimate goal, but sometimes it is seen as the proximate goal. But vis-a-vis the embrace of the "divine right of kings," it was also the ultimate goal in many cases.

ssu

"Populism" is a term that is used when a political elite continuously refuses to acknowledge problems that exist inside a society. — Tzeentch

Umm...let's look at some definitions populism.

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

Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

Populism, political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.

Your definition is more like saying "Yep. Populists got it right!" :wink:

Many of this thread's participants seem to view "populism" as something negative, and therefore try to understand it in negative terms: "anti-democratic", "authoritarian", "truth-denying", etc. — Tzeentch

This is a very valid point. Why would it be so negative and why would it lead to authoritarianism? And perhaps this comes into topic I would hope to be discussed.

In politics there are two different questions to answer: a) What is basically wrong and b) How this problem will be solved.

And usually what is enough for a politician to get to answering part a). If a politician can in a simple fashion or in eloquent new way just say what's wrong and why, that basically it. If it's the issue that has nagged voters, yet perhaps they haven't come around to understand it so clearly, obviously someone just telling the truth will get support. Because to answer question b) is very complex and many times confusing. So your problem can be rampant corruption. Or unemployment and a failing economy which doesn't seem to have any answers. Then for the real political message of answering b), one can just declare "I can fix this!".

So if that is basically universal for all politicians, then what makes the populist different? In short, it's the antagonism, which is in the core message of populism: the culprits are the elite, who are against
the common honorable people. And if the populist has been part of the elite, that's absolutely no problem: he or she can just say: "Believe me, I know these people, I've been part of them!" And immediately the populist is made, by his or her own count, as a rebel and the enemy of this elite, who he or she has betrayed here when coming to the help of the common people.

A political ideology that has antagonism and starts from an inherent juxtaposition might not be the most helpful to create social cohesion, and can surely be abused.

Before anybody makes the remark here that "Isn't sometimes antagonism justified", it surely can be so. Revolutions do happen because of justified reasons. You can have a corrupt, out of touch elite that is ruining the country and when there is no other way to correct the system, then you can have in the end a revolution. But then it should be about the individuals in that elite, not about general hatred toward elites. It should be about correcting the culture of corruption and unlawfulness. It is abot the absolutely crucial question of how to solve the problems and what to build in the place of the old. When the ideology itself is antagonist from the start, it has the difficulty to then make the small fixes that are needed. There's the urge to just throw everything away and you can end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also when you have started from the idea of the "evil elite" that you have to oppose, it's quite logical to replace this with your "own elite" of the right-minded. It isn't that your objective is to listen to your opponents and try to get some consensus. The populist has the moral high ground: he or she is working for the people, the common man and woman.

Tzeentch

Your definition is more like saying "Yep. Populists got it right!" :wink: — ssu

Well, yes. Kind of.

They often correctly sense there is something wrong with the political elite. Their methods and visions of "the way forward" can be wrong, of course.

Populism doesn't appear overnight. Usually years of neglect precede it, which is where all the anger and discontent comes from.

Corrupt political elites especially cause a lot of anger, because it makes people feel powerless. The political elite no longer have the best interest of the nation at heart, and they have usurped the mechanism by which the nation could correct that.

The people are right to feel that anger.

So if that is basically universal for all politicians, then what makes the populist different? In short, it's the antagonism, which is in the core message of populism: the culprits are the elite, who are against
the common honorable people. And if the populist has been part of the elite, that's absolutely no problem: he or she can just say: "Believe me, I know these people, I've been part of them!" And immediately the populist is made, by his or her own count, as a rebel and the enemy of this elite, who he or she has betrayed here when coming to the help of the common people.

A political ideology that has antagonism and starts from an inherent juxtaposition might not be the most helpful to create social cohesion, and can surely be abused.

Before anybody makes the remark here that "Isn't sometimes antagonism justified", it surely can be so. Revolutions do happen because of justified reasons. You can have a corrupt, out of touch elite that is ruining the country and when there is no other way to correct the system, then you can have in the end a revolution. But then it should be about the individuals in that elite, not about general hatred toward elites. It should be about correcting the culture of corruption and unlawfulness. It is abot the absolutely crucial question of how to solve the problems and what to build in the place of the old. When the ideology itself is antagonist from the start, it has the difficulty to then make the small fixes that are needed. There's the urge to just throw everything away and you can end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Also when you have started from the idea of the "evil elite" that you have to oppose, it's quite logical to replace this with your "own elite" of the right-minded. It isn't that your objective is to listen to your opponents and try to get some consensus. The populist has the moral high ground: he or she is working for the people, the common man and woman. — ssu

If innocent people get targeted, that is of course regrettable. Personally, I don't see this as a problem particular to populism. "Guilty by association" is an altogether human phenomenon, and honestly populism is more of a "force of nature" than something truly rational. It's something that the corrupt (or neglectful) elite themselves create, and eventually it gets out of control, and is led by mankind's less sophisticated tendencies. I'm not even convinced people like Trump play a key role in it. I think they only serve as a vessel. That's why many people who don't like Trump still vote for him. Same goes for Wilders in the Netherlands.

ssu

Well, yes. Kind of.

They often correctly sense there is something wrong with the political elite. — Tzeentch

That's the point: there is much to tell what is wrong. It can be a great narrative.

Many times it can be the politician that falls out from the "in-crowd", messes up or gets his hand in the cookie jar. You won't find a better person to tell how crooked the elites are!

The real issue is, what really to do then!

Populism doesn't appear overnight. Usually years of neglect precede it, which is where all the anger and discontent comes from. — Tzeentch

I agree. It can be really a really long thing that really takes ages to happen. Disillusionment doesn't happen in a day.

The political elite no longer have the best interest of the nation at heart, and they have usurped the mechanism by which the nation could correct that. — Tzeentch

Yet are these individuals? Or is this a class or something vague?

If innocent people get targeted, that is of course regrettable. — Tzeentch

The real question is if targeting people is the answer in the first place.

And one thing is how do you define someone to be the culprit. Is trying, but making mistakes wrong? Or not doing anything about some issue when believing it's not your responsibility in the first place.

NOS4A2

↪Vaskane

When you think outside the box long enough you'll see it's the same thing. Why did states arise? The same reasons Hamilton beat Jefferson. It makes things easier for most people. Offers protection, for the people. It arose from the same roots. Against whom? The former elites, the Barbarians. Against my kind of people. Hence the relevance of BGE 257...

I would argue that states arise out of conquest, confiscation, expropriation, and the introduction of a slave economy. The Genealogy of Morality would be relevant on the topic of Nietzsche’s theory of state formation, though I don’t remember which aphorism.

Tzeentch

Many times it can be the politician that falls out from the "in-crowd", messes up or gets his hand in the cookie jar. You won't find a better person to tell how crooked the elites are!

The real issue is, what really to do then! — ssu

Whoever leads the crowd probably doesn't matter all that much. They are just a vessel for the discontent. That's why they're so often demagogues and other types of uncouth individuals as you suggest.

In the end it doesn't matter. Populism is a symptom of corruption and thereby that the system is nearing its expiry date. It will be refreshed the easy way or the hard way.

Yet are these individuals? Or is this a class or something vague? — ssu

Corruption is an ugly beast that affects individuals as well as entire systems, so it's hard to say. For populism to take root, I would have to assume the majority of the political class to be corrupt, because if it weren't there would be counter-forces in the system that would make populism unnecessary.

The real question is if targeting people is the answer in the first place. — ssu

Corruption is a human phenomenon, so yes, I think it is.

However, when populism takes hold the system is probably already so rotten that targeting individuals is no longer a feasible option, and thus the anger is directed at the political elite as a whole.

The alternative would be fighting corruption one rotten individual at a time, which is obviously unfeasible and would play into the hands of the corrupt elite.

And one thing is how do you define someone to be the culprit. Is trying, but making mistakes wrong? Or not doing anything about some issue when believing it's not your responsibility in the first place. — ssu

That's the 'force of nature' element I'm trying to get at. When shit starts flying, nobody cares about the details anymore and people who are genuinely innocent would probably do well to get out of the way instead of trying to plead their innocence to an angry mob.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Tzeentch

For populism to take root, I would have to assume the majority of the political class to be corrupt, because if it weren't there would be counter-forces in the system that would make populism unnecessary.

I would disagree that populist movements are only ever responses to corruption. The backlash against the Democratic party in the South over the end of Jim Crow was a populist movement, but it wasn't, and did not consider itself, primarily a movement against corruption. It was a popular backlash against racial integration.

We could consider what would happen if some new party swept into power in the US and radically reduced corruption and perceived corruption. Now let's say our new party is all about "building the future" and turns around and says "we have to deal with global warming and the national debt. This will mean national sacrifice. We will be implementing carbon taxes, benefits cuts, and raising revenue to pay off the debt, and this will mean that everyone has to change their patterns of consumption, consume less."

I'd argue that this is 100% guaranteed to produce a major populist backlash in the current enviornment, regardless of how virtuous the new party is and how much it has reduced self-dealing and conflicts of interest.

The populist backlash against plans to do much of anything to combat climate change aren't grounded in charges of corruption, they are grounded in the fact that such plans require reductions in consumption to be effective.

Tzeentch

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe the period of US history you're referring to is an exception, where the political elite can be said to have gone against the will of the people with a moral justification. That's hardly the case today, though. Then again, wasn't the Democratic party complicit in the whole affair? I can't say I know a ton about that part of US history.

ssu

True but other societies may also use brute force and other aspects not permitted by democratic means. — Vaskane

And a democracy to function, it ought to have the ability change the individuals that are in power. Violence already means that democracy isn't working.

Violence is something that we shouldn't get to. And this come to my point: if an ideology is confrontational from the start and creates juxtaposition, then it's abuse is easy. Political ideologies have to be viewed from how absolute idiots will take them. Those that ideologies that accept or promote violence are the worst. Marxism is a good example: a communist revolution morphs quite quickly to simply killing the rich. Or those perceived to be rich. After all, if the Capitalist system has to be overthrown violently, doesn't that mean killing people? Many Marxists would disagree, but they aren't the ones with the rifles going house to house to look for the class enemy, usually.

Naturally the present populism doesn't start from such a situation. But basically it has doubts about the whole democratic process. With populism there is this obvious "us" and "them" and "they", where the elite, "they", aren't some specific individuals.

ssu

Are you saying Populism is something like "voting," Basically? — Vaskane

Populism is a political narrative. It surely can be used in any society, but it is part of the political discourse in a democratic system. If people are satisfied (at least to some degree) with the system and there aren't huge political problems, then populism stays on the fringe with a tiny part of the political system. There's always those people who think this way, just as there always are radicals in a democracy.

Populism becoming mainstream tells something about the political environment, which I think the point that @Tzeentch has made.

I think Nietzsche's quote on homogenization of the masses still applies through populism and thus rears conditions to build the strongest of tyrants. — Vaskane

Nations do need some kind of homogenization starting from being equal citizens. Even if patriotism and nationalism have their dark sides, you has to remember that they also connect people who otherwise have little if anything common. It's important for social cohesion.

jorndoe

I came here to discuss how democracy is just another term for homogenization of the masses. A homogenized mass is easier controlled. Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd," can teach you that too. Same with Edward Bernays' "Propaganda."

Regardless, sorry there was some miscommunication that occurred. Amor Fati. — Vaskane

I think it depends.

People are ... taught a main language, rarely more than a couple others ... incentivized to not just shoot others on the street (e.g. minority protection) by law ^(†)(‡) ... "indoctrinated" with arithmetic ... enculturated regionally ...

Does that count as homogenization though?

Why populism leads to authoritarianism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions