Populist Movements: Critics Should Pay More Attention to Their Causes

‘Populism” is a term that has accumulated a slew of negative connotations. In common parlance, the populist is a pseudo-charismatic leader, a demagogue who channels the infernal passions of the unintellectual populace, a wannabe tyrant who plays with the prejudices of “deplorables” for personal gain. Beyond these anathemas, however, proponents and opponents are mostly unable to define what populism entails, perhaps because it is nothing more than a deep-rooted sense of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis a disconnected elite. While populists may not share many programmatic positions, they all see politics as a zero-sum game, a gladiatorial contest between a virtuous “people” and a corrupt “system.”

Naturally, the fears that populism inspires are far from unjustified. In a classical-liberal framework wherein rational discourse underpins the practice of politics, those who sacrifice the civil exchange of ideas on the altar of indignation seem to threaten the established order. In fact, they explicitly do: Populists focus their engagement upon the malfunctions of the status quo, whose architects they promise to punish. To put it simply, they are not for as much as they are against. In this sense, populism as a mode of politics need not be ideological. While most commentators associate the term with nationalist resentment or Jacobin fury, every kind of populist discourse is but an iteration of a wider, malleable, diffuse conception of public life. In fact, the contours of specific populist movements depend upon the elite they aspire to combat: against cosmopolitan liberals, convinced chauvinists; against a disconnected bourgeoisie, enthusiastic socialists. In every case, the frustrations of the moment lay the foundations of the movement — which, without these frustrations, would be meaningless. Ultimately, populism first and foremost characterizes a resentful request for popular representation and recognition, a sense of disenchantment so significant that it distills an often-incoherent set of demands into a single political cry: Enough.

About the Author

Mathis Bitton

Mathis Bitton is an editorial intern at National Review.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Populism

‘Populism” is a term that has accumulated a slew of negative connotations. In common parlance, the populist is a pseudo-charismatic leader, a demagogue who channels the infernal passions of the unintellectual populace, a wannabe tyrant who plays with the prejudices of “deplorables” for personal gain. Beyond these anathemas, however, proponents and opponents are mostly unable to define what populism entails, perhaps because it is nothing more than a deep-rooted sense of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis a disconnected elite. While populists may not share many programmatic positions, they all see politics as a zero-sum game, a gladiatorial contest between a virtuous “people” and a corrupt “system.”

Naturally, the fears that populism inspires are far from unjustified. In a classical-liberal framework wherein rational discourse underpins the practice of politics, those who sacrifice the civil exchange of ideas on the altar of indignation seem to threaten the established order. In fact, they explicitly do: Populists focus their engagement upon the malfunctions of the status quo, whose architects they promise to punish. To put it simply, they are not for as much as they are against. In this sense, populism as a mode of politics need not be ideological. While most commentators associate the term with nationalist resentment or Jacobin fury, every kind of populist discourse is but an iteration of a wider, malleable, diffuse conception of public life. In fact, the contours of specific populist movements depend upon the elite they aspire to combat: against cosmopolitan liberals, convinced chauvinists; against a disconnected bourgeoisie, enthusiastic socialists. In every case, the frustrations of the moment lay the foundations of the movement — which, without these frustrations, would be meaningless. Ultimately, populism first and foremost characterizes a resentful request for popular representation and recognition, a sense of disenchantment so significant that it distills an often-incoherent set of demands into a single political cry: Enough.