Populism is on the rise, but I’m not worried.
What’s actually wrong with ‘populism’? (Seriously. Asking for a friend.)
More and more I’m hearing this term bandied about. It always comes as an insult. But it doesn’t seem to have any consistent political flavour.
Supporting gay-marriage? Populist. Being anti-immigration? Populist. Supporting minimum wage increases? Populist. Supporting tax cuts? Populist. Supporting new coal mines? Populist. Supporting clean energy targets? Populist.
It’s all over the shop. Seems that any politician or any piece of policy can be populist.
So at it’s heart it seems to be about a style of politics – a style where personal convictions and the “truth” are put aside in favour of whatever sells.
Sounds terrible right?
Only thing is, that’s what I thought politicians were supposed to do. In theory at least, politicians aren’t supposed to be following their own whims. They’re supposed to be ‘representing’ their constituents, and taking direction from them on the issues of the day.
The whole system is, in theory, populist. Or it’s supposed to be.
It’s like I laugh every time something is put to a conscience vote – where each member is free to vote with what they think is right.
But what are they doing the rest of the time? Backing policies they don’t think are right just because that’s what the party told them to do?
That sounds like a pretty flawed system.
I’d prefer my politicians to represent my interest thanks.
But don’t get me started. The modern democratic system is a total cluster-fuddle.
But still I’m interested in this idea of ‘populism’. It seems to me it’s a bit of trying to have your cake an eat it to.
Like, you’re saying, I support democracy, except when the majority are wrong. In that case, I’d like my own personal opinions to be implemented, thanks. In that situation, I’m a fascist.
And I think this is one of the weird truths that underpin our democratic system. We like to think that we support the idea of one person, one vote, but deep down, we know that a simple of majority of people can support some pretty stupid things.
The mob, with torches and pitchforks, can go pretty rouge pretty quickly.
And so I don’t think any body trusts 50+x% of the population to consistently come up with good decisions. It’s a recipe for mob rule. For the tyranny of the majority.
And so I think, secretly, we kind of hope that some sort of enlightened elite has got the reins. Like some sort of political Avengers, strong enough to resist the will of the mob, and do what’s right.
Secretly, we’re all fascists.
(Actually, tbh, I don’t really know what that term means. It’s probably not exactly what I think it is, but you get my point.)
And so I thought this chart here was interesting. It’s from a group called “Bridgewater”. It looks at the global share of the populist vote right now.
Each nation is weighted by their population shares, so it’s a bit rough, but the general trend feels about right.
But note that the authors admit that when they’re talking about ‘populism’ they’re really talking about “anti-establishment” parties – parties that are capitalising on an appetite for change and proposing radical alternatives to the status quo.
(They also include Trump in this sense, even though he’s representing an establishment party.)
They argue that the populist vote is now as strong as it was in the days leading up to WWII.
They argue that it’s kind of a scary prospect.
What do you think?
I’m not so sure. I think it does say some interesting things about where we’re at as a society. Remember the 1930s was a very rough patch that followed the great stock market crash. The past ten years has been a rough patch that followed the GFC.
I think there are parallels.
Generally, we’re secret fascists when the enlightened elite is doing a good job – when our economies prosper and hopes for the future are high.
But when the economy falters and hope dries up, then we start looking for alternatives. We become populists again.
So I think there are some parallels.
But I think there are some important differences.
The first is that modern populists parties are much fluffier than their 1930s predecessors. Even the nastiest can barely hold a candle to the Italian fascists or the German Nazis.
And personally, I just don’t see it ever getting that bad again.
And that’s because the internet gives us the capacity to draw out our collective empathy.
Say, for example, Australia implemented a policy that allowed you to kick a person of Greek heritage in the shins every Friday.
I would feel oppressed. But I could craft a pretty heart wrenching video on social media, and I think enough people would stop and go, you know what, that isn’t right.
Oppression relies on a disconnection from our basic humanity. German Nazis were persuaded to stop seeing Jews as people.
But that’s a huge deceit that takes years of carefully controlled social engineering.
Someone might try to do something similar with Greek Australians, but I don’t think it would get off the ground. It just couldn’t get the space it needs. The internet would quickly serve up witty and funny and touching counter points that would bring people back to their fundamental humanity.
And deep down, I trust that people are good.
So all this populism – all this anti-establishment feeling – I say bring it on. The system isn’t working and it could use a shake up.
But I don’t worry about us descending back into the horrible dark days of the 30s and 40s.
I think the internet protects us from that.
Like, how good is that? What a time to be alive.
What do you think? Am I taking things for granted?
David Hancock says
Brilliant thinking and again you have us in tears…..you should be syndicated but I’ll do my best and simply “share” your thoughts!
ronald goddard says
hi jonno,
i hope that you have the good manners to print this nice post.
kicking greeks in the shins? you are kidding. my best mates at primary school in the late forties were dings and wogs and dagoes. we played marbles, and bought coloured icecreams together, and never once did i think about where they came from or what they represented. they were my mates. and so it has travelled along the lifeline of one r.l.g.. now married to a nice thai woman. people are people. its the greedy, ego seeking buggers i cannot bear.
anyway, its up to each individual how they behave in our rather musty ‘multicultured’ society, which, in my opinion is not working that well, mainly because of a thing called the U.N. charter, wherein we must accept refugees and care for them. it is a blister in our society because they seem to get more than the normal aussie battler in very generous handouts, and that is a widely held view in west oz. i paid big bucks to get my wife here and pay the bills for her care. so i have not asked the ‘taxpayer’ to dob in for my benefit. when, after the war, there was a massive immigration of europeans into oz they went to work and asked for nothing. now those families are doing very nicely thank you and good luck to them. probably your parents were among them. i know many italians in my area and they are all good blokes. they still have a strange, italian way of talking, but i do understand them:-)
as you say, maybe the internet has a binding effect on people. we are perhaps more aware of things than pre internet, the reliance on newspapers and tv news is on the wane. we do our own research now and come to conclusions. ha ha.
lastly, people will never be satisfied in that there is always a challenge; a mountain to climb, yet we are told to ‘live in the moment’. yes indeed, as you read this, the moment just gone is all you had then, and the moment you have now is all you really have. and the next moment is already here.
cheers, from ron in west oz.
Traveller says
So WWIII is just around the corner! It’s great what you can ‘prove’ with statistics.
In Quora ‘https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-populism-and-democracy’ puts it in a nutshell.:”In short, Democracy is a form of government elected by the people whereas Populism is a movement initiated by the people to bring some change in the existing government.”
So it is not necessarily anti-establishment, it is more about a popular movement to make the establishment work for the people, rather than for their own benefit. Therefore it aligns with much of what you say Jon.
Populism is a modern term but I believe that most of the modern ‘rights’ have been gained by populist movement of one sort or another; starting with Magna Carter when the knights took away some of the power of the king, to stop him taking their land and money when he felt like it. It also applies to many other subsequent movement, such as the poll tax riots, the emancipation movement, strikes, voting rights, abolition of slavery, etc. These have gradually improved the lot of the people, leading to our modern democratic societies.
If this is taken to the extreme, as in Fascism and Communism (which as implemented is actually Totalitarianism), then in my view that is not populism, as these movement seek to destroy the current governments and replace them with something else (which generally turns out to be worse!). Gradual changes through ‘populism’ has been proven to much more effective than invasion or revolution in improving peoples lives.
You may be right Jon that the Internet may save the day, as people are able to see (if they care to look!) how others countries have a better systems than theirs and create populist movements to achieve gradual change. Let’s hope so. Disruptive change is unstable and dangerous.
KiwiAl says
“Am I taking things for granted?”
Yes, Jon, I suspect so.
Just look at what’s happening with our good mate, Mr Trump. He was elected on a wave of populism, on the basis that he was going to “Drain the Swamp” and give the whole system a good shake up. But now?
Yeah, he’s giving it a good shake, all right! How much money can he shake into the Trump family coffers, type shake. And I suspect, to most people on the street, he’s now looking just like the rest of them but worse.
Reminds me very much of our just-departed NZ PM, Shon-Key. He came into power about 8 years ago, with a (dubiously acquired) personal worth of about $50 million. Apparently, his value now is about $500 million. So, one really, really has to wonder, how did he “make” $450 mill on the side, while he was working full-time as PM?
Trump seems to be following his leadership model rather well.
What’s happening is simply the rich getting richer, and the poor poorer, but the people will only realise that populism is just another great swindle when they no longer have enough income to survive. I don’t know how far off that’s going to be, but the signs are there. It’s coming, for sure.
But I don’t think we’re ready for WW-III just yet. In fact, if you ask me, if humanity does actually start WW-III, it will be the end of this cycle for humanity. Probably wipe out 99% of us.
As for the Internet and all those nice warm fuzzies and connectedness it serves up… Hee hee!
“They” are now warming us up for that to end anytime they like. Just look at WannaCry and Petya and NotPetya and various other ramson-malware. Supposedly, shutting down power networks, crippling banking systems, bringing big companies to their knees in an instant.
Without the Internet, where we gonna be?
Cos all it will take is the flick of a couple of switches. What then?
John says
You are spot on as usual.
Simon says
Internet voting on individual issues. or using your mobile ph number, because we mostly all have one, and platforms already exist to count the votes.
With a constitutional proviso that you can’t vote to harm a minority without proving that you have to restrain the minority from harming the majority.
i.e. I don’t like red sports cars, but I have to prove that they harm me before they lose any rights,
cain says
Well said! We need political laws that require politicians to work for the people and not their party. And the big parties still wondering why we are voting for independents only proves how ignorant and out of touch these big party politions are!