General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA look at populism: the right wing - tea party - version and the left-wing - Occupy - version.
Part of that confusion lies in populisms deep but complex relationship to democracy. Arguably, there is no populism without democracy: populism is a by-product of democracy (or as the scholar Margaret Canovan once argued ? a shadow cast by democracy). It arises from a perception of betrayal of the democratic promise. And the greater the foundational promise of equality, the greater the chances of populist politics emerging, once the promise is seen as broken...
The second reason why populism is attracting the favours of otherwise reasonable people is that, for the past year or so, it seems to be undergoing a renaissance on the left of the political spectrum (and many have also been tempted to lump the Arab revolts of 2011 in there as well for good measure). Two types of reactions then occur. The first is a knee-jerk, I like these people and therefore they cant be populists reaction. The second is a more nuanced, but this is a left-wing populism
and therefore it cant be bad. This last reaction is based on a much more interesting premise, namely that populism on the left is not xenophobic and therefore is perfectly OK. Take away the xenophobia, some argue, and youve got yourself a democratic movement.
For right-wing populism, a variant of racism ... will do the trick ... But given the contemporary lefts complicated relationship to diversity (that pesky conundrum resulting from the dual demands of equality and representation), clear cut racism is no longer an option and neither is a classic xenophobia necessarily related to race, ethnicity or even religion.
For left-wing populism in the era of identity politics, the contortions are more and more demanding. But xenophobia is a pliable concept. ... The fact that xenophobia can accommodate huge variations of nature and intensity is a useful resource for populist movements. This means that the other can be expanded to mean just about anything: the elite of course, liberals and intellectuals who favour the complexity of diversity, the traitors amongst us, but also foreign powers (the EU, the US, China).
But, broadly speaking, these fall into three distinct camps: the Strictly Populists, the Demagogues and the Democratic Activists. The first group is toxic and dangerous, the second is regrettable, the third is a necessary by-product of mass, democratic politics with which we can all live. It is a fundamentally different political animal.
The Strictly Populists include the movements and parties who fit all three initial criteria and whose xenophobia however couched is well in evidence. The Marine Le Pens, the Geert Wilders, the Tea Party activists ... All of them have refined their xenophobia by moving it away from outright racism. But their appeal is to those people who not only feel they have been cheated by a system that privileges elites of all sorts whilst abandoning them to a mediocre existence, but for whom solutions are to be found in an increasingly closed model of society that can privilege them, protect them, as the ordinary, true people - the keepers of the national flame. A closed model of society and politics is foundational to this strand of populism.
The demagogues are a kind of populism lite. Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a prime example. Anti-elitist but erudite, frank but astute, his rhetoric is nevertheless neither simplistic nor does it come across as common sense. Indeed listening to Mélenchon is a lot like listening to Chomsky or the ghost of Durkheim. References to Bretton Woods, Huntington and Fukuyama abound, and the role of the United States is consistently highlighted as the engine of the current crisis. The anti-globalisation rhetoric sails very close to the wind of xenophobia, but manages not to fall into the trap.
The Democratic Activists: Here we find Occupy and the Indignados, but also the rhetoric of any talented politician or political activist in an era of mass democracy and media driven politics. Those whose explicit use of the concept of accountability (rhetorically and in practice) de facto creates an air de famille with populism, but who dont rely on exclusion or any form of xenophobia to drive the project: those whose vision might encompass enemies, but whose aspirations belong to an open society, mindful of diversity. ... The language of anti-corruption and democratic accountability differs substantially, in that it targets specific laws and specific members of the elite. It is not anti-elitist per se. And in all these points it differs markedly from a populist movement.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/catherine-fieschi/plague-on-both-your-populisms
Interesting look at populism. I like the author's conclusion that right-wing populism as typified by the tea party (and the French National Front, Geert Wilders and others) is characterized by a preference for "solutions are to be found in an increasingly closed model of society that can privilege them, protect them, as the ordinary, true people..."
On the other hand, left-wing populism (like Occupy and the Indignados) "targets specific laws and specific members of the elite", with a "language of anti-corruption and democratic accountability" that is not "anti-elitist per se" and does not "rely on exclusion or any form of xenophobia to drive the project: those whose vision might encompass enemies, but whose aspirations belong to an open society, mindful of diversity". (The author thinks this means that these left movements are not "populist" because they are not "anti-elitist" in general but rather target particular members of the elite. Not sure I agree with that definition of "populist".)
It seems consistent with what I see of the tea party that they want a closed society that protects "us" and privileges "us" against all of the "thems" (foreigners, minorities, liberals, etc.) out there. While Occupy and other left movements seek an open society that doesn't "rely on exclusion or any form of xenophobia" and is mindful of diversity.
patrice
(47,992 posts)which, in its current configuration, has NO reciprocal for the damage that over-turning Citizens United WILL do to Labor. In terms of the Left in general, that's kind of a "kill them all, let God sort them out" attitude, but, in terms of the Left/Liberals within the Occupy & 99% Spring, that abrogation of the responsibility for strengthening VERTICALITY between Corporations and Unions (by trying to return Labor to its old POWER -LE$$$$$$$$$$$$$ condition pre CU) is a violation of the horizontal principles NECESSARY to an authentic people's movement. So, while those of us in the Occupy movement, look at a "Left" that is not only acting VERTICALLY in association with a Movement to Amend that appears to be hostile to Labor, we also see that the whole movement is also attacked aggressively no matter which way it moves.
The general public perception is that the Occupy is "tooo Left".
There is a strong perception, NOT necessarily within the movement itself, that it is too Right, because of constraints upon its address to Labor, which constraints, amongst other things, are the product of a Movement to Amend that does not address the systemic issues that CAUSED Corporate Personhood.
MTA seeks to treat symptoms EXCLUSIVELY and NOT causes. Ask yourself WHY.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)I think you nailed it by mentioning the underlying issues of the conservative mind, the us against them mind set. A singular behavior is evil if committed by a person not in their group, something to be exalted if committed by one of their own. They feel the need to have other people/groups of people "below" them on the food chain.
It often reminds me of the truck experiment. The object was to move your truck across a board as many times as possible withing a given amount of time. Two people had this task, on opposite sides of the board with a bridge in the middle. The Japanese subjects did well on this task as they cooperated with each other on the bridge so that they could move their trucks most efficiently to achieve the goal. American subjects, on the other hand, did poorly as they lost sight of what the goal was and were more concerned with blocking the other subject from moving their truck, their competitive frame didn't allow them to move their trucks across the board very well.
The conservative mind is more concerned about having more than the person next to them even if it means that everyone will have less as a consequence. Cooperation and compassion are not concepts that they understand and will fight tooth and nail against.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If you are American and you want a job producing goods or services for the United States market, you are a xenophobe because you are taking a job from a foreigner.
S/he won't be happy until every job in this country is filled by a non-citizen.
Occupy is most CERTAINLY against offshoring. Why? Because it discriminates against American workers and locks Americans out of the job market. Pampango's thread was created because s/he has found out the hard way that the opposition to offshoring is now ALSO the majority opinion among Democrats.
pampango
(24,692 posts)between the two? If you disagree with the author, what do you think the difference between right-wing and left-wing populism is?
I do agree with the author that right-wing populism (of the teabagger variety) is characterized by a preference that "solutions are to be found in an increasingly closed model of society that can privilege them, protect them, as the ordinary, true people...". The teabaggers have summed it up nicely, "We want our country back (in our own hands, not those of minorities, foreigners and liberals)."
Do you think that conservatives always have as their goal a "closed model of society" not an open one.
Do you disagree with the author that liberal populism seeks to create an "open society, mindful of diversity"?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I know exactly why you went for posting an article that talked about xenophobia.
There's just one kind of xenophobia that has consistently been on your mind.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Do you not agree that right-wing populists (like teabaggers) can (and often are) xenophobes? He did not accuse the left-wing of that.
I forget sometimes that you are a good mind reader, but not as adept as a question answerer.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Sure we'll get the chance to get into this again.