Populism as a ‘thin-centred’ ideology: ranging from the left (‘Chavismo’) to the right ('tea party')

[pampango]

Last edited Thu Nov 20, 2014, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

In recent years we have seen established political parties increasingly challenged by populist parties. Populism is essentially a ‘thin-centred’ ideology. It considers society to be separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and argues that politics should be an expression of the ‘general will’ of the people. Because populism is a thin ideology, it can be easily combined with other (full) ideologies ranging from the left (e.g. ‘Chavismo’) to the right (e.g. the UK Independence party).

Given the diversity of populist phenomena, it is a challenge to talk about there being general causes for the rise and success of populist parties. ... In the analysis, I examined the reason people voted for six parties. Each can be defined as populist, but they differ remarkably in terms of their full ideology. The six parties hail from Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany. Both leftwing populist parties (the Socialist party in the Netherlands and Die Linke, the Left party, in Germany) and rightwing populist parties (List Pim Fortuyn and PVV in The Netherlands and List Dedecker and Vlaams Belang in Belgium) were included in the analysis. Drawing on national election surveys in these countries, I found that despite many differences, the voters for these populist parties had three characteristics in common.

The first is that those who vote for populist parties are all dissatisfied with the functioning of democracy. Hardly any other (opposition) party was able to appeal to voters with low levels of political trust to the same extent as populist parties do, suggesting the emergence of dual-party systems. As the representative function of parties eroded as they played their part in governing, voters came to see such parties as more remote and similar to each other.

Finally, while populist parties do not mobilise among one specific social group, it seems that deprived groups are generally more susceptible to populist voting. Rightwing populist parties attract the so-called ‘losers from globalisation’: lower-educated people who are concerned about issues such as outsourcing, immigration and European integration. The leftwing populist Die Linke (formerly the PDS), however, used to give voice to higher-educated civil servants who had become robbed of their elite status after the fall of the Berlin wall.

For two reasons, we should also put the rise of populist parties into perspective. First, they represent a modest, if not marginal, part of the electorate in most western European countries. Most voters are satisfied with the functioning of democracy and will only shift massively to populist alternatives in times of a serious crisis as is currently the case in Greece. Second, populists put issues on the agenda that have been neglected by mainstream parties and also reintegrate certain deprived groups into the political system.

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4777&title=Populism-a-flashing-amber-signal

This article deals with populist parties in Europe but the themes seem to apply to the US as well. Even in Europe most of the populist parties are on the right.

The idea that populism is a "thin-centered' ideology apparently means that it can be adapted for use on the left and the right - ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’ being a staple of both.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Pure v. corrupt themes--have you read Jonathan Haidt?

The Six Foundations

According to Haidt, liberals & conservatives are very different in the patterns of moral values they adhere to. Here are the entire six according to Haidt's findings:

Values and their opposites
Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Aternate name: Proportionality)
Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Aternate name: Ingroup)
Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Aternate name: Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Aternate name: Purity.)

[kentuck]

2. The right uses populism of the "corrupt elite"...

and the left uses no populism.

They may not be "the pure people" but that may be the only weapon they have to compete with the corrupt elite??

[pampango]

3. I am not sure the "left uses no populism" although the right certainly uses it more and better, if

not sincerely.

I think many on the left have run against the "corrupt elite" though their desire, once elected, to make concrete improvements in the lives of "the pure people" seems to then diminish their perceived populist appeal. "... the representative function of parties eroded as they played their part in governing, voters came to see such parties as more remote and similar to each other." Even Bush became pretty unpopular with the right-wing base of the party by the end of his administration.

[tuhaybey]

4. elites

I do think that liberals and conservatives have different ideas about who the elites are. Conservatives think those who wield legal power are elites where liberals think those who wield economic power are the elites. In my view, the reason they differ in that is that liberals tend to think about these sorts of questions in terms of optimizing the world. We want to make the world better. Conservatives tend to think of it more like there is a "natural" way that the world is "supposed to be." On the economic side, they think the economy would naturally be however the economy would be without regulation or government. On the social side, they think the world ought to be similar to some vague notion they have in their heads of how things used to be at some point in the past.

So, liberals see that legal power is a better tool for optimizing the world and, in a democracy, they see that control over that power is justly divided where they see economic power as being more randomized. Sometimes it works for good, sometimes bad. Sometimes it is distributed in a just way, other times not. So, they see economic power as being one of the things to be optimized and legal power as a tool for doing it. Conservatives are the opposite. They see economic power as being distributed roughly how it naturally would be- the rich deserve to be rich, so they deserve more power and the poor deserve less power. Conversely, they see legal power as being distasteful because it is wielded by just anybody rather than by the most deserving- those who would "naturally" have the most power.

We're heading towards a point where economic power will eclipse legal power so dramatically that I think we will have interesting times for both sides. Look, for example, at how the income of the top 0.1% compares to other priorities in our society. Consider the degree to which the uber rich are controlling elections. It seems to me that as power continues to become more and more concentrated in the hands of the rich, at some point, even the conservatives would start to question whether that really is the "natural" condition they want to live in and whether it really is the policy makers who are the elites.

[loyalsister]

5. I had an argument about the meaning of populism once

His claim was that Bush's tax cuts were populist policies. I disagreed, thinking of the traditional meaning of populism. Then after seeing Bush promoting it I agreed with him. He made a show of handing an audience member $1 as a "I want the government to give you back your money" pitch.

So, I decided his and my definition were both correct in different ways. In one sense it is a style of promoting economic policies in order to convince people that they will benefit.

On the other hand, the traditional definition of a political position also applies.

So, it is a word I dislike because it has become confusing and useless, as it is now used to describe political gimmicks.