Cohen's point is bang on. Consider--
(a) MW--
"Date:1892
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people"
(b) http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/eamerica/media/ch22/resources/do...
This is the 1890 Populist Party platform. But there was also an undercurrent of antisemitism.
(c) MW (2) above also includes the ignorance, prejudices, phobias, and vices and disorders of the common people. Thus majority rule is famously majority tyranny. It is limited and surmounted by the Constitution which requires due process, separation of federal powers as well as multi levels of government and thus diffused authority, and multi levels of research, debate and appeal.
As Thoreau said, majorities do not make things true, reasonable, just or even sane. Majorities have a place in the mutli levels of government decision making--only after due diligence, debate, and process--call the question. Otherwise guard against them--as the Constitution does.
"The rise of populist leaders is often fueled by widespread public disillusionment with existing institutions and dissatisfaction with chronic inequality. Populists seize on these frustrations and use them to rally public support against entrenched “corrupt elites” who do nothing to correct these dysfunctions."
https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2017/10/06/the-link-between-corrupt...
If populism is about anything, it is about economics.
- More than 70% of voters support a higher minimum wage.
- More than 80% of *Republican* voters support Social Security
- Workers are alarmed about decades of big trade deficits.
The *minimum* wage of 1969 would be over $19, adjusted for productivity growth and inflation instead of $7.25 today. That is more than today's *median* wage. That is how far the US worker has fallen.
What did Obama do?
Obama tried to cut Social Security.
TPP? Since US workers had no seat at the table - even our legislators were given very restricted access to TPP drafts by the lobbyists involved in writing and negotiating it - you can be sure that workers were on the menu.
Again.
Populist pressure has been building a long time. Trump is just the first time our duopoly failed to install a donor-approved candidate. Is Trump a true populist? No. But populist pressure, and the correct perception that workers have *zero* representation on economic issues in our government, is why he is now president.
Trump : Populism for Dummies. Seriously.
15
"Resort to the populist label is synonymous with dismissal. It reflects the superior view that the deluded plebes — seldom encountered in person — have got it wrong. It flirts with disrespect of democracy."
It's accurate!
One is put in mind of H.L. Mencken: -- “As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
"The deluded plebes" are destroying America BUT thankfully their acceleration into economic and social irrelevence will happen before they achieve their miserable goals!
14
Quit prertzelyzing the English language and tell it like it really is. Populism today has come to mean RACISM. Period.
19
When I think of populism, I would of someone like William Jennings Bryan, who opposed the gold standard and led the “free silver” movement as a means to expand the money supply.
On the other hand, I don’t associate leaders such as Mussolini or Franco or Hitler with populism, though if they were active today perhaps the media might brand them as populists.
5
Spot on, Roger.
3
Ah, once again again liberals are advised to be more polite so they don’t alienate delicate fascists, neo-Fascists, authoritarians, bullies, xenophobes, homophobes, sexists, and red-faced racists.
No thank you.
Please advise the screaming crowds at Donald Trump’s rallies to be more civil. They hurt my feelings.
55
Usually like your columns, but not this one. Where is the term racist? Where is the term xenophobe? Where is the term sexist? Where is the term white supremacist? To downplay what many of his supporters and he are by shaming people with compassion and empathy doesn't work either.
What an awful column today. You act as if most of the world needs to pander to people that mean active willful harm to them. Sorry. Doesn't play.
53
While we are at it, let's get rid of 'liberal', as it, too, has become a pejorative.
34
shorthand makes things easier:
populists, in the USA, mainly live in the South or the MidWest. they are enthusiastic members of various Protestant sects which teach that everyone who has yet to accept their religion is either to be proselytized into believing what they believe on faith, or is a rotten sinner on a freeway to hell. education is not a priority this world, but faith in what cannot be proven or demonstrated is. there is a widespread belief that things used to be a lot better for people like themselves but they have been shafted over the years by agents of Satan, their archnemesis, the coastal elite, who have rigged the world against them, so they must fight back or die. they are Republicans for all these reasons, somehow, but nobody knows just how they were coopted by the country club set.
in this world, elite means educated, wealthy, snobby, and coastal. it means people who do not share rural backgrounds or Protestant faiths, a love of hunting and gun culture but are enamored by frilly things like high art and long hair music, fancy foods and wines you don't get at the Cracker Barrel, or nostalgia for farming. the elite travel abroad but can't see what's been right here in their own American backyard all along, so they are unpatriotic. they are most frequently referred to as denizens of New York/Wall Street or Hollywood - dog whistles meaning Jews, the unsaved, part of an international cabal, the other.
plus ca change...
happy Bastille Day, everyone.
26
This oped says it is "patronizing" to "reduce all they (Trump supporters) think to resentment".
But that's most of it. Racially tinged.
This includes white suburbanites who are both racist and want to keep as much of their money as they can, the commonweal be damned.
In any case, what liberals think is irrelevant because we can't change the minds of Trump supporters. We can only outvote them.
43
I'm with you. Even the Pope of the Catholic church is denouncing 'populism' as bad, seeing it as the cause of the German extermination. I think that analysis is wrong, by the way, the German extinction was due mostly to a lack of communication. I honestly believe that that couldn't happen today because of the Internet. Propaganda can fool most of us most of the time, but believing there was 'populist' support for the extinction of the Jews is ridiculous.
The term is meaningless and unhelpful. It is being used by 'elites' to degrade democracy and the common people. It is being used unwittingly by people of power to do the same.
The common person, I've found, is far more wise and often more kind than those in power. The US, Britain, etc... are experiencing a reforming of the conscience of the people upon the government. I see nothing bad about it. The only harm that can come from it is if bad elitists characterize vast populations as bad, do dumb things like declare war, and do dumb things like call minor trade distributes a 'war'.
We're not in a war. We don't have a trade war. We have some disputes, and we're going through a healthy realignment. None of my statements should be interpreted to mean that Trump is a great person, but he is doing things that needed to be done, apparently because our Liberal elite had a God Complex.
I prefer to be optimistic. I think things will work out one way or another.
2
I think Mr. Cohen has made a valid point, but I have already started applying labels other than "populist" to certain political groups in this country.
To me, the Republicans are "treasonous quislings" - somewhat redundant, I know, but good enough.
The Democrats are "spineless do-nothings" - seems about right.
Trump's base is "the brainless, soul-less, zombie army" - don't think this can be improved on.
The resistance to Trump is "the millions who are finally paying attention" - this group includes myself.
As for Trump - he's the drunken teenager who stole the car but can't drive.
25
Trump time and time again has proven he is a wealthy corporatist. The tough talking man of the people was just a ruse. Sadly his working class base seem not to care as long as he demeans minorities and immigrants. Trump is all talk their take, but drive a expensive luxury car and own a jet. Besides his well choreographed rallies you never ever see mixing with the Trump Base, he prefers corporate elitist.
11
The author misses the central problem with the term, at least as applied to right-wing insurgencies. To describe a political movement that seeks to deregulate corporate predation and maximize the profiteering of the .1% regardless of the social or environmental cost as “populist” is to collaborate in a brazen con job. Whether it is the Koch-funded Tea Party or Trump’s neo-fascist MAGA movement, billionaires in proletarian drag have succeeded in packaging their own class war on the larger society by framing it as a battle against “elitism,” a vacuous term that provides cover for very real economic and political privilege. Journalists like Mr. Cohen need to learn the difference between the grassroots and Astroturf.
34
Great suggestion. Using “populist/-ism” in the way we so often hear it used is akin to statements beginning with “All Jews / African Americans / women / Mexicans,” allowing the speaker to make a blanket statement without any kind of real thought, and then to move on to other things. At the end of the day, understanding is key to change. There are, understandably, millions of people who feel disenfranchised, or angry, or dissatisfied with their status in this country—and indeed in the world. We owe it to them to listen to what they say; otherwise, change will never happen.
3
I think you are getting close to the truth when you say about Trump voters 'They wanted disruption...and he delivers it daily.'
Those who still support Trump at this late date are not 'populists' or 'pure people', they are traitors who prefer racism, xenophobia and autocracy to the the rule of law.
Whatever Trump is, his voters are worse.
19
I remember a statement by Michael Moore before Trump “won” the election. He said that Trump was the Molotov Cocktail working class America was throwing into the system of globalization and automation and corporatization that was leaving them behind. Michael Moore saw it coming at a time when I and most others believed that Trump’s campaign was a pathetic joke.
20
"... wisdom of the common people" - that's an oxymoron right?
15
"Populism" or "populist" are words to disguise fascist and fascism. There are many such words which disguise fascist and fascism, such as Republican and Conservative. It just depends on the marks to be fooled into voting against themselves.
24
"liberal contempt is rampant". "metropolitan elites"
This is one of your worst columns I can recall, Mr. Cohen. I have no problem with your basic premise that we should abandon the misleading and overly-simplistic label "populist". Although, as other commenters have noted, I do not think it is as destructive to reasonable discourse, nor as broadly mis-applied, as many other terms in common use.
Your column relies on the same lazy slanders that you are asking us to abandon: "metropolitan elites"..."liberal contempt is rampant" (says the columnist, with contempt).
Both sides need to cool the rhetoric, and columns like this do nothing to that end.
While we are on the subject, I would like to have "elite" used more carefully. Elite means a small superior subset of the larger group ("superior" carrying its own issues, obviously). Elite in common heated parlance seems to be applied to a broad swath of the populace in the US who committed the time and money to pursuing education beyond high school, understanding that if they wanted a reasonable shot at a decent wage and life for themselves and their family, this was necessary. Not sure why anybody should be apologetic for trying to improve their lot in life.
27
There are towns in Maine, e.g. Rumford, a former mill town, where almost everybody is on public assistance of some kind. Those mill jobs are not coming back, but do people move, try to get vocational training, or pressure the state government to build the badly needed infrastructure that could support new industry? No, they rail against liberals, snort oxycodone, and vote for demagogues. The smart ones leave and they don't come back. And, by the way, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of Trump supporters HATE liberals to the point of violence. Without the "basket of deplorables," i.e. the racists, white supremacists, misogynists, and the hypocritical Evangelicals who are obsessed with abortion, Trump would not have won. The contempt goes both ways, you know. Both parties are broken because we need to get big money out of politics, but thanks to the Republicans, that will never happen. I really do think we're at war in this country.
47
"In nearly every case, there is a better, more precise way to describe a current political phenomenon than the word “populist.” It just requires thought, or even the effort to get out to the heartland and talk to people."
Amen to that. Yes, adjectives, as the "populist" in "populist movements" often conjoin with a noun to which they add nothing of meaning. When a basketball player for the Boston Celtics was injured during a game early this year, the injury was described, over and again as "gruesome" and has now become his"gruesomeinjury." Lower stakes, but there you are. Lazy is right.
Or, you could say those to whom you refer as "populists" are the ones who deem themselves superior beings, condescendingly calling those who believe that rules and laws apply equally to everyone "elitists."
14
Democrats are just upset they are not the populist party.
7
Some categories of Trump voters:
Realists = “voters who . . . decided that mainstream political parties have done nothing for their static incomes or disappearing jobs or [to counter] . . . national decline.”
Pig-in-a-Pokers = voters who knew little of Trump’s character, but believed Trump “represented a better way to register protest than supporting any mainstream [or third-party candidate].”
Iconoclastic and Unreflective Suicidals = informed voters who had “few illusions about [Trump’s character],” who thought him to be “a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic [and kleptocratic]” and “wanted disruption.”
Pitiable Populists = low-information voters, “deluded plebes”—often “encountered in person [in states like Utah, Arizona, Idaho, etc.]”—who evidence unswerving support for Trump no matter what he does.
Believe me Mr. Cohen, I live in Utah and often visit Arizona. There are plenty of Pitiable Populists out here.
6
Are you yourself unable to identify what the “it” is? If you don’t know, how do you expect your “elite” readers to come up with the answers? I think we “elitists” and many of the “populists” agree on one the thing though it is rarely articulated. Our constitutional government as laudable as it may be is among the most ineffective systems in executing the will of the people. So the root is frustration. How do you put that into a movement noun?
3
There are no "reasonable voters" who have made a "plausible choice" for Donald Trump. If you hire a hit man to kill you wife, you're still guilty. If you hire a babbling demagogue to murder your democracy, you're still responsible for every lie, every racial slur, every insane policy.
Second. These voters didn't come up with these "opinions" on their own--they are the products of an alternate reality infrastructure built by billionaires and delivered by demagogues from right-wing media. They have been indoctrinated now to the point that they will believe anything, follow Donald Trump anywhere. He tells them Russia is our best friend and Canada our mortal enemy and Trump voters nod their heads like zombies. These people are not making a "plausible choice." But they are still responsible for their actions.
27
Trump has never been a populist. I look at Trump and his rabid supporters as modern day anarchists.
10
Ok. Let's take the gloves off. I always favor "nativists" and may even go for "racists" for some.
10
LIBERAL contempt is rampant? Whatever contempt the the left shows pales in comparison to the contempt vocalized everywhere by the right. "Libtards" "Cucks," the countless racial slurs, "Lock Her Up!" . the violence, the police calls, the torches, the killings of unarmed black men, the criminalizing of immigrants, and so on...Please do not act like the right is so sensitive to bullying and contempt until AFTER you've immersed yourself in some conservative media. "Populist" is a generous term for sure..
19
I absolutely agree. We're calling fascists and Nazi sympathizers populists for some reason... and even issues that have traditionally belong to labor movements are called "populist". Government should be about the people. All the people... not just the richest of the rich.
6
Retiring "populist" is a great suggestion.
Cohen is right. The word is thrown around promiscuously and contemptuously, and rarely contributes to better understanding.
6
Cohen fails to analyze the dangerous and destructive relationship between populism and demagoguery. Donald Trump is a demagogue who plays on the fears, hatreds and resentments of "the people" to gain power, regardless of the consequences to the people themselves. Voters who are in the grips of populist ideology are not seeking wise leadership. They seek a figurehead who stokes their anger and affirms their prejudices.
Take Trump's trade wars as an example. Candidate Trump convinced his followers that international trade treaties and trade agreements are bad of American workers. So he promised them a trade war with other nations, allies included. So now we have trade wars with no clear rationale and no articulation of what "winning" the trade war will look like or what it is supposed to accomplish. The President says nothing about the risks of a trade war and the potential damage to the US economy and American workers in particular. But Trump's supporters are getting the trade war that he promised them, nonetheless.
Let's not ignore the dangers of populism and demagoguery out of a sympathy for and trust in a supposed wisdom of "we, the people."
8
I would temper this argument a wee bit. To my ear, calling half the groups listed here as contemporary examples of populists gives those groups far too much credit. When Trump's supporters are indoctrinated by a single media outlet managed and owned by a multi-billionaire, with talking heads culled from "think" tanks funded by multi-billionaires, the political meaning of the word populism has been tortured into nonsense. Just use the word accurately and call it a day.
8
My friends and I are among the millions of voters who voted for Obama 2X, then voted for Trump.
We voted for Obama the first time because he promised to upset the status quo which is destroying the working middle class.
The second time was because although Obama sold out to Wall Street, Romney was worse.
We voted for Trump because he promised, like Obama, to upset the status quo, and because he was not as bad as a Clinton.
We are populists - we want to upset the status quo to benefit the working middle class. Not the rich, not the poor, not the white, not the black, not the straights, not the gays, not the men, not the women - THE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS.
Geez...
It’s not rocket science.
Republicans only care about the rich and corporations.
Democrats only care about identified minorities, protected classes and corporations.
No political party cares at all about the working middle class - hence we need a populist party or candidate.
16
Waste no time with labels. Whether they can be called populists, patronizing politicians or plain demagogues, what really matters is what these so-called leaders destroy, and who ends up paying for it. People under that kind of regimes fear how much individual freedom will be taken away from them and their children. More often than not, anti-establishment -anti everything- characters are nothing more than pro-themselves advocates; they use people’s rights and legitimate (or inflated) causes, for the sole purpose of their own sake. All of the above, and then more, is what make populists et al. nothing short of Kakistocrats. They all start as power aficionados, and end up addicted to power, spoiling everybody else’s lives in the process, including those they used as stepping stones (usually the poor and unemployed) to advance their political projects: themselves. Wait and see how Mexico is transformed into “North Venezuela” short after December 1, 2018. Unfortunatelly, time will prove me right.
1
I agree basically with this piece, but disagree with the author's bias against judgementalism. In particular, the notion that any very large interest group or massive belief systems or huge numbers of people who act politically in protest of prevailing official policies ought to be taken seriously, in terms of the content of their beliefs, MERELY because there are huge numbers of them, is utter nonsense. The common privileging of this or that political belief by reference to the total mass quantities of humans who have "deeply held personal beliefs" about it is NOT the basis for any serious discussions about what public policies are desirable, on rational, empirical, scientific grounds. For any and all preferences for government policies simply MUST, to be credible, based on the way things actually ARE, as best determined by OBJECTIVE analysis, even regardless of popular preferences. And THIS is the characteristic conundrum of all governance based upon "consent of the governed", it must STILL come to terms with all sorts of unpopular realities, like it or not, in many, many circumstances.
Any governance system of whatever type must come to terms with highly technical and extremely complex phenomena and processes, and there is absolutely no substitute for expertise, elite knowledge, which no amount of objections to elitism can ever actually dispense with. Popular ignorance just doesn't cut it. But elite ignorance (and self-serving) is no better, and often worse.
4
What would be a better term? Public anger? Anger at the suffocating yoke that political correctness has forced on too many voters for the last 10 years or so?
You cannot condemn the term without simultaneously condemning political correctness for what it is: The other side of the coin.
As long as we are not prepared to understand the root causes that have given rise to the current irrational madness and be prepared to openly discuss the excess on either side, we will not be able to solve the chasm that has opened up and separates the people of all Western civilizations.
6
Populism is a meaningless term in modern discourse. More Americans voted for Hilary than Trump. By logic, Hilary is the 'populist' candidate.
Historical 'populism' derives from politicized labor and farm movements, often in opposition to corporate or urban interests. The problem with modern 'populism' is that while the rhetoric may echo past populist movements, the policies enacted by modern populists often diverge significantly. Our 'American populists' enacted a major corporate tax cut and have ballooned government spending. The 'British populists' have likewise expanded government expenditures.
The more accurate term? Neo-Fascist. That's not to say all 'populist' movements are right-wing, but all of the successful ones in recent time are (U.S., UK, Italy, etc). These movements share in xenophobia, distrust of education and science, nationalism, support for authoritarianism etc. Perhaps with the ascent of AMLO in Mexico we shall have Neo-Socialist 'populism', but that remains to be seen. In the meantime, let's call them what they are.
5
A populist policy would favor the 99% over the 1%, not the other way around, as is the case with the Trump policies.
Populist policy today would be raising taxes on the rich to fund healthcare and education for all.
Instead we've got tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for the poor, 4 million more without health insurance heading towards 7 million, and no plan to balance social security for the long-run.
15
The term ‘populist’ is in contrast to ‘elitist’. In calling Trump supporters ‘populists’ power Progressives have inexplicably embraced the ‘elitist’ label once reserved for the likes of Mitt Romney. Republican Trump voters thought they rejected their own ‘elites’ and Democratic ‘elites’ as well. Democrats used to be seen as the party of the people and so won elections. No more and so they lose. Tumpism is now mistakenly seen as the party of the people. So he wins. Bernie Sanders incessant talk about supporting all the people strongly challenged Hillarie’s machine - Democrats need to take a hint.
4
I think it's funny that anyone could think it's "power Progressives", and not the very NON-liberal media, that keeps pushing that stupid word both to bizarrely glorify "covfefe" (their greatest foe!) as a popular movement, and to defame Bernie as another (or the same!) side of the covfefean coin. Those who've voted and read know better than to believe either.
"Populist" is the new "spam". Lovely and wonderful...
1
While we're retiring misunderstood and misused labels, let's bring back one we rarely hear these days: "capitalist." We hear "socialist" quite often when it is used as a slur and a scare tactic by capitalists afraid of losing a bit of their privilege and power over workers and consumers or the lucrative favors they get from our governments. "Capitalists" in both parties are the ones "rigging the game" from bottom to top. They're the ones hiding their excess profits offshore to keep from paying their fair share of tax to repair the infrastructure, educate and train their employees, maintain the police, military and courts that protect their assets at home and abroad. They're the ones who wrote the Republican tax bill to favor corporations and the most wealthy while demanding that the poorest work for their health insurance. They're the ones who have benefited most from unchecked illegal immigration and clamor for more seasonal guest workers and H-1B foreign tech workers. They're also the military-industrial complex that dines and golfs at Mar-a-Lago while Walmart and McDonald's workers must apply for food stamps and Medicaid to merely survive. Oh, and they're not the ones who die fighting our wars. Journalists, dare you use the label "capitalist"?
20
Good idea. The creation of categories of income that have developed leaves income derived from W-2 (earned income) as the income most exposed to taxes. Get rid of categories of income, let it all compete. Why would capital gains need incentives to exist? Passive income, pass through income, depreciation, stepped up values on inherited assets etc etc etc etc.. What makes these so special and more valuable (taxed at lower rates) than earned income?
10
A "populist" best represents the interest of the people by treating everyone as they would wish to be treated. The essence of a populist is love for one another.
Political party populism inherently divides and wedges people into conflicting definitions of one another, regressing civilization to the will of the few.
4
Populists on the left want open borders unfettered immigration then complain of stagnant wages demanding mandated minimum wage increases
Populists on the right ask for controlled immigration and letting the market place determine wages.
European leaders and American left seem to to favor unlimited immigrants over their own blue collar folks while referring to blue collar folks in vile terms.
The scars of this division won't soon be healed nor forgotten.
10
A majority of people on the left are not in favor of open borders. We just don't want people in desperate circumstances dehumanized and we don't believe there is anything precious about white skin. We would also like this country to take responsibility for its reckless and arrogant habit of helping to depose foreign leaders for the benefit of corporations. If we don't want people coming here, perhaps we could stop invading and bombing them or, in the case of Central America, where we also meddled for years, help them to get rid of the gangs to whom our armament manufactures sell weapons.
28
Excuse me, but a lot of us on the left ARE blue collar workers. I believe the median income of the average Trump voter is something like $70,000?
6
Which populists on the left are you referring to? I've not heard of any American voters who subscribe to the beliefs you describe.
2
Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Finally a literate, intelligent examination of a term that has come to define virtually every position seen or perceived as opposing 'democracy' or 'progressive policy'.
Your description of Trump supporters is spot on. Your description of Trump as a disruptor is also highly accurate.
1
Agreed. The planet has been experiencing a growing trend towards movements that range from authoritarian to absolutist based on an argument that their interpretation of how the world works is right and all others are wrong. Some of these movements are based in politics, others based in religion, both cannot stand the current situation and can only see radical solutions to their problems (both real and imagined).
To be sure there are huge segments of human society that have been ignored and dismissed and generally left out of both the economy as well as society.
The leaders who "organize" these movements simply want unbridled power but convince others that they are doing all of this "for you." Yeah-Right! This is the pursuit of power through any and all means possible. The one common element is that the leaders hate democracy and love authoritarian/absolutist rule.
5
I see nothing wrong with the term populist to define those who believe in majority rules democracy. It is the so-called elites who use the term in derogatory fashion who I am afraid of, as they do not believe in the democratic process but in a rule by the elite.
13
You mean how our president was elected by a minority of the population.
2
All such words hide more than they reveal. At worst, they distort. Today's "conservatives" in the USA are anything but conservative; quite the opposite: they favor radical change. The "liberals" are, similarly, the opposite of liberals; they favor considerable activism on the part of the government, which is the opposite of liberalism which favors more hands-off government with more room for individual independence. Additional examples are plentiful; what, e.g., is a "feminist?" I think I understand the need for a short, non-pejorative term for "homosexual," but "gay" could hardly be more off the mark.
Generalizations are very useful in many many cases, but they inherently lose information.
So while I agree with Cohen on this point, I suggest that he doesn't go anywhere near far enough. A two-pronged change is needed: first let's use fewer generalizations, and second let's be accurate, and hew to the established meaning, when we do use them.
5
Most people are too lazy to use the language with great accuracy or lack the vocabulary to do so.
It also depends on how a term is defined by an individual assuming he takes the time to carefully consider a definition.
Most people are too lazy to use the language with great accuracy or lack the vocabulary to do so.
Another literary reach from one who should know better. Words, like anything else in existence, are in constant flux. They, and their definitions, move with the times, whether literary purists like it or not.
But as long as we're mincing words (literally), how about "distraction." Is that being overused? Evidently not...
...maybe we should consider "Constitutional Crisis" as the most under-used binary in phraseology, given the current American Tsar's blatant authoritarian/fascist free pass? Oops, I did it again. We'll have to dissect those two adjectives, while our grandchildren learn of the horrors of the 20th Century World Wars, and now wonder what the big deal was with western Europe's POPULIST psychosis.
But that's OK, Roger, you keep writing this irrelevant drivel, while your eye drifts further from the ball. If I was the journalist I always wanted to be, I admit, I'd be mighty sick of the spectacle, but no less diligent in what was necessary for me to do in times of NATIONAL CRISIS.
Amazing...
6
Populism is ok but having a traitor in the white house, no!
5
"[A] reasonable voter who has made the plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates."
If this article didn't lose me from the outset, it lost me there.
You have got to be kidding. Robust and ample evidence that Trump can barely reason; lies pathologically; is an unrepentant bigot; preys on and despises women, is an infantile, malignant narcissist; deliberately stokes hatred, division, and even violence; screws others in business; has no moral or ethical core--all of this info was readily available to voters during the campaign. One would have to have been seriously impaired, seriously demogogic, or for some reason deprived of any contemporary media NOT to know it.
We need to face who we are. Supporters of Trump were not reasonable and Trump was not a plausible candidate. There is real ugliness in this country and until we acknowledge it, the beauty also here will be degraded.
18
While I'm able to excuse to some extent the voters who were taken in by the con man ( they believed him out of some kind of desperation) there simply is no excuse for those who continue to support him after what they have watched. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Now their true natures are exposed to everyone, and it is very ugly to witness.
5
Couldn’t agree more.
1
Hate groups are not "populist"! Populists are people that care about the general weal and work to benefit everybody. The clowns that usurped the term are fools.
6
During Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush, James Carville coined the phrase phrase 'The economy, stupid', which later morphed into "It's the economy, stupid".
Trump supporters may not have PhDs in econometrics but they do know that they are going through hard scrabble. And no, it's not a solution for smug NYT readers to tell them to go to college and get a degree when 160 million Americans have an IQ of 100 or less.
Most reporters don't understand economics or econometrics. Which is why they keep reporting the official unemployment rate while reporting bemused economists who can't understand why wages aren’t rising.
The office national unemployment rate matters less than the participation rate in local markets, broken down by biological sex, ethnicity, age, years of formal schooling.
In June 2018, the US overall labor-force participation rate—the share of the working-age population that is either in a job or looking for work—slipped to 62.8% from 62.9%.
Even then the picture is rosier than reality because the participation rate looks only at workers between the ages of twenty-five and fifty-five, averages out across the country, and excludes those in prison and heaps of other categories.
Focus on the participation rate for different demographics in local markets. Report on minimum wages, median average and mean average, maximum wages, temporary vs permanent contracts, casual shift work vs fixed hours.
7
The answer is in the details: "Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
Thus it includes all students over 16 and all retired, disabled and other unemployables.
3
hundreds of millions of people throughout history and throughout the world actually make a living, and one half of them have always had below average IQ.
so having above average IQ is clearly not a criterion for making a living.
its training yourself in something you can do, attitude and work effort for most people.
general unemployment has seldom been lower in America.
so there is no excuse for voting for Trump.
I've always assumed that 'Populism' is simply a derogatory term used against those who won an election, by those who lost. It's ironic that it's pretty much used exclusively by liberal journalists in democratic societies.
7
If ‘populism’ has outlived its original definition and distorts our understanding of social/political discourse then certainly the meaning of ‘Republican’ must also be updated.
Changing one without changing the other is naive or superficial at best.
2
The opposite is in fact the case. "Populist" is a euphemism, a whitewash term for the sort of demonstration the President referred to as includimg "some very fine people." Substitute "pupulist"for "racist" and it works every time. Substitute it for "violence-inclined and heavily armed racist" and it also works every time. And by "works," I mean "spruces up the indefensible for media publication and political normalization."
5
And recall that 1890s populism was riddled with antisemitism
Perhaps this would help clarify the term "populist".
A "populist" is one who advocates the views of the majority of the population.
A "false populist" is one who claims to advocate the views of the majority of the population, but actually works against those views.
Too often, I see writers use the term populist to describe a false populist.
3
Mr. Cohen:
You wrote... a reasonable voter who has made the plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates.......
Please find me that voter.
3
Maybe it's overused because it's an apt description of the political upheaval that's taking place. It's easy to point to themes on the right and the left - exit nafta, abolish ICE - that are catchy slogans, absent of critical thought about their implications. It's a bit like junk food, sure it tastes good, but it's garbage and you're hungry again in an hour. These themes quickly become the orthodox views of each side or 'movement', almost in knee-jerk fashion. Anyone who dares question the wisdom of the crowd is quickly dispatched by a hailstorm of emotional tweets that predictably reduces the dialog to the level of the school-yard insults.
So, no, it's not a "lazy" term. The real laziness is in those who are just plain reactionary or can't think beyond their own narrow self-interest. We used to value informed policy, now it's just whatever slogan gets the most tweets. It needs to be recognized for what it is.
Also, there's more than just a smidgen of irony when a NYT columnist is doling out advice on what to call "populism"; don't you think?
2
To me, the whole point of the "populist" label was to create a narrative. And narratives either win elections or are highly competitive (look at Reagan's "Morning in America," Clinton's "Change," W.'s "Compassionate Conservatism," and Obama's "Yes We Can").
The concept of populism was falsely applied to Trump.
Actually, the press donned Trump with the title of populist. So the press had a serious hand in creating this supposedly "populist" candidate. The word was used freely and sloppily so it stuck to Trump, unquestionned.
It was never believable that Trump was a true populist. That's mainly because truth and Trump are not compatible. In order to be a true populist, you have to work out of a real vision and true plan to execute that vision - which requires intelligence - before populism can exist and govern. Trump has demonstrated an utter lack of focus and the intelligence necessary to create a movement beyond his daily ego gratification.
Sloppiness won the day and now we have Trump.
3
"I also think Muller’s supporters of 'populism' are in reality supporters of something more precise that must be identified."
There are, I think, precise somethings, not just one precise something that Trump supporters want. There are Trump supporters who want a tax break, and many of those (the Trumps included) also want to defang the IRS.
There is one Trump supporter, Vladimir Putin, who wants destabilization of NATO, Europe and efforts at democratization.
Other Trump supporters want a kind of Shariah law that outlaws abortion and keeps women in their place.
Still other Trump supporters want white supremacy.
Still others want their jobs protected from immigrants and unfair competition abroad.
The list could be extended, but my point is that we already know what Trump supporters want, in part because Trump makes a show of delivering on his promises. But Trump's big promise, to make America great again, remains amorphous, and nothing of what he has accomplished (very little really) advances American greatness.
Am I dismissive and contemptuous of Trump's supporters? You bet. And I'm nearly as dismissive of the Democratic opposition, which has failed to offer (1) a reasoned critique of Republican-Trumpism and (2) a better vision of a safe, just, confident, prosperous America in the 21st century.
3
Since we're talking words and meaning I'd like to complain about how the word "legitimately" is tarting to fill the void left by the newly figurative "literally."
Roger, I agree that populist is one of the many words masquerading as concepts that are employed all too often by lazy writers, even perhaps a columnist or two.
There is another word that deserves attention at the Times, not just by a columnist but the Editors, the word and concept "race".
The Editors can do no better than to begin by reading the two fine interviews with Adrian Piper, artist and philosopher, that appeared in the Times a few days ago.
In both interviews the single most important statement she made is here in my simple English: End the classification of Americans as used by the US Census Bureau and my fellow Americans who have been taught by the USCB that each American must be viewed by all others as belonging to race x.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen USA SE
3
I was also taken by Adrian Piper’s interview in The Stone.
Her distinction between transpersonal and egocentric rationalism is also useful and important I think.
And I recently saw an exhibit at the Chicago History Museum that made an elegant scientific and philosophical argument against the concept of race. Much more satisfying than retaining the concept while cooking up alternative new narratives to counter the old narratives, which efforts are not likely to give people the resultant vector they’re hoping for.
1
@ jack austin - nice to hear from you who also found Piper important in several different areas. Her Chatterton Williams interview was also find and with somewhat different emhases. Larry L
You’ve chosen to ignore the academic research that identifies what motivated the typical Trump voter. The primary motivation is racial and class resentment.
Getting his information from FoxNews, the typical Trump voter believes black American have unfair advantages, ignoring our national legacy of slavery, etc., is opposed to gay marriage, does not accept the science of climate change, is at least skeptical about evolution, believes that cultural forces, and not guns, are responsible for the massacres in our schools, favors war over diplomacy, favors authoritarian government over democracy, and is skeptical of, if not outright hostile to, the rights of women in general and the #MeToo movement in particular.
Oh yes, and believes that liberals are not just unpatriotic and hopelessly ignorant, but evil incarnate.
From the No-Nothings of the 19th century through Huey Long, populism has always been about ignorance and racism. The populism of our era is no different.
7
I would ask that Mr. Cohen devote some time in a future article to
considering the expression,"liberal contempt." When we liberals have
the temerity to oppose is that contempt?
5
Yes, Trumpenproletariat fits well. And there is no European equivalent to it.
The US do have a problem, Mr Cohen, however you wrap it up in words. You should concentrate on that instead of seeking european references.
It is a shame that this important opinion article has received only 76 comments by mid morning Saturday. It should be required to be read and reread by all the members of the Democratic and Republican establishment (and a number of NY Time columnists). Of course they know all this already and are deliberately using the word in just the way Cohen finds it abhorrent. The only problem with their continuing using populist as a derogatory "dog whistle" to rally the faithful is that they will find it will backfire just as it did in the 2016 election
1
The best term to supplement (not replace) "populist" in defining Trump is "Jacksonian." This places the man squarely in a 200 year old American (and populist) traditional quite distinct from any European strains, including fascism.
1
What word shall we now use? Proles? Drones? Precariats? What? How about slaves? Income inequality and the powers that support it are the defining issues of our time. Unfortunately we are animals shaped by evolution; enough is never enough, just look at the high rates of obesity and addiction in the US. The Petri dish is running out of nutrients and the population crash will be inevitable if humans can't break out of Darwinian programming and create a sustainable future for all. The word is selfish.
2
Trump posed as a "populist," promising to drain the swamp. It was halloween 2016. As soon as he was elected the mask came off and revealed he was indeed the creature from the black lagoon. He promised to help the forgotten Americans whom he'd forgotten all his life, and when he was elected he forgot that he'd promised not to forget them. Just another convenient big lie for a billionaire and wannabe oligarch.
5
If anything I find the word ‘populist’ rather euphemistic — a polite catchall for reactionaries; scaredy-cats; rabble-rousers...
Maybe we should just resurrect “Know-nothings” and have done with it.
1
Bravo! It's about time that now meaningless epithet was cast off. Save it for describing the Peoples parties of the 1890s.
3
One of the most uncomfortable things about journalist and talking heads use of the term "populism" is that it is being used as a euphemism for fascism.
When Trump calls people vermin, that is Hitlerism and not popularism.
"Imagine for a moment that the adjective 'elitist' were used in every description of a mainstream political party"
Imagine for a moment if one replaced the word "elitist" with the word "hypocrite".
Working class folks I grew up with are quick to spot when liberals and progressives preach about topics like racial harmony but those doing the preaching are many times far removed from any sizable
minority population.
You know who you are. Chappaqua and Vermont come to mind.
There, all put into proper focus for you.
4
Populism is the NICE term for these people. It pretends they have an ideology or agenda acceptable in a tolerant society. I guess we can skip to calling each in according to their individual hatreds or grievances - racist, sexist, xenophobe. But I don’t think that is what Roger had in mind.
2
“Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose”
What if Mr Cohen is wrong about how the “average Joe” thinks? When Obama ran in 2008, both left and right had their fill of wars. Many voted for Obama with the belief that would foreign policy would change—it did not.
Americans were angered that those responsible for the economic crash of 2007 escaped seemingly scot-free while labor retirement investments, small investors, and household buyers carried the burden. Too Big To Fail.
Were Sanders supporters swayed when Clinton refused to reveal or discuss her pledges to big business? And more war?
Were Trump supporters deceived by promises to drain the swamp, to end unnecessary military adventures, or to assert law and order, that worries Mr Cohen, in reference to illegal immigration?
Mr Cohen is correct in that there are differences to various populist movements—No Nothings, Bryan, Bull Moose, Debs, etc.
But one thing comes across, the feeling that the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful. The sacrifices are not equal, no draft today. Patriotism is exploited for profit—discount for soldiers if you buy ____. Thank you for your service, but my son can’t be spared as he is helping me run for office. Distract with sports and hatred of others.
There are real grievances that neither major party addresses.
4
Agreed! Populism was a good thing...think of Jimmy Stewart movies. How did it become code for quasi-fascism?
But while we're at it, why the liberal/elite connection? Sure, if you'e more aware of the world through education and experience, you're more likely to be a liberal, but 'elite'? What does that even mean? Who is more elite than the Koch brothers? The Mercers? The Trumps?
Isn't this another case of liberals falling into a Fox news trap and accepting the ground rules put down by the opposition?
3
The political vocabulary is rife with terms that have been weaponized into meaninglessness; "liberal" and "socialist" are completely without meaning except as attack-dog signals.
One of the most insidious products of lies that go unchecked and unchallenged is the erosion to the very idea of meaning. They disrupt our basic ability to communicate with one another, to say nothing of any possibility of civil discourse.
1
I was disabused from my assumptions about Trump voters when I discovered many of them had voted for Obama. They had bought into the concept of "Hope and Change" and into the notion that Obama was a potential change agent. Setting aside the issues of why he did not, or could not, deliver on his promise of change, they became disillusioned, and Trump is seen as their new hope for change. Because the current system is objectively dysfunctional, and also continues to fail them as a group, those who are described as being "populist" simply want to kick that system apart, and as Mr. Cohen points out, President Trump delivers on these "hopes" daily. The term "populism" completely fails to describe this dynamic.
8
i agree that the term populist has become a catchall insult(more or less the way liberal was used by president Reagan in the 1980s),but this piece doesn't do much to clarify what is actually going on. are we seeing a recrudescence of the "prairie populism" of the late 1800s in America ? there are similarities but also differences.
1
I don't agree that "populist" is either demeaning or inaccurate.
A public figure can either stand up for certain beliefs he holds to be inalienable, or he can say whatever he thinks will get him praise and votes. He can try to change minds, or he can exploit whatever he believes is already there - good or bad, right or wrong.
A populist does the latter. He panders and lies, promising his audience what he knows he can't deliver, offering them visions of a world into which he cannot possibly lead them.
There's nothing wrong in naming that populism; the word is descriptive. Nor is there anything offensive in describing voters who support it as populists. In fact, if you ask most of them if what they want is to have their prejudices and beliefs validated and not challenged, they'll probably say yes.
Some of us believe in progressive values and adherence to self-evident truths about the basic unity of all mankind, and some don't. They are the populists, and I doubt most of them would dispute that distinction or that label.
3
While you are jettisoning "populist" maybe we can dispense with "urban elites" which manages to suggest at once non-whiteness and a condescending attitude.
8
About 5 years ago, Russian trolls started to inject propaganda into comments on various news websites in order to shape public opinion. In many of those comments the words "populist", "fascist" and "junta" were used. Its how I encountered those English words.
Is it possible that they are the originators of its overuse? They injected it into the media?
2
I always thought the word "populist" referred to a person who devoted his energy to the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It should be a positive term.
Sadly, the word has been hijacked by and to describe fascists, charlatans and erratic buffoons. It now seems to mean "a mean-spirited, mendacious, vulgar, racist demagogue" and "the politics of resentment and willful ignorance propounded by said demagogue."
It's not the word that needs to be "depopularized" - it's the jerks who absconded with a perfectly good, decent and humane word.
2
“…the differences through which democracy thrives. “ Discernable information plays a defining role in how candidates come across. Candidates today can barely find time to run and keep informed about what they are running on. It is very difficult for them to make a difference when unprepared with relevant information.
Contempt goes both ways, just keep an eye out for the old white guys in T-shirts that say “sorry snowflake in the real world nobody gives participation trophies.”
2
"They wanted disruption of what they saw as a rigged system; he delivers it, daily." Right, and now that the bull has destroyed the china shop, they will want to be victims rather than perpetrators.
5
The term populist means more than just anti-establishment. I was struck by the similarities with both the Bernie Sanders and Trump campaigns which boiled down to a healthy skepticism of the role of corporate America's in our government. But clearly, one of the campaigns was complete fraud.
Although I was born and raised in an urban environment, I have lived the past 33 years in a rural place and have gotten to know many local residents. While many are politically conservative it is clear we agree on many issues. And 90% of the time we do disagree it is about how we get to the same place.
Perhaps the term populist best applies to those who reject the media's assignment of them into neat and tidy boxes. The majority of voters today reject political parties and traditional religions for good reason. People I know who still maintain an affiliation with either political party universally blame the opposing party as the party of corporate America, ie "big business". They are of course correct. Both parties are beholden to big business.
Hence the term populist which describes people with similar perspectives on important issues but may disagree on a path forward. Perhaps the Times and other media outlets might focus on what commonality exists among populists and shed daylight on what brings people together as opposed to what divides us.
4
You are right to note the overuse of the term 'populism' is lazy and renders it meaningless, and that it smacks of disdainful dismissal.
But note another effect: it lumps together anything that questions the current neo-liberal orthodoxy, associating valid criticisms with reprehensible policies, actions, and persons. Now when someone dares to suggest that the rich have too much power and face too few consequences, it can be quickly dismissed as 'populism' and associated with xenophobia and proto-fascism.
It is related to another infuriating use of language: the overuse of the phrase 'turning against liberal democracy.' There is much hand-wringing over why so many nations seem to be 'rejecting the liberal democratic order,' and this is often portrayed simplistically as an irrational embrace of authoritarianism.
But it ignores that for many countries, we have been liberal democracies in name only for years. We vote, but we see time and again that our votes don't matter, and that the concerns of the majority are always put aside in favor of the concerns of the wealthy few. Even our 'free press,' now controlled by a handful of corporations, does little in checking power other than 'gotcha journalism.'
So no, you cannot lump together all current political problems under the dismissive phrase 'rejecting liberal democracy.' What many are doing is rejecting a neo-liberal sham democracy in which there are all the trappings of a free society, but none of its actual rewards.
5
Agreed. Populist as a term is being twisted, misapplied and reidentified with something more like fascism.
But while we're disposing of terms or labels, let's throw out liberal and conservative - as well as patriot.
Liberals are being as tribal and closed minded as the wingnuts. I am often guilty. On some days I have lost my open mind.
Conservatives have performed an efficient and amazingly thorough job of definition massacre. They don't wish to conserve resources - natural or otherwise. And their recent tax bill is the very antithesis of conservative fiscal policy.
Patriots defend their country. People of all religions and political leanings band together to protect a way of life - a political and governing system that we treasure.
By ignoring the Russian threat of cyber attacks (fully revealed by our own intelligence groups) and supporting a president who calmly visits the dictator who supervises the 12 agents (spies) who meddled with our election process, Republicans have made the word patriot a joke. This is collusion. And it is a horror to behold.
6
Good, Lord, Mr Cohen. I believe you're actually coming around! You've correctly diagnosed your own disease and have proposed the beginning of a cure. Heartfelt congratulations. When you can admit that people actually have the right to like their own culture and nation and that there is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve these (by strict immigration rules, for instance), your cure will be near complete.
5
Thoughtful, insightful, well-considered. The Democratic Party grew calcific, corrupt, lazy, timid and self-dealing. The Republican Party, after a long period of decomposition, ceased to exist as a political enterprise in the 1990s. To most Americans, including Democrats (remember “out-of-the-mainstream” Bernie Sanders), the political system and the two parties had ceased to provide any representation. So they blew it up. The fact that Schumer and Pelosi remain the face of the Democratic Party shows how completely the Dems still are clueless. So yes, “the people” wanted a drastic change and in their desperation, they chose anarchy (or fascism or whatever horror this is becoming). It may be that the “elite” voices insisting on the impossibility of a third political party are as wrong about that as they have been about everything else.
5
"When I’ve done that I’ve generally found Trump supporters to be agents rather than victims. They’ve not been seduced by “populism.” They are not “populists.” They have few illusions about the president. They think he’s a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic. They like the way he’s an outsider and “tells it like it is.” They wanted disruption of what they saw as a rigged system; he delivers it, daily." Yup. and
"For me, the key word here is “patronizing.” Liberal contempt is rampant. I also think Muller’s supporters of “populism” are in reality supporters of something more precise that must be identified." Yup, again.
2
Those attending to current usage (rather than the curiously archaic) will have noted a shift in "populism" away from angry popular movements of the past toward the political hacks who gin up and depend upon such easily manipulated movements.
An American President comes to mind.
Rather than focus on the personality of a despot, the term describes the haranguing, emotional, dishonest, carefully targeted style in which they typically engage.
Mr. Cohen presents us with a print-friendly, nearly civilized version right here.
Cohen's (recall his dogged appreciation of Murdoch and News Corporation - centers of the "populism" which seems so to aggravate him) dog-whistles abound.
Personal snark aside, its rather poor form to drop gems like "Liberal contempt is rampant" without troubling to define or explain.
Or to use as an example of usage "...the elitist Democratic Party" Nicely done, Rog.
We will need a new term for the masses tagging puppy-like behind their crafty masters.
One that shares "populism's" admirable imprecision, yet also a sense of something heedless, inexorable, more than a little dangerous, is fascism.
Bad connotations maybe, but its a big enough tent to accommodate the elements Cohen lists here with the advantage of communicating a warning missing from "populism".
It captures a guiding sentiment that "its time Government wakes up, puts on its shiny boots, makes everyone (liberals, women, misbegotten races of all kinds...)behave like we want them to."
"Populist" and "terrorist" are in the same political family. They characterize people without attention to their lives and political concerns. They dismiss who they are and what they believe. Some people are violent, some have legitimate grievances, some are hasty and some are thoughtful.
In my view, we should address the grievances openly, favor thoughftulness over violence, and resist simplistic messages.
Let me add that some use simplisticness for personal or political gain. There's no excuse for public media or private citizens to do so unless they too have something to gain.
1
Past time to stop patronizing liberals about their use of language. Populism is a perfectly fine term. And talking down to liberals who are mad that the vote winner is not president is altogether trump like.
4
Political populism in America and the positives and negatives of it today?
I see nothing positive about political populism at all, any kind of political populism. It's nothing more than bleating herd never allowing its leader animal to be anything but a slightly better image of itself. In America at inception you had quite high quality leader animals of herd, Presidents who could actually think and write own speeches. And you would have thought with vastly increased population and education in America over time that by now we would be having President after President of Lincoln or Jefferson caliber, our immense engine of democracy throwing forth genius after genius above the herd leading to ever greater heights.
But no, our constant and cowardly call by both political parties of everybody in America needing to be equal, nobody really above the rest, has led to just a vulgar and bleating herd with Presidents who are in no way a step above our forefathers. We have bleating herd which despises genius, genuine quality humanity, and instead prefers barely capable leaders who are either despised for not appealing to herd or are popular for an actually barely successful leadership. We like and dislike in barely capable and contemptible fashion. We have no true heart and mind for electing profound human beings.
Thus vulgar division of rich and poor rather than any more profound dichotomy. Thus popular or unpopular leaders and nothing more over bleating herd.
Maybe Trump voters fall into two basic classes:
(1) Those who, like Trump, are self-serving plutocrats or would-be plutocrats. These voters knew Trump’s “populist” campaign promises to be wholly empty and believed his election would serve their own greedy interests. This class of Trump voters should be referred to as “IDIOTES” in the classic Greek sense. In the Athenian democracy, such self-centered individuals were viewed as incapable of promoting the common good and as therefore unworthy of the voting rights that attend citizenship.
(2) Those desperate voters who, with considerable justification, believed both major parties had failed to listen to them and address their needs. These voters should be referred to, not as “populists,” but as “DESPERADOS .”
2
The unwillingness of the Left to engage Trump supporters in a respectful dialogue is mind-numbing, and lays the foundation upon which both sides perpetuate dangerous myths about each other.
6
Are you kidding me? We certainly need useful dialogue, but NO Trump supporter I know is interested in any dialogue,
4
Yes, we must use only pejorative adjectives for those with whom we disagree.
3
This is an example of Dr. Pinker's "euphemism treadmill." Similar arguments could apply to "progressive" and "neoconservative".
Precision of language can be helpful. For example, if you try to soften "demagoguery" by using "populism", you risk your meaning being completely mistaken.
3
The country is falling apart. Our democracy is in danger. Meanwhile, Roger Cohen, worries about a word.
1
How about instead we do away with the term ‘urban elite’?
2
Everyone who is getting elected in major countries is a populist, this is the future.
Cohen isn't getting rid of anything.
3
OK, let’s get rid of the term. Instead, let’s refer to “unmanaged democracy.” That does at least make ya think, which Mr. Cohen refreshingly calls for. It seems there are lots of groups trying to do “the managing.”
As far as Trumpism is concerned, in the following quote from Mr. Cohen's Op-Ed, we have laid bare the bones of three of the Trumpist delusions.
"They like the way he’s an outsider and “tells it like it is.” They wanted disruption of what they saw as a rigged system; he delivers it, daily."
Let's deal with them in their turn.
"He's an outsider"
Outsider of what? Prior to his campaign, he was a member (not necessarily in good standing) of the wealthy, the connected, and the famous. If that is "outsider", can I be some of that, too? Mr. Trump is the consummate insider. Whatever deceptive game he is playing with the American public (and possibly himself) is becoming more obviously harmful each day.
"He tells it like it is"
Only if telling it like it is has changed in meaning to finding the most offensive way to tell the most egregious lies, to assert that future events have influenced occurrences in the past, and to slander everyone left, right and centre.
"He daily delivers disruption of a system they saw as rigged"
Well, the system is still rigged against them, and Mr. Trump only acts to reinforce it. No action Mr. Trump has taken so far, since the beginning of his campaign, has materially affected that simple fact.
While you say no one has had his mind changed by being made to feel stupid, how, short of whacking them on the head with a baseball bat, do you disabuse them of their delusions?
5
Agreed. The term “populist” has become something of a snarl word that lacks useful clarity.
I think and feel that people in politics, the media, and academia who are supposed to be expert in the use of language have an obligation to find a better way to describe our political situation. People who are supposed to be expert in the design of our democratic processes, constitutional protections, the rules governing our economy, or our military defense arrangements should know that in a democracy there’s a continuing need to explain the good reasons for these designs as well as a continuing need to ensure that things are still working well in practice.
There’s no room for heedlessness, intransigence, or smugness in making those efforts.
Populism. I agree we should make the effort required to learn how to describe what’s going on without leaning on a word the usage of which has evolved to divide us up in a fuzzy, hazy way into elites and proles.
A thoughtful piece, but I would point out that there is a difference between "populist" as the vague portmanteau used by journalists and columnists, and the word as it's used by historians, social theorists, and political scientists. Cohen suggests as much in his piece. Jan-Werner Muller has written a great deal on the topic. I'm glad to see the reference to is article in The Guardian, but I would go further and recommend that Cohen take the time to read short but insightful (and rather alarming) book, "What is Populism". It's more than a "political movement;" rather, it's a way of defining the social/cultural/political landscape and of using charged language in particular ways that are common to all "populisms" regardless of whether the orientation is to the Left or the Right.
Cohen has once again given us an excellent column and much to think about. Often political language is debased with intent -- consider what has happened to the word "liberal" over the past two or three decades, compared to its historical meanings and origins.
But almost as often, lately, the fault lies with lazy thinking and superficial writing, produced by journalists and others who may well be pressed for time but who also are uninformed and incurious about the events and people they discuss, and the words they use to do so. Hence, "populist" or "populism" -- words often possessing something of a democratic glow in the early 1970s -- becomes sloppy shorthand for a diffuse cloud of threats to a standing order that itself is poorly understood by the writers and most readers.
Another example is the way "rhetoric" has morphed into a term denoting angry or mendacious speech (always from the other side, of course). In fact "rhetoric" long referred to the study of the arts of persuasive speech. It was a fine and honorable term and pursuit. Yet a recent Washington Post article referred to an angry Trump speech as "rhetoric-filled". Even if Trump had been trying to persuade parents to read Winnie the Pooh to their children (try imagining that one for a moment!), his speech would have been "rhetoric-filled".
The result is that in an age of disregard for truth we are depriving ourselves of the linguistic tools we badly need to begin to make sense of this dire era...
3
I attribute some of this to the media's insistence on reducing all issues to a binary choice. Either "liberal" or "conservative". Trump's populism is cast as evil ultra conservative racist based xenophobia. Bernie Sander's populism is described as unrealistic ultra-liberal idealism that we could never afford. I tend to think of populism as something apart from 'liberal' or 'conservative'. It has to do with whether any policy, government action or government inaction, whether liberal or conservative, benefits the wealthy few or benefits the common folk. For example, Paul Ryan's and Republican establishment budget cuts (conservative) primarily hurt workers while tax cuts that explode the deficit (not a conservative thing) mostly benefit the wealthy. And while Bernie Sanders is unquestionably liberal in many respects, the policies that he advocates are not necessarily any more liberal than what was considered mainstream just a few decades ago. Advocating medicare for all along with a method of paying for it, is not an ultra-liberal idea in and of itself. As Bernie has pointed out, when you consider what Americans are already paying for health care, both by themselves and via employer provided subsidies, as much or more than what Medicare for All would cost. Support of progressivity of the tax code means collecting taxes from all in a fair manner that will balance the budget and increasing the minimum wage would decrease the need for government expenditures.
9
Context is all, whether the word populist was used in Robert LaFollete's time (Wisconsin) or yellow-dog Democrats in Texas or other periods in our history in particular in this discussion. Yes, today those so-called populists for Trump do like him for his outlier position. The fact that he is also the author of a tax plan that shafts them seems not the point nor his wish to take away insurance for all. Perhaps they are so far already from being effected by the tax plan they concentrate instead on his continual habit of thumbing his nose at others: Democrats, Obama, May(until he said he respected her), all those who ran as GOP candidates for president w/him, the government or swamp as he sees it. His lingo is jingoism and confusing but his base seems to thrive on it.
1
We populists couldn't care less whether elitists use the term patronizingly. Cohen is right that elites who use the term show they are cluelessly out of touch, but their very irrelevance prevents their choice of terminology from mattering to most people.
Populism is a very useful term because it correctly suggests that a large majority of people agree on a large set of beliefs about elite corruption. Cohen is correct that there are different kinds of populism that require further explanation, but that doesn't render the terms populism less useful.
5
Yes, I would agree labels of any kind are dangerous, but, the category mentioned in the article---Trump supporters who really don't fit the label populists-- fit the profile in my neighborhood. Having said that, what troubles me about these believers, is the tinge of racism in their vocabularies. They are educated and are skillful at coding their language in terms of "disruptive" goals. But code or not, the fear and disdain for the "other" continues to act as a magnet for their devotion to Trumpism.
1
Reasonable, well thought out article that falls on a deaf audience.
An audience that doesn't question why a party of the centre left consistently looses the working class vote; where the poorest parts of the country have turned their backs on them.
The fixation on Trump has led to zero introspection on why the party has been on a death spiral in regions it should dominate. A party of the left should be considered a plague in SF, Manhattan, Martha's Vineyard, the Hamptons.
8
Another article castigating the liberals for not understanding and demeaning or 'patronizing' the Trump supporter.
Just stop it please.
If one part of America understands the frustrations and lack of jobs, healthcare, education, etc. it is the liberals. We don't have to live in Oklahoma to understand that they want good paying jobs.
And as for patronizing or demeaning epithets, maybe look to the Trump supporter and ask them to cut out the hate and vitriol too.
For once, I would like to see somebody ask the "real" Americans to understand us. To look beyond their grievance and seek common ground with the jobless in New York for example.
So okay, we won't use the word populism anymore. The problem is still here. How do we start talking to each other? Let's ask OUR President to start caring about Americans who are not his base to begin. Is that elitist or dismissive?
13
It probably depends on the context in which the term is used.
All I know is we are living at a time with 3.9% unemployment and unprecedented peace and prosperity. Yes, there is a rise in income inequality and wages have stagnated----but my concern is that too many of my fellow American want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't know what the heck you call that---but they may certainly come to regret it. (unless they can be convinced that they are yet again "victims" of the nefarious elites). My guess is that we are going through cultural changes that are bigger than any of us can wrap our heads around--and it will only be explained retrospectively. We either get a strong moral centrist leader in this country or we just sit and wonder where it will go.
6
I share some of the author’s frustration regarding the overuse of the term ‘populism.’ However, I actually believe we can and should save the term because it is useful. Populism is a political philosophy that houses and attempts to address the grievances of common people that have been caused or aggravated by elites in control of government and society. Given the erroneous but understandable assumption that political efforts to help ‘the little people’ are always pure, upon encountering this term we must carefully scrutinize its use and add appropriate descriptors to properly define its use. This is because populism is not inherently good, bad, liberal, conservative, fascist, democratic or anything. I’ll give you just a few examples. You could argue that various white nationalist movements carry a populist appeal for many common whites who feel slighted by the favoritism elites allegedly extend toward minority groups. However, many people would have a serious moral objection to this brand of populism. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has a clearly liberal populist appeal for his supporters that is widely accepted. And Ronald Reagan’s conservative populist appeal secured the support of millions of Reagan Democrats in the Northeast and Midwest and evangelicals in the Bible Belt. Let’s keep the term and resolve to define it a little better.
Mr. Cohen " They think he’s a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic. They like the way he’s an outsider and “tells it like it is.” They wanted the disruption of what they saw as a rigged system; he delivers it, daily."
The best definition of Trump political persona by his voting base I've read so far. The key words are 'disruption" of a 'rigged system' that could be interpreted (wrongly, in my opinion) as a decaying democracy.
Two questions come to mind. Did Trump's voting base elect a regime change president to fix a rigged system? will democracy be strengthed or weakened post-Trump?
1
Aside from whether "populism" is overused, misinterpreted and subject to denigration by liberals, it's in fact the wrong word to describe the "populists" like Trump, Viktor Orban, Nigel Farage.
The are demagogues, pure and simple, intent on playing people for their own personal and political gain.
True populism and populists probably would be valid, if you could find them. But we need to get rid of the term and the demagogues who hide behind it (which is, admittedly, easier said than done).
7
I would feel more inclined to see the "purity" of populist voters, acting on their anger at being left out and left behind by the "elites" if I hadn't seen how easily the Koch Brothers and their astro-turf movement of the Tea Party manipulated a bunch of white middle class folks into spitting on our way of government--i.e., democratic majority rule, and rejecting any government regulations--including those that protect the drinking water of major cities like Flint.
Those Tea Party people got themselves out on regular occasions to protest in silly hats and with hostile signs because they didn't like a smart Black president trying to make things better by rules when the Republican Congress refused to deal with him. Sorry--not sorry. When you find a word to replace populist, it had better have a heavy overlay of resentment, bigotry and entitlement.
Most of our ancestors who came here voluntarily were ready to work hard, and to educate their children to make a better life. Not populists--the extent of their "hard work" is making their resentful signs for their open carry rallies. No wonder they resent immigrants--they are being passed by--and by people of color, no less.
13
Anyone who claims that our way of government is based on majority rule needs to reckon with the fact that we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Electoral College, the two-Senators-per-state, and a Supreme Court with the power to quash laws passed by Congressional majorities, all refute such a notion.
The Tea Party never rejected *all* government regulations, only over-regulation by an unchecked federal administrative state that no majority, Democratic or Republic ever elected. Nor did it have anything to do with the water supply problems in Flint, Michigan.
As for it not liking a "smart Black president trying to make things better by rules": one would think that a writer claiming that our way of government is based on "democratic majority rule" would object to a President issuing numerous diktats in an attempt to get around his political opposition.
Finally, I would ask Paula if she thinks it OK for the Democrats to refuse to deal with Trump, as they have done since he took office. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Liberalism, in the West, is dedicated to the proposition that democracies exist to serve the needs of non-citizens.
It is addicted to tolerance to the point where intolerance is accepted.
The West is going through the process of being colonized. Liberalism is destroying itself by dismissing the culture that produced it in favor of economic migrants- most of whom do not support Western, liberal, values.
Anyone who values Western culture, and wants to preserve it, is attacked. The left is becoming intolerant of its own people.
4
Liberalism is "dismissing the culture to that produced it?" Which culture? The Africans brought here in chains? The millions of immigrants who came during the last three decades of the nineteenth century? Who built railroads, mined coal and made steel? The Mexicans, who have been here since Mexico owned much of the west? These are our "own people" and they have been for centuries.
2
Roger, you are clearly a white man. Only a white man could go and talk to Trump's supporters and come away with the impression that you did. I don't deny or pretend that many of Trump's people want him to be a disruptive influence and still realize that he is a narcissistic loose cannon. But they are also people who have the privilege to overlook the fact - or, indeed, even encourage the reality - that Trump's "disruption" is built largely around attacks on non-white, non-American people. If you are someone who fits into those categories, Trump is not a convenient disruptor who "tells it like it is" (whatever that may mean). He is an existential threat, a man who is encouraging the idea that the only "real" Americans are white Americans. For you, that is a category into which you fit seamlessly; no threat to you there. To many others, they do not have the privilege of overlooking what Trump's words and actions mean for them.
4
I agree with much of this column. I live in a place where there is a lot of support for Trump and regularly meet people who support him, few if any of whom would describe themselves as 'populists'.
One thing about these conversations maddens me: The concept, mentioned here, that Trump "tells it like is is". If there is anything glaringly obvious about Trump, it is that he is a compulsive liar. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Reasoning that begins with falsehood can never produce true solutions.
From the day of the first Republican debate, when Trump claimed falsely that 'thousands of Muslims in Jersey City cheered on 9/11', almost nobody has called him on it. The word 'liar' has to be attached to Trump every time his name is mentioned, with evidence, until his supporters realize that they have been conned.
Dan Kravitz
24
The real problem with using "populism" for Trumpism is that Trumpism is not AT ALL about making things better for ordinary people, listening to ordinary people, or respecting ordinary people. It is about pulling the wool over their eyes in the actual interest of grifters, tyrants, tycoons, and crooks.
3
"For me, the key word here is 'patronizing.' Liberal contempt is rampant."
You so get it.
As a liberal, I both understand that contempt, as when I find myself wondering how anyone can possibly be so stupid as to support a president with the instincts of a dictator, a president who attacks the essence of our nation itself.
At the same time, I am deeply frustrated by it, because it is often we liberals who are clueless, ideological, and out of touch -- convinced that every white man is concerned with maintaining his power when most guys are just struggling to support their families -- certain that every "flyover person" is a racist when he's more likely to have lost his job or seen his wages depressed by the shocking 5% of employees who are illegal aliens I mean undocumented immigrants I mean refugees.
That said, I use the term "populist" because I think it's descriptive. It does not necessarily have a negative connotation for me. Donald Trump is an awful man and a populist, bit Bernie Sanders is a fine man and a populist as well. The difference is that Trump is a demagogue, while Sanders really cares.
I yearn for a man or woman who is a populist of the better type, the FDR type. Not a demagogue like Trump, not a clueless member of the establishment like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, not a nut who wants to abolish ICE, but someone who will fight for the 99 percent.
That's what our country needs to heal -- a tough, level-headed reformer who fights for *all* the people.
12
Josh Hill makes a valuable distinction between a demagogic “populist” like Trump and a sincere populist like Bernie Sanders. But I think it is fair to broaden that distinction beyond individuals and into a more capacious rubric: right-wing populists have over several centuries—almost without exception—been insincere, at best, champions of “the little people;” left-wing populists have tended to be truly desirous of helping the average individual, but almost universally unrealistic in their proposed solutions for a nation’s ills and for the realistic likelihood of achieving their goals. A large chunk of Trump’s non-Kool Aid drinking supporters will rapidly discover they have been totally deluded by a film-flam artist. His hopes of re-election (IF that is his goal) are, in my opinion, next to nil, almost irrespective of whom the Democrats nominate.
You make some good points, but I do not consider Hillary Clinton clueless. She is (in some ways to her credit) not a good politician, but she cares, she is tough, she is level-headed, and she understands what it takes to get things done in Washington. It is extremely unfortunate that she was maligned for decades by the vast right-wing conspiracy she so clearly identified. In a sensible world, she would have made a good president.
2
Roger Cohen, often the voice of measured political wisdom, has disappointed me and, I am sure, countless others. His column today, “It’s Time to Depopularize ‘Populist,’ “ sets up a lazily defined straw man—the supposed “contempt” members of “the corrupt elite” feel for “the various forces that have produced a President Trump.”
All of us who recognized the clear and present danger of electing a President who proudly proclaimed his ignorance of and contempt for the small-d democratic institutions on which this country was founded, and under which it grew and prospered, are indeed guilty—but not of the crime of misdirected contempt.
Our crime is a certain heedlessness in evaluating the tactical strength that endless lying and barely-disguised appeals to the basest instincts of any portions of the American population with a LEGITMATE grievance against the then-present US government and the larger society that produced it. We underestimated the appeal of Trump—NOT because we had contempt for the voters, but because we had a higher view of the American people, and could not believe his approach would provide a victory.
We so-called elites were guilty of tremendous carelessness. But not the tired trope that we “didn’t get out to the heartland” and sell our message. Yes we needed a better-honed message for those seduced by Trump’s phony promises and siren calls—and we clearly needed a better messenger. The guilty have been amply rewarded; we must stop blaming the innocent.
31
Very well said.
Yes populism is the wrong word to describe Trumpism. But Mr. Cohen offers little help in defining populism. It rose first in America as a workers and farmers reaction to the increasing concentration of wealth in the gilded age. And it offered a series of policy reforms that did make America a little greater. As always money interests bleed it of power via racial division and ethnic hostility. It was superceded by the progressive movement under Wilson and later Roosevelt, which enacted most of populism's policy reforms. Trumpism or the Tea Party movement have some of its weaknesses and none of its strenths.
7
No offense intended, but maybe the difference between you as a Trump voter and me as a Hillary voter may be that I just don't feel victimized the same way that you do. You apparently believe that your list of all the things needed to be "fixed" is costing you a lot of money. I see them as ongoing challenges with no simple solutions. Our country is not perfect and it probably never will be.The effective federal tax rates of those of us in the 99% are relatively low. I'm sorry that you see living in the US to be such a struggle. But I've been pretty happy living in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world and while I think we could could use some fixes, I think Trump's disruptive approach is more about his need for attention than to help anybody but himself. We have been the number one beneficiaries of the world order that we created and which he seems to think we can abandon. There's disruption and there's destruction. I see no benefit in going where this guy is taking us.
11
Labels are essentially dismissive. As soon as you can label someone or something, you don't have to think much about them anymore. We do it all the time. It saves time. It saves energy. It saves thinking. This is not to say stop it all, which couldn't happen anyway. Only to remember now and then what we are doing when we label. And try to open the mind more.
8
When use of the term "populism" is frequent you can be sure "elites" have not been as elite as they thought they were and should have been. Too liberal use of it also suggests hostility to democracy when you consider that elections SHOULD be determined by the popular vote. Your contentions are apt Roger but I don't think it's going to be retired anytime soon. There's too much evidence that politicians in democracies have not been truly serving the national interest or the common good lately.
7
Populism in the late 19th century was a movement to give power in government to the working people, the majority of this country, in an age when government at all levels was controlled by the wealthy acting in their own interests (and income inequality was at levels not seen again until the present.). It’s an almost Orwellian irony to use it as a synonym for what brought Trump into power, a minority of voters supported by rich donors and abetted by a foreign government. If there’s a true populist (in the more accurate, non-pejorative meaning of the term) movement in this country today, it’s that of the Democrats, liberals, and democratic socialists who make up the majority of the people here now, and who, like the 19th century populists, are having to deal with institutional politics that has disenfranchised them.
17
To Cohen's point, language is very important. Another term we might want to rethink is "liberal democratic/democracy". The term "liberal" here serves nothing at this point but as a trigger for many to assign blame to these institutions for their plight.
Populism is nothing but the latest mechanism to be hijacked by the wealthy elites to secure their advantages, increase their wealth, and pick the pockets of citizens.
5
Proud liberal here. I wonder how many “everyday people” will find Cohen’s comments also elite, how many will know of or care about the distinctions he brings forward that exist under the umbrella of “populist?” I am equally tired of being characterized as an elitist because I am educated, spend time keeping myself informed, and actively participate in the representative democracy we have. All individuals are equally valuable as human beings; they are not equal in knowledge. That does not make one person elite or better; it makes them better informed. And that ought not to be denigrated or used as a weapon.
45
If it's an "epithet", I can think of better ones to use for the people it describes.
It's actually much more of a complement than almost all of them deserve.
16
The term has always jarred me. Where'd it come from? What does it mean? It's always been meaningless and disorienting, and I'm glad someone finally took the emptiness to task.
7
We have our populist candidates here too. Like the author's list of the variety of politics described as 'populist' they have one thing in common - they support candidates who speak against things that they are against. They are usually quite unclear about what they are for, or if some are, they are not united in that area - hence the spectrum of ideologies that get called populist. Its the politics of grievance but not the politics of solutions, which is what makes Trump a populist but not Sanders who proposes a clearly thought out positive agenda.
10
I'll discard "populism" if you do the same for "elites", Roger, but I don't think the discarding of terms advances our understanding or our tolerance for politically opposed points of view. I think we are finally face-to-face with the Great Gap between the instinctual person whose sense of the world is based on protecting a vanishing way of life where feelings dominate and the "academised person" who prizes evident-based knowledge over personal instinct, the objectively verified over the anecdotal. The enormous popularity of 3 GOP Presidents Reagan, W, and Trump suggest that appeals to sentiment rather than analysis and emotional anecdotes rather than verifiable facts have led to ignoring two looming catastrophes: economic and environmental collapse. Trump's utter instinctuality - relying on "winging it" in ignorance of essential knowledge - personifies the Gap that cannot be bridged by goodwill alone. Democracy depends on accurate information available to all AND the individual willingness to examine that information dispassionately in the long-term interests of ALL, not the momentary satisfaction of base instincts like greed, racism, or revenge against that which we covet but cannot possess without changing ourselves. Undigested data is not knowledge and feelings are not wisdom. Democracy requires a broadly informed electorate - not a propagandised mob.
38
Populism suffers from a human trait characterized by the Pogo Syndrome: "We have met the enemy and it is us." The ability to widen perspectives depends on individual's ability to be curious enough to broaden knowledge and to empathize with your fellow Americans. For some a particular problem has to hit home directly while others can see advantages not only to others, but to themselves in solving problems. All political labels should be given a rest, since they stifle healthy exchange. Calling someone a conservative, liberal, socialist still does not say what issues you do or do not support and why. We try desperately to fix this with terms like right and left of center, moderate, fringe that in practice causes dismissal without really knowing what and why people support one issue or another. ID politics has its limitations and has the nasty habit of turning people off. State the problems and discriminatory behavior with offered solutions.
6
Are we going there again? The people that are being labeled as “populist”, who voted for disruption because they thought it would benefit them at the expense of “others”, are pretty much responsible for the possible destruction of the very country they profess to love so much. Change the label, polish up the word, do whatever you need to do. It doesn’t change the ideology of the 40% who stand behind Trump for no reason other than that he’s a bully. I grew up poor in a wealthy town, but I made the most of my excellent public education and am now economically comfortable. I have never forgotten where I came from, but I have also never felt the need to use it as a weapon at the voting booth. Do these voters not see that while Trump may speak their language, he doesn’t care a whit about them and will turn on them the moment they displease him?
39
Love your columns Mr. Cohen, this one not so much. There is no confusion in people minds that lived in populist regimes about what populism is. Peronism in my case. Populism is what happens when economic inequality reaches a boiling point in which the most reactionary members of the upper classes decide to play the cultural war card of “the other “ to explain to the people why they are unable to improve their lives. For that purpose they elect a demagogue that will inflame those cultural wars distracting the people in their fight for equality of opportunity. Racism, xenophobia, sexism , etc are the tools used in this work. Disruption of the order is the excuse to destroy the democratic institutions that if loyal to its principles will eventually deliver that equality even at the expense of the elites that created them. Populism represent the use of people misplaced anger by the powerful to prevent change, and yes the “non elite” are their victims. That is why the Republican Party is 100% behind Trump, not a surprise to those of us who understand populism.
33
The problem is that every politician is now, de facto, a populist. The difference between politicking - convincing a constituency to vote for someone - and administration - doing governmental work - has all but disappeared. Every action by an elected official seems to be determined by its effect on the official's popularity, or his or her connection to the "base" once popularity is achieved (i.e. "branding").
Apparently the majority of our elected representatives' time while in Washington, supposedly doing governmental business, is actually spent fund-raising for the huge sums of money needed for campaigning.
4
Populism came into being in its current form because the powers-that-be structurally and economically shafted everyone who has to work for a living. And they continue to do so. It's unrelated to political parties because the Republicans and Democrats alike participated in screwing those who aren't wealthy or a graduate of an elite university.
12
Your column underlines our loss of our independent press and judiciary and I'll add congress and executive, all bought and paid for by whom? The elite. Who are the elite? Big oil & gas, big pharma and biochemistry, big financial services (Wall St., Silicon Valley), and last but not least the MIC. They all provide goods and services, but they accumulate profits for buying undue influence over our lives.
We of the left are trying to break out of this suffocating box and reassert our rights after the complete defeat of the 2016 election. We call it a peoples' revolution. We are left with nothing but our vote, as being non-violent we eschew the other kinds of revolution. But populism fits us well as we exercise our rights of assembly and free speech to turn our ship of state which has run so badly off course as to almost disenfranchise us.
6
Like so many other "isms", what meaning (or intended constituent group description) people attach to this label varies both between and among particular definitions and the real-world phenomena they hope to identify.
2
How about retiring "heartland" as well? Heartland seems to be where populists live, in flyover country. All those people the coastal elites don't understand. Where does heartland flyover country begin? In populist Staten Island, seen just after takeoff? Or South Boston? Maybe Iowa, where some proudly claim the heartland label. Must it be where agriculture predominates? Or can it be Industry? In any event, like "populist," "heartland" is generally used dismissively. It's also imprecise and meaningless.
14
Really, I’ve always seen it used reverently. Often juxtaposed with the equally empty phrases ‘real Americans’ and ‘patriotic’. ‘Cuz, you know, those ‘coastal elites’ are neither.
1
Am I a populist? I don't think so. It would seem liberals can't figure out why Trump won and just needed a label.
I can tell you I don't feel the economy left me behind. And I do like democratic institutions with their checks and balances (an independent press and judiciary).
Problem is, it wasn't working. Democratic institutions were failing us (eg, housing collapse and global financial crisis), there is no independent free press unless that means free to manipulate the electorate to their way of thinking, and the judiciary has become a weapon of the political parties. We've been screaming all this from the hilltops for some time now, but nobody would listen.
And at the end of the day we all stepped back and said look at this, it's a mess, and worse yet, I'm paying for it. Trump heard us and had a very simple message, he promised to finally put an end to the nonsense, and particularly to put an end to the free rider program the American taxpayer was funding due to the failures of the government, press and courts.
Illegal immigrants, welfare abusers, voluntary non-contributors, China, Canada, Mexico, NATO, Iran deal, foreign wars, you name it he was going to (try to) fix the economics so they were no longer breaking the backs of the American taxpayer, which sounded good to us.
I'm no populist, I have a job. I just expect (demand) those we elect to government to do theirs too. If not, we'll put in someone who will. It really is that simple.
3
Trump called Social Security a Ponzi scheme prior to seeking political office. He's quoted as saying privatization "would be good for all of us." He said retirement should start at 70 and made this statement.. "How many times do you want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?"
Yet he lied to his followers in the campaign with the pledge to protect the social safety net. After election & to this day, he's said nothing to counter fellow Republicans working to destroy & "privatize" those programs.
If this is populism, those remaining in his camp should receive brain transplants. And no, I've never heard a member of the liberal elite attacking our "entitlements."
2
It might be easier to listen to them if, say, 67% weren't saying "both sides" were responsible for the death of Heather Hyer in Charlottesville. There are other ways to express disgust with the governing elite (which many on the left share) without siding with murderers or other miscreants.
8
We probably owe ‘populism’/‘populist’ to the Democratic presidential candidate (3x) William Jennings Bryan, leader of the insurgent, agrarian ‘People’s’ or ‘Populist’ Party. Bryan was also prominent in the then newly formed ‘Fundamentalist’ Church, perhaps being the reason we toss around that now almost meaningless word.
Another fairly recent coinage (1930s, according to the OED) which should be dropped because no one any longer even pretends to be able to say what they mean by it is ‘racism’/ ‘racist’.
2
We can usually rely on Roger Cohen to provide insight, intelligence and more importantly facts to the issues affecting our lives. He always does it with eloquence.
Today he seems as nonplussed as the rest of us, searching for an answer, a response or guide to tell us how to combat the destruction of democracy. The media are the only ones using terms like "populism." The rest of us liberal "elites" use xenophobe, misogyny, bigotry and ignorance. We do forget there are some "nice people on both sides." And when I find one I'll let them know they're nice.
7
The usage of label is often to denigrate or demonize those who disagree with the user of the label. I have difficulty identifying who I am because I do not fit many of the terms. As a committed Christ-follower I might be labeled ignorant and intolerant—my advanced degrees, doctoral level would tend to disprove that. Intolerant, perhaps, as I cannot tolerate the person who is President. His behavior is reprehensible and he is a playground bully who irritates the USA’s friends and coddles its enemies. My difficulty is that I do I identify with the older definition of Republican but the current Republican Party does not resemble what I remember. I deplore the polarization that is current in this country and long for a swing of the pendulum away from its current position and a return to a time of civility and compromise to be operative. Is this unreasonable ?
7
Reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's brilliant book on Young Stalin - clear then that the leaders of the revolution had utter contempt for the peasants and working class - why they were firm in their desire to rule from a tiny elite that represented the working person.
Do we not see this contempt today? Hence the term "Populist" for those that hate the system as it is?
2
Regarding Trump supporters desire for disruption of a rigged system;
As long as special interest money pays for our politicians - our political system (democracy) is rigged.
The only way out is public financing of political campaigns.
The one reform that would make all others possible, and open the process to a wider group, including more women and minorities.
It's been done, It works.
5
Yes, "populism" is a catch all term that has lost its ability to make useful distinctions.
I prefer the much simpler "rich" and "poor".
9
Perhaps the main distinction is short-term thinking versus coherent and laborious planning and decision-making. Of course 'people' as such can't make plans just by voting or by placards. Organized groups, parties, elected bodies that can make long-term plans and carry out processes to achieve goals are labelled elites to imply a separation from reality. That is a worse error and more derogatory in the eyes of many than the collective use of 'populist'. The problems are deeper and more threatening than what names are applied. Thinking is being replaced by emotion and egoism on grand scales. Discussing terms of description is helpful only as a diagnosis of what the shorthand talk really means. Wouldn't more precision - better diagnoses - just further enhance identity struggles? Need more talk about issues and potential solutions nut a sharpening of identity positions.
2
“In the name of freedom, retire “populism,” a blanket term that insults the differences through which democracy thrives.”
Could not agree more. The same should be asserted for the other catchall — Liberalism.
Democracy thrives on an informed and engaged populace, all be it a diverse one.
Populism or Liberalism — not the solution or the root cause of our dangerous American political dysfunction, rather a diversion, a smoke screen for the profound, diametric division that our dominant two party, winner take all arrangement has produced and continues to foster.
First and foremost the survival of our democracy, any democracy depends on the regular creation of reasonable, practical concensus.
6
I agree with Mr. Cohen that the term "populist" covers too broad a spectrum. If a populist is one who speaks to the anxieties of and promises to support the interests of the majority of the people, in our society that would be people who work for a living, then surely Donald Trump is a populist but then so is his polar opposite, Bernie Sanders. Occupy Wall Street was a populist movement. Even Bill Clinton and Barak Obama talked a good populist game on the campaign trail though sadly, they did not govern that way.
Maybe what we need to do is distinguish more carefully between right wing populists and left wing populists. Left wing populists like Sanders tend to focus the public's ire at the masters of the universe, the big Wall Street firms, corporations and the wealthy donor class. Right wing populists tend to focus on lesser targets, illegal immigrants (but never the people who hire them), countries that compete unfairly with ours (but seldom if ever the companies that actually shipped people's jobs overseas).
Which brand of populism are the people that make up the donor class more willing to live with? That would of course be right wing populism. This may be why Democrats have been reluctant to embrace their own populists. It's hard to voice support for policies that would harm the people who fund your campaigns. The problem is that the pendulum has swung way too far toward the interests of the upper class and the energy in politics, like it or not, is populist.
4
I was taught that populism was the opposite of libertarian. Socially conservative and economically liberal. I think that would be a pretty popular position to stake out.
2
Good essay. I agree that the term is over-used and share the perception that those who use the term are patronizing and vague and drawing with an overly large brush.
The term has, for all practical purposes, become useless anyway. When a term is used to cover a universe of political action - it is does become a lazy habit or a goad for a predicted response.
As a liberal (overused, meaningless) person - I used to feel there certain positive aspects of the word - which also suggests a grass roots rebellion against prevailing corrupt political norms - which could apply to political movements of many stripes.
don't many of us simply cringe when we see balnket characterizarions of any group: it's a version of the accustation that starts " You people always . . . " You Dems, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, greens, reds, blues . . . : it always means that there is a prepackaged attack on the way, and our brains retire behind fortifications to prepare a return volley.
5
I gotta say, the difference between the current president and his strongest opponent was clear enough, in that opponent's favor. If his voters now regret their choice, I have to wonder what they did with their intelligence in the voting booth, and why I should think any more favorably of them now.
1
Mr. Cohen, I almost always appreciate and agree with your columns. And while I generally agree with the central premise of this one, I also have to agree with the many previous commenters that, even in light of only what was known about Trump on election day, much less what has come to light since, to consider a vote for him a "plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates" is a bit, shall we say, too charitable. And there I am guilty of extreme understatement.
13
Seems like a useful term for describing a group of political ideologies that appeal to the middle and lower classes--it describes Trump as well as Bernie Sanders.
You could use 'right-wing populism' and be able to describe everyone from Orban to Trump, while excluding figures like Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez, who would be 'left-wing populists'. Or maybe elite liberals like Mr. Cohen don't want that? ;)
5
In 2016, both the Democrats and the Republicans has maverick candidates who challenged the party establishment.
The Republican maverick quickly wiped out over a dozen challengers who were all pretty much the same ideologically, while the Democratic challenger was faced with one opponent who had the solid backing of the party Establishment.
But it is significant that both challengers attracted enthusiastic crowds.
For years, I have watched in disgust as the D’s and the R’s have lost touch with what is happening outside their comfy little worlds: long-lasting and growing economic hardship for many and a pervasive feeling that our overall quality of life has deteriorated.
So how do the parties respond? They court their bases by taking opposite stances on hot button issues and using the other party as bogeymen. They campaign in platitudes. They court billionaire donors instead of seeking out ordinary people.
Over 50% of Americans don’t vote. As they see it, their lives continue to be hard, no matter who is in power.
The Republican maverick projected an angry persona, fooling people into thinking that he understood their needs. The Democratic maverick made specific proposals to help ordinary people.
Pols, you need to wise up and distance yourselves from big money. These right-wing populist movements take hold when people lose faith in their governments and institutions.
11
Excellent idea if we can also get rid of "elite" at the same time. Nobody knows what word means either. Elite forces and elite athletes are good, but urban elite are bad. Are rural elite OK? Mr. Trump at one of his rallies said to his cheering supporters "They think they are elite but we are the elite, you are the elite, you have bigger houses and bigger boats." (Boats?)
It used to be that "elitist" was bad but we rarely hear that any more.
For that matter,"liberal" and "conservative" hardly mean anything specific any more.
And "urban" apparently means ethnic minority.
We surely need a new dictionary.
12
While we're at it, let's get rid of "conservative." It is possible to be conservative without being illiberal. Think of Dwight Eisenhower or Nelson Rockefeller.
4
Steve in Sonora writes "While we're at it, let's get rid of 'conservative.' It is possible to be conservative without being illiberal. Think of Dwight Eisenhower or Nelson Rockefeller."
Conservatism has moved. Eisenhower and Rockefeller would be Democrats/Liberals today.
6
Sure, "populism" is a meaningless term and should be retired. But the esteemed Mr. Cohen is wrong to describe it as a pejorative. It is most commonly used as a flattering compliment to those such as Trump and Bannon about whom nothing complimentary can honestly be said.
3
"Populism" is a slogan used by media to confuse the general public and stoke fear. The term "slogan" once described a Scottish war cry, now advertisers use political slogans to play war with our minds. Slogans such as "Government is the problem", need to be clarified. The Trump candidacy was "one big beautiful" slogan, like an "alternative fact". A social, civil society can mitigate problems such as economic globalization, poverty, and war. Populism cannot. Media please explain. For angry voters, "populism" means a rejection of the miserable middle class status quo created by decades of duplicitous slogans, a reaction, rather than a thoughtful decision. Throw out slogans like "conservative" and "liberal" and "social democratic", too. Actually take time to explain what "populism" means. This Op Ed is a good start.
4
It's hard for me to be specifically concerned about "rampant liberal contempt" when the the central pillar of Mr. Trump's politics & his political success is his incessantly expressed contempt for "liberals." I'm sure plenty of Trump's supporters understand how stupid or how unbalanced he is, but that does not mean they aren't being manipulated. A lot of Ms. Clinton's supporters understood how fake her political shifts & calculations were, but that doesn't mean they weren't being manipulated either. Mr. Trump, supported by the country's most successful political party, and by the enormous right-wing media industry of which he is a product, is no more an "outsider" than Hillary Clinton. I agree that "populism" is a meaningless term in today's politics, but not because the idea a form of lazy condescension. It's meaningless because our whole political/media system is a manipulation, orchestrated by the financial interests that stage it.
8
Perhaps the term has been missused in some cases, but Cohen is wrong about this. Populist does not designate something as either bad or good; e.g. many who criticize the support of Trump were positive about Bernie Sanders being populist. Nonetheless most of the current batch of populist movements, especially Trump and others in Eastern Europe and Brexiters, do happen to be ignorant, cruel, authoritarian and misguided. Why shouldn't you look down on efforts to govern that are ignorant, cruel, authoritarian and misguided?
2
Cohen raises but doesn't answer a vital question. Much of this animus towards the working class is ironically coming from the left. Can moderates & progressives co-exist in the same party? Given the far left's toxic views on so many issues I would say no. Progressivism is ruining the Democratic Party. It will be interesting to watch how much damage it will do to the brand before we recognize that far left ideals don’t resonate with with Independents or blue-collar workers — some of whom are within our base. Not now, nor will it in 2018. It's time we face a fundamental truth. The voters we need to win back the Presidency,Congress, SCOTUS,the majority of governorships & state legislatures, all of which we have lost under progressive leadership, these voters have different values. There’s no way to bridge the gap. To them, Progressivism means trigger warnings, vile college protests & obnoxious academics who posture as their will on earth. They hate these people. Can you blame them? The far left has been mocking them for decades. You are bad for eating factory-farmed meat, owning a rifle, & driving an SUV. You are bad for speaking the language of micro-aggressions, patriarchy & cultural appropriation. We should be ashamed that we allowed it to get to this point. Remember when we stood for the dignity of hard work, family, faith & coming together around basic "kitchen table issues? Democrats can't win over working class voters if they persist in ridiculing their cultural values.
12
It's not the "far left" that wants "trigger warnings" and gender-neutral pronouns. That's the yuppie left, which is fussy about personal behavior but has no interest in doing anything that might have a negative effect on their portfolios.
The actual "far left" wants a more equal balance of power between workers and employers, money spent on domestic needs instead of on the foreign wars where working-class and rural youth die in conflicts that they don't understand, a preferential option for small business and cooperatives over multinational corporations, and a social safety net and modern infrastructure comparable to what Western Europeans enjoy.
THAT is actually threatening to the Big Money types, so they make sure that Mr. and Ms. Middle America hear a lot about the yuppie left and nothing about the real far left.
5
You are looking backward. Your wins are based on gerrymandering and elctoral college failure. Oh, and voter supression. Those methods have been used historically to keep the status quo. The economy recovered under Obama, and Trump is doing all he can to take any small gains away from our shrinking middle class through tax breaks for the 1% and tarrifs. As for unearned rights for minorities, I suppose those rights must be reserved for white men, who start out life on third base. The rest of us are still at bat, swinging at pebbles thrown at us. I hope you are right, and that the post war world is over. That doesn't mean that Russia is our friend and Europe our enemy. That is an alternate universe Rebublicans have chosen to live in along with alternate facts.
2
I am baffled by this article.
Trump supporters aren't populists, they just divide the world into 'the elite' and 'the real people,' and then they support a man who they see solely as good because he's hostile to the system favored by the elites. Which... is exactly the definition of 'populism' supplied by the author.
Huh?
35
The term "populist" is derived from the simple notion that the person to whom the label is attached is popular. Taken in the context of a politician, the term also implies that, besides being popular, the policies espoused and supported by him/her are popular.
All of this presupposes the notion that the masses who support the "populist" are reasonable, adequately informed, curious, and rational. When citizens are unreasonable, ignorant, incurious, irrational in their support of a politician, the term "populist" loses its meaning. Instead, the term demagogue applies.
1
The term "populism" is obviously a generalization and as such likely to be overused. But is the use of this word the real problem? Especially in the age when demagogues around the globe, many with authoritarian and neo-fascistic tendencies (and appeal) are in ascendance?
There is something dangerous going on in this world, with the global crisis of democracy, and anger among many voters who lash out against the established order -- in an irrational way and much to their own detriment. "Populism" is a short for this phenomenon, however inaccurate.
These are dangerous times, and nowhere more so than in the US. But this opinion piece does absolutely nothing to shed light on, let alone deal with, the danger we are all facing.
23
If the 'elite' in the US and Europe continues to be unable to incorporate the righteous criticism of the various populist movements, it proves to be a caste, and not 'the elite'.
A true elite has the inhaerent ability to absorp friction within the rule of law.
4
Elites are a caste - the truly privileged caste.
Beautiful post! Thank you, from a long time Dem who is now without a party.
1
Maybe "populism" is just how the "corrupt elites" leverage public opinion to do their bidding. Making liberal use of racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating.
Why it's particularly effective now is the interesting question.
4
Populism is still a useful term, but from Cohen's wandering discussion it is clear that it requires further effort toward establishing some sort of consensus definition. There is reason why "authoritarians, ethnonationalists, nativists, leftists, rightists, xenophobes, proto-Fascists, Fascists, autocrats, losers from globalization, moneyed provocateurs, conservatives, socialists, and just plain unhappy or frustrated or bored people" can all be called populists. And it's not just a product of confusion and sloppy thinking. It is because populism is an approach or a mental attitude, not a set of substantive positions.
Populism is defined by elevation of immediate ends over means.The rule of law mandates recognition that ends can embody no values not expressed in the means. This in turn requires recognition that if accepted procedures are faithfully followed the outcome must be deemed valid even though it was not the one hoped for. Belief in the integrity of the process necessitates validation of its legitimate results.
Populists judge all means in terms of whether they produce a predetermined outcome and don't much care what the means are so long as the results are desirable. Ostensibly moral evangelical populists support Trump simply because they like the results. They can do this because they have lost faith in the integrity of the underlying governmental process.
Populism is then a craving for immediate gratification based on a loss of faith in intermediary institutions.
3
The difference between a populist and an elitist is, that a populist bother to break down his ideas and objectives for average citizen. That makes populists down-to-earth.
The tragedy is, that todays populists are xenophobic hatemongers with crude economic insights. While moderate politician are reluctant to sell their often complicate matters.
We desperately need mainstream populism.
And this is something neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were good in.
1
Why should I imagine getting word "Elitist" to be used for anything mainstream? It already is, by the populists.
2
I come from a family of real populists. My grandfather heard William Jennings Bryan give his Cross of Gold speech and was thereafter a Democrat.
Democrats were populists.
Trump is no William Jennings Bryan. He's a flim-flam man. As Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time," and Trump has.
5
The "populist" movement enabled tax cuts which almost entirely benefit the most rarified elite.
By the virtue of our "populist" crisis, elitists on steroids are in the last stages of stacking a Supreme Court which will be inclined to "support business" as reported in the Times. Hint: they didn't mean workers.
A term that piggy backs with "populist" to convince the Trump base to shoot off their own feet (and the feet of their children) is "deep state".
It's a word that is meant to describe deeply entrenched power that is unresponsive to "populists", a power we are to believe was unavailable to the president, as the most elite members of the Republican party joined forces to elect him.
Orwell's 1984 is the most haunting book I've ever read, and that was 50 years ago.
Language, its misuse, and the ease with which it is manipulated, is so dangerous. But that's "fake news", which of all of them, is the term which is the most destabilizing and frightening.
There's a budding dictator in the White House, who claims to have created that usage, and, he says, its one of his proudest moments. God, but I want him gone.
7
Interesting and hope the press follows through. Only thing I disagree with is that now, at this point in time, Trump and his cronies are insiders. They weren't when Trump came into office, but that has changed as the Freedom Caucus and other Republicans have fallen into line with the President. They are the insiders and that needs to be pointed out over and over again. No longer can they be given that "outsider" status (marketing if you will) they so relish.
2
Cohen summarizes his article by
"In the name of freedom, retire “populism,” a blanket term that insults the differences through which democracy thrives."
I strongly disagree with this. I guess I shouldn't be so disappointed given what happened to Germany after the previous great economic crisis, but it seems that a substantial group of people in the US have abandoned democratic ideals in favor of authoritarianism. This is not how democracy thrives, it's how democracy dies.
Inevitably, after a group of citizens do great and lasting damage to their country and their neighbors, there is a movement to reconcile differences by saying that this group did no wrong. Even worse, the reconciliation movement often asserts that the accused citizens were somehow forced to do bad things because their victims made them do it.
Cohen suggests that the icy, evil, wealthy, elitist Democrats were so sheltered in their gated communities that they never even mentioned issues that were important to the poor and abused citizens. No, Democrats and RINOs never mentioned bread-and-butter issues like healthcare, education, wages, or infrastructure.
So, goes this twisted and damaging narrative, the poor oppressed common citizens were forced to follow the true champions of the common man: Trump, McConnell, and Ryan. These people understood the plight of the common man. They proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, repeal of medical care, and other measures to show that they "got it".
/s
38
Thank you, Roger Cohen, I have long believed that progressive elites have used the term populist to thwart a change in emphasis for the Democratic Party. It has seemed to me that Democrats intent only upon repairing the "social world" decry as populist those who believe that we first need to protect the economic fortunes of the poor and middle class in order for social engineering to work. If it is useful, for example, to insist upon the availability to the public of transgender restrooms, isn't it more useful to insist that transgender employees are able to make a living? Put another way, if economically inspired Democrats and Independents are populist because they address issues that are of interest to a large bloc of Americans who worry about survival, does this mean they must necessarily have no social conscience? It seems to me that many progressives believe this is so and cry "populist" against any politician who believes that someone needs to advocate against the 1%.
11
Let's just consider Trump and his supporters; see how well they resemble the 19th century populists.
The old populists were more or less comfortable with the nation as it was, but wanted certain reforms. Many Trumpists think we need a man who will tear things down, so we can start anew.
Populists' opponents were the economic elite. Trumpists decry a cultural elite -- Rootless Cosmopolitans out of touch with the Real People.
Populists were inclusive; their "people" included anyone who wanted to be an American. Trumpists are exclusive; their "people" are usually identified by blood and soil.
Populists thought that cooperation between people and nations would benefit all. Trumpists usually see power as a zero-sum game; if one side gains, the other must be losing.
Populists saw their opponents as people in power operating under bad incentives, so they called for changes in the rules to make business benefit from just conduct. Trump identifies certain groups as being inherently wicked -- bad hombres.
Populists were more or less honest in their speech. Trump considers any statement fair game if it furthers the agenda. He has a particular taste for repeating the same lie, over, and over, hoping that will make people come to believe it.
The fit is not at all good. Furthermore, if you go through that list, you may think of another political term that fits the Trumpists better. Unfortunately, it has been so overused that I'm not sure I'm allowed to mention it here.
6
"Populist" is not the only word that poses a problem. There are many. The 2 that immediately come to mind are "Left" and "Right".
In general, media based political discussions seem to rely too heavily on blanket generalizations and catch-all phrases that hide the complexities of issues and the complexities of views held by the American public.
There's a simple reason for this. Expressing complexity is basically the inverse of the tweet. Short, pungent phrases more effectively pack "emotional punch", which is the goal of most of our political rhetoric. The goal is to appeal to people's emotions, thereby bypassing their intellects. This makes them much easier to manipulate.
11
I agree that it's time to retire the word. It has become a meaningless epithet.
For the many decades of my life until 3 years ago it had a fairly clear and consistent meaning and usage that was more positive than negative.
Now it's used for all kinds of things and has lost specific meaning.
However I don't agree with your characterization of its earlier significance.
---
"...It derives its anti-establishment energy from the notion that nothing should stand in the way of an all-powerful popular will, including liberal democratic institutions... contrived by elites."
---
All that is much too complicated, and full of 21st century conflict. I refer you instead, very simply, to the Merriam-Webster and Oxford definitions and to its first political usage.
M-W: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
Oxf: A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
The 19th century "People's Party" members were called "populists", a very early use of the term. The party advocated nationalization of railways, banning strike breaking, and more use of referenda, ideas that more closely ally with "Left" than "Right" views of today.
7
Mr. Cohen is correct ‘populist’ has become an undefined term for ‘the other,’ those who hold existing political establishments as not functioning representative models and therefore unworthy of support any longer.
Sociologists are noting that each new generation has less faith in democracy as they see it and less faith in prevailing political structures they are much more likely to vote for ‘antisystem’ parties in many countries around the world.
The media commonly labels their votes “populist.”
It could be labeled as health and a force to reshape failing democracies into representative ones again.
But we need a title, Cohen offers none and populist is as vague as liberal or conservative in its elusiveness. How about ‘Beneficial.’ Beneficial votes and voters – content to be defined.
4
I'd also advocate for the doing away of the hugely, ummm, 'popular' and magnificently tired expression 'elites', which seems to refer to most anyone who feels slighted or maligned by mysterious, metropolitan forces beyond one's immediate control. thesaurus.com should be of help.
14
You can tell when advancing age starts to make someone seriously crotchety. They start inveighing against imprecise and overused applications of objectionable words. I can write this because Roger and I are the same age – I’m actually a few months OLDER than he (but MUCH prettier).
I agree. “Populism” is overused, far too imprecise in its catchall purpose, and I’ve made the same point several times here in comments. But beyond making a highly defensible point, Roger nevertheless disappoints. He COULD have provided precise and acceptable replacements for “populism”, but, like most pundits, merely identified a problem and made no effort to pursue the solution.
Try:
Donald Trump’s movement is “addicted to Big Macs”;
The supporters of Britain’s exit from the European Union are “frustrated and confused, not least by Boris Johnson”;
The Economist refers to a “bowel incontinence virus”;
The Atlantic refers to “demagogic ideological fantasists”;
The Washington Post refers to “a perceived crisis of women driving cars sweeping the Middle East”;
The New York Times refers to “sugar and spice, and everything nice”; and
The BBC refers to the Catalan national movement as “very MUCH about a separatism that has consumed a much-conquered Cataluña for centuries.”
But I’d still characterize Charles Blow’s gibbering attacks on Trump as “populist”, largely because the word connotes knee-jerk reactionary cluelessness.
5
Attacking Mr. Charles Blow or any other columnist and not their arguments does not benefit the dialogue.,
2
The Southern populists of around the 1890s thought that the Southern elite that ran things had rigged the system against them and that the economic, legal, and cultural system was a cruel joke. And they were absolutely right; segregation and sharecropping were pictured as fair and civilized, if people went into debt it was their own fault, and social inferiors, black or white, had no business wanting to be treated like their betters.
Sometimes institutions are designed so that attempts to reform them will fail or the achievable reforms are hardly worth the effort.
7
We can retire all the words you choose. The contempt and dismissiveness and divisiveness remain. The words to help us to embrace inclusion and empathy are readily available, but they are seldom part of political discourse when a seat is at stake.
13
You lost me with ‘a reasonable voter who has made the plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates.’ They may be reasonable in all other aspects of their lives fe, but anybody who pulled the lever for Trump is *not* a reasonable voter.
196
And why would voting for Hillary have been a more reasonable vote, more rational? Let's not forget, but for Strozk and Comey and Lynch she'd be in Leavenworth.
See the problem--subjective, self-serving beliefs, i.e., human behavior at its core, the NYT at its best.
2
Shame you got lost. Mr Cohen demonstrates the quintessentially American practice of respecting another person’s opinion, and their right to it, no matter how ill conceived and incorrect it appears.
Our national debate could use more of this from all corners.
Let’s start with ‘Because almost immediately before the election, he
It is a jolt that the same word used to describe the American Populist movement and party of the 19th century which was a a democratic movement to control the excesses of the Gilded Age Robber Barons now refers to raciest and nativists movements that remind one more of proto- fascism. There is one example where this earlier movement has a link to Trump's "populism'. Just as Trump promises "better health care, draining the Swamp, winning trade wars, without having any clue how practically to accomplish of any of this one might say his promises have no more substance than those of the Wizard of Oz. One of Populism's heroes William Jennings Bryan pushed for taking the US off the gold standard and for the free flow of silver as a panacea to the nation's problems though no one including Byron had any idea how this would work. It is no coincidence that the author of the Wizard of Oz books., L. Frank Baum, had Bryan in mind when he created the Wizard character.
12
If the overuse of the term "populism" has reduced it from specific meaning in a given context, to a catch-all for anyone from anarchists to authoritarians, who at least hold a common thread of revulsion at the "elite" Establishment, perhaps it is time indeed to retire the term. In our current environment, though, perhaps Trump-as-"populist" can be explained in the famous observation of Abraham Lincoln, (appropriately enough about fooling people) here paraphrased:
You can act as a populist for all the people some of the time, and to some of the people all the time, but you cannot be a populist to all the people all the time.
True enough a the "populist"candidate, once elected, becomes a part of the elite establishment that the next would-be "populist" candidate would rail against.Populism, therefore can never win, as its very success sets the stage for the next populist wave. And so on, and so on...
"Populism," correctly used, refers to a 19th century political movement in this country by that name. The misuse of the term, correctly decried by the author, goes back to the 1950s, when intellectual characterized such phenomena as McCarthyism and the John Birch society as a new "populism." They were not and neither is Trump.
8
I have often wondered how a minority of the populace can be “populists”.
7
Political "populism" in America today?
It appears to me America has succeeded at the worst, most banal, compromise politically and economically which has led to today's populism. Basic reasoning should lead a person to observe that vastly increased population and education over America's history should have resulted in an astounding outpouring of genius in all fields, that politically by now every President should be of high caliber, much like sports records have been broken routinely over the years.
But America hates "inequality" of all types, relentlessly declares "all people equal", which rather than leading to an overcoming of inequality, has led to just the worst kind which repeatedly crops up over history: The inequality of Lord and Servant. Rather than increased population and education in America leading to a necessary inequality of geniuses prominent in society over the average citizen, we have just the historical repetition, but on larger scale, of the controlled population and less than admirable elite masters.
Everybody it seems hates genius, genuine high quality people. The left wing hates genius because it's relentlessly for equality to point of socialism, and the right wing hates genius because it makes all Lordly rule appear vulgar and contemptible. Thus we decline to stalemate of a vulgar Trump opposed by socialists, contemptible elites of both political parties basking in riches over a bitter and common people. "Populism" and its "Leaders".
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both qualify as populists. As for the rest of us, maybe gullible chumps? At any rate let's all try and become realists -- for our country's sake.
12
Mr. Cohen appears to conflate two separate issues. The first is the term "populist," which is certainly a very broad term. However, as Alfred Kazin has written in his magisterial history of American populist movements, distinguished between conservative movements like the Know Nothings of the 1850s and leftist movements like the 1960s New Left. Mr. Cohen is correct that this terminology could be more enlightening.
The second point appears to be that liberals are besmirching Mr. Trump's supporters with the term "populist." In case Mr. Cohen has failed to notice from his European aerie, most Trump voters have continued to strongly support Mr. Trump despite his equivalence of neo-Nazis and leftist protesters at Charlottesville, his continuous attacks on black athletes, his continuous attacks on the FBI and his continuously documented lies and falsifications. Liberals are slandered ever night on Fox News as an "other," a tainted tribe that does not have the legitimate interests. While Democratic politicians should not be (and do not appear to be) using "populist" as a negative, it is perfectly just to fight Trump and his supporters with whatever language is effective. Voters have supported "slavery as a positive good" in the 1850s and the KKK in the 1920s. The fact that they, like many Trump voters, had legitimate economic or social grievances does not ennoble their actions or require our acceptance.
28
The original populists created numerous reforms we take for granted, such as democratic election of Senators (they used to be chosen via backroom deals), women's right to vote, limitation of the standard workweek to 40 hours ( it used to be 6 days a week). So why has "populism" become an insult among liberals? Why is a movement led by a spoiled-rotten millionaire defined as "populist"? I presume that it's because liberalism has been taken over by elitists in business and academia, and thus is now tainted by their hostility toward democracy. In particular, liberals are enraged at popular
opposition to Supreme Court decisions, one of the tools by which elites wield power over the population.
8
I hope all who want to see a change in our government soon read this column and realize that all prejudice is fueled by ignorance and laziness of thought and VOTE.
1
As you said, 'populism' is what we usually feel when ordinary people seek to be heard and demanding action to satisfy their needs, even wishes, heretofore denied by the 'well-to-do. Trouble is, it's meaning is belittled because there is always a charlatan, a demagogue, telling unhappy folks that only he can save them from abuse and neglect, if only they give him the access to power. That's what happens when we have a segment of the population not up to date in what's going on, the complexities of political order, and that start believing whatever this 'savior' tells them, independent of the facts and the truth. So, Trump was born, a highly ignorant and exceedingly arrogant thug intent in reining by sowing 'fear, hate and division. This kind of 'populism' does not confer freedom, license instead, to corrupt the system. But, if we are foolish enough to believe that a liar and a crook can behave honorably, we may deserve him. And as we lose the chance to decide our own destiny, by having an abusive ignoramus at the helm oblivious to what must be done, populism becomes a misnomer.
6
'' For me, the key word here is “patronizing.” Liberal contempt is rampant. '' - Aye it is, but with reason.
The thing about ''populism'' is that many times it is boiled down to single ( or just two or three) issues that voters latch onto. The candidate beats the drum constantly on those select things, and offers a vision of destruction (to the status quo) as to how to achieve it/them,
This last election was about tax theft(cuts), the Supreme Court (to install another radical right activist) and tribe. (let's get the ''other'' out of the country - or at least make them 2nd class)
The thing about governing is that it requires vision and consensus way beyond just one or two issues, where even if you are popular overall, that it translates only so far. You also have to govern for ALL of the people, and not just your ''base'' that brought you to power on that populist wave.
At any rate, usually when we use all of these terms like: '' radical, extreme, populist, right wing, left wing. conservative, Liberal.'' we signal to a select group that we are with them, or part of the group, tribe, mob.
I will admit, that I use many of terms as well, and perhaps I will depopularize that commonality, but for now, I look for a ''populist'' that can eschew true Liberal/Progressive policies.
3
Needed to be said; but will be dismissed by the elitists. People in the populist camp are to avoided until needed. Otherwise, be out of town by sundown.
4
Cohen's 'reasonable voter who has made the plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates' is a contradiction in terms. No reasonable person could prefer to turn over the entire US nuclear arsenal to a 'loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic'--and, let us not forget, jaw-droppingly ignorant. It might be egoistically *rational* to do so--if, say, you are the CEO of a large coal company, and don't give two hoots about anybody or anything else. But to gamble the world's future on Donald Trump responding correctly if he's warned by John Bolton of a suspected Russian missile launch at three o'clock in the morning? No, Mr Cohen, not reasonable--in any sense of the word.
28
“...the effort to get out to the heartland and talk to people.”
I currently live in the “heartland.” I’m also an ex-New Yorker. There is nothing at all especially noble or distinguished about the heartland. Indeed, where I currently there is often a small-mindedness and passive-aggressive streak that can be quite mean-spirited. There are good and bad qualities in people everywhere. Please stop implying there is something special about the heartland. There most certainly is not.
227
Great line: "...a dismissive term for everything metropolitan elites can't find the energy to understand."
But, wow, Roger, when did you begin to understand? I'm so pleased to see the scales falling away from your eyes.
If only the Democratic leadership had seen this two years ago.
6
Mr Cohen touches on, but then moves away from one of the basic issues long considered by political/social philosophers since Plato and Aristotle, and carried over through the works of the French and English thinkers who informed the beliefs of the Founding Fathers:who should the stakeholders be and how should their interests be protected . In other words, what form of government best serves its powerful.
It is no accident therefore, that with very few exceptions, the vast majority of these men came to the conclusion that the populi could not be trusted, and government power should be vested in wise leaders either elected or appointed.While enlightened thought gravitated toward self government, it tended to advocate representative government. Almost all the founders were in agreement on this point: their disagreement was over whether to focus power in a central government or in the individual States. Of course the issue of slavery tended to dictate which side one chose here. But in main, almost all distrusted the mob.
So, yes, I can understand how questions of governance can be viewed so differently by so called elites and by most folks who can't name the VP, a single member of the SCOTUS, their congresswoman, nor the Mayor, but can name every member of their favorite ball team.
7
While this was informative, it also largely misses the point in modern day politics. Appearance is everything. Policies don’t matter, only the appearance of policies. What is so frustrating for many Democratic voters is that the “populists” were so easily sold. While I will never suggest that Trump is a genius politician, he has the ultimate advantage, because he will lie without any remorse.
9
Thank you, and completely agree. It would also have the positive effect of not anointing Trump and like-minded rulers as sole representatives of "The People." Why should we bestow the honor of them when in a democracy every political party does that (with different degrees of support, of course).
The other abused term is anti-establishment-- see the recent Mexican election, which was also an example of "differences through which democracy thrives" which we should cherish and celebrate. Instead it was labeled anti-establishment and somehow given a different meaning than normal democratic change. Same for my country -- Italy's M5S and League are not as much anti-establishment as expressions of very clear political views - they do not represent the people or are anti-anything more than any other political party.
3
The term was probably born from an interpretation of the politics of the late Roman Republic.
At that time, there were the Senators which favored their own class, and called themselves the boni (the good) or optimates (the best) -- today we translate it to political terms as the conservatives. Their main characteristic was that they were fiercely against land reform and they liked to rub in the faces of the plebeians that Rome was a class divided society and that they, the senators, where the upper class. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Cicero (who had a land reform phobia), Cato and the other liberatores are the most famous examples of optimates.
In the ancient world, there was no racism and no concept of race (which is a late 18th Century invention); the elites legitimized their hegemony by stating they were simply better human beings than the oppressed (e.g. aristocracy -- from ancient Greek "aristos" = "the best" + "kratia" = "power")
But there were also the senators who appealled to the masses in order to advance their own interests. They were not revolutionaries, and possibly they were either very clever counter-revolutionaries or they were senators of lower auctoritas that felt the pressure to win elections; or they were tribunes. They never called themselves anything, but late historians baptized them populares (from which the modern term "populist" came). Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, Gaius Marius and Gaius Julius Caesar were certainly the most famous populares.
17
I agree. & I add that the cosmopolitan sneer inherent in the term 'populism' is unhelpful in the extreme.
10
OK, but Mr. Cohen only identifies the problem without providing depth of analysis. For example, many racist, zenophobic and Islamophobic elements trace to mid-19th c. Know-Nothings; some elements of Trump‘s support stem from de-industrialization of the Rust Belt; other elements stem from lost benefits, such as the end of low state-college tuition, causing economic hardship. On the left, Bernie Sanders supporters divide from Clinton supporters in ways similar to 19th c. Marxists, Social Democrats and union groups. Conservative and liberal intellectuals can trace roots through Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Federalist and ultimately John Rawls. There are many analytical tools, but Mr. Cohen fails to enlighten us on the ones he favors for political-economic analysis.
4
I agree that "populist" is too loose, general, poorly defined, or just plain overused to be effective. It also can mean different things to different people, based on where's they're coming from.
It also seems to confer on so-called populists a purity and a wisdom that belie experience. If it arises "from the people," it has to be the genuine article, so to speak--unlike the jaded, manipulative liberal elitists who arrogantly presume they know what's best for everyone, including the populists.
The English language is pretty rich, so I'm sure a careful writer can do better than to use a catchall phrase that loses meaning based on what groups, and what countries, a given political movement is applied to.
At the very least, it will require the writer to actually do some hard thinking about just what it is that defines the target population he or she wants to describe.
Which isn't a bad thing--because, even if a good adjective can't be found, that may be a blessing in disguise.
The last thing the world needs is more labels--the lazy man's way out of actually researching the main characteristics of any given movement.
13
Thanks to you, Roger Cohen, for stating plainly how "populist" has been misused and distorted. You said it very well indeed: "Populists may be authoritarians, ethnonationalists, nativists, leftists, rightists, xenophobes, proto-Fascists, Fascists, autocrats, losers from globalization, moneyed provocateurs, conservatives, socialists, and just plain unhappy or frustrated or bored people..."
Some commenters think discussing journalistic and punditic misappropriation of "populist" is wrong. No, we can hold more than one thought in mind at once; and bastardizing language is an attack on communication, no trivial matter.
14
Populism is a global movement of those that feel powerless against those they feel are powerful. The movement takes on all of the varied characteristics that Mr. Cohen illustrates and they are all over the map.
Mr. Cohen mentions the disdain that those labeled populist feel the elite have for them. The elites have disdain for everyone that isn't an elite. But the real division is rural versus urban. From my life's experience, city people may think of country people as being less informed and educated, (which is often true), but that is different from the sheer hatred and disdain that many country people have for big city folks. They view city people as trying to destroy their culture and lifestyle.
We are trying to destroy racism, sexism, and all the other ism's that many consider part of their culture. For example, many believe that the Civil War was really the War Between the States and it had nothing to do with slavery. It was all about states rights. Unlimited access to guns is another such issue.
These divisions are easily taken advantage of by corrupt politicians. They display as authoritarians which thrills the populists because they believe the system is stacked against them, so blow up the system and they don't care how. That's what's happening. To their credit, it is true that the left has taken care of the elites (Wall Street) way too well. EnterTrump, stage right, way right, the fascist right.
105
I agree with Cohen completely on this. "Populist" has been misused so much that it is now misleading whoever tries to use it, for whatever they mean. Its meaning has turned to everything, nothing, and mush.
It really isn't that hard to describe what is really meant. Using "populist" is just lazy writing, or an attempt to smear with ambiguity.
40
"The plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates": plausible only to people who had no idea who he was or how he got there. As for "rigged systems," the operative issue is who is doing the rigging. Bad enough that we have a system in which congressional districts are gerrymandered, in which conditions are established that actively discourage many of our citizens from voting (see Florida circa 2000) and in which an outdated institution called the Electoral College delivers a victory to a candidate who doesn't necessarily receive the highest number of votes. Add to that a grotesque hack job by a foreign government supportive of a specific candidate and we end up with a rigged election- just not the one that Trump supporters were espousing their animosity towards.
155
To wnich, Mr. Freeman, we might add a peculiar system in which any new legislation can be blocked by a Senate that allows only two votes per state regardless of population. Our states vary in population count by as much as 73 to 1.
6
The term fills a need. What populism most often means is some leader selling himself and his policies to a voting public by claiming (a) to be against "elites" and (b) to somehow represent "the people" against these elites.
In the US, the two parties are linked to different elites: the Democrats to universities and their law schools, the Republicans to business elites without such ties.
Bosses and leaders are elites by definition. Often, one group of elites is empowered at the expense of another. Trump's cabinet is a billionaire's club. His claims to aid the ordinary are worse than dubious.
Populism could feed a broad attack on the university-educated classes; this would serve certain interests today, as education is disdained other than as job training, and universities are being gutted. Indeed, Trump's base is the non-university educated. (Underemployed college graduates lean not right but left).
Populists appeal to "the people" or the common people. This may be a revolt against privilege, with not having it conferring an ironic moral privilege. It is an alternative to both democracy and reason (which go together), and so can be authoritarian. Its structure is partly rhetorical, as we see with Trump. "The people" need only be the object of a representation. The term helps describe both the present regime and certain tendencies that may well prove fascist.
The opposite of populism is not "elitism" but democratic socialism.
5
We can argue about semantics, but we must acknowledge that Trump understands how to persuade and control people through rhetoric and oratory. We can abhor how he does it, but we need to learn from him, to study his skills. And we must never forget that such skills can always be used both to build and to destroy.
23
An opinion piece that's focussed solely on one word used by some in describing a trend away from voting for candidates endorsed by traditional political thinkers is a sleight-of-hand distraction from the critical issues at stake in both the U.S. and in Europe. Those issues include a willingness by such candidates to dismantle (or severely damage) institutional pillars of democracy that have stood the test of time, without offering any alternatives - just destruction of what we have, also included is the normalization of false equivalence, public ridicule of thoughtful, fact-based decision-making and, in its place, the elevation of ill-founded, irrational beliefs and of base emotion as accepted bases for establishing policy. They also include overt rejection of the existence of any set of objective facts. A democracy is strengthened by openly-discussed differences of opinion about how best to respond to a set of objective facts, but it cannot exist in the absence of agreement of objectively-verifiable facts.
It is THESE such issues which we need opinion pieces on to generate discussion on from any serious thoughtful newspaper - not superficial distractions on topics such as the choice of lexicon. Carrying such material provides a modern-day example of Nero twiddling his thumbs while Rome burns .... Try getting out the firetrucks instead!
47
"It is THESE such issues which we need opinion pieces on to generate discussion on from any serious thoughtful newspaper - not superficial distractions on topics such as the choice of lexicon."
Right now as citizens, we can't directly control the Executive Branch, or Congress, or the Supreme Court; we can't control columnists at the NYT or the Russia investigation.
We can try to persuade Independents to vote Democratic and work tirelessly to ensure that Democrats have a robust turnout and that their votes are properly counted.
Rather than bickering about the nuances of political definitions, we need to actively engage, locally and immediately, with those who will be deciding the composition of our next Congress. That is our main task now, and we must not lose sight of it.
4
Thank you Mr. Cohen.
Before readers comment on his column they should read this NY Times article
Becoming a steel worker liberated her, then her job moved to Mexico
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/union-jobs-mexico-rexnord.html
" In Indiana, workers earned an average of $25 an hour, plus benefits. In Monterrey, they earned less than $6 an hour. Moving the factory made sense to the people with college degrees. They expected that old workers could be swapped out for new ones, like interchangeable parts. "
Left behind was Shannon Mulcahy, facing ruin. There were no jobs in her town.
There were only two candidates that appeared to care Sanders and Trump. Sanders was forced out by the DRC.
That left Trump. Nor was voting for Trump stupid back then. No less the Paul Krugman pronounced "Trump is Right on Economics" !
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-o...
Trump, unlike Ms. Clinton,who was financed by the Ultra rich, ran on his own nickel. Read the NYT
Read "Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich"
" Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich"
If you would be Shannon Mulcahy what would you have done?
85
If I were Shannon Mulcahy, I would have listened a little more closely to Mr. Trump.
Trump is part of the problem. Who makes money from the Trump Organization? No one but the Trump family!
(When Trump had a public company for a few short years in the 90s, he promptly went bankrupt and had the gall to take the associated tax break all for himself! That was almost a billion dollars!)
Who are Trump's big business buddies? Well, let's focus on Carl Icahn. Mr. Icahn and his corporate raider chums are the real reason good jobs have disappeared. Why? Because they forced the corporate world to value their companies in one way and one way only: by the price of their stock. And once that quarterly stock price became the only measure of corporate value, goodbye well-paying jobs, goodbye long-term planning, good-bye research and development.
And the Republicans didn't help at all with their continuing hostility toward unions, the only worker representatives allowed to exist in this country
So I certainly supported Mrs. Clinton, who had REAL plans to create jobs - not slogans - not attacks on the markets that we MUST have to sell our products to!
And rather than treating Angela Merkel as the devil incarnate, Mr. Trump could learn from the German approach to manufacturing, in which workers are part of the corporate management team and when times are bad, all jobs are protected. (And there is universal health care, immigrants play an important part in the economy, etc. etc.)
66
He *said* he ran on his own nickel. Like all his other claims, that was a lie.
4
Woof, if you believe Trump has true empathy in his heart for Ms. Mulcahy, and that Hillary has antipathy for the lady...
Well, as was said in the movie decades ago: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
11
Actually, the writer's complaint about the term "populism" is entirely misplaced. The 19th century People's party, known as the populists, was a grass roots movement of farmers and laborers. It had many faults, including racism, but it came from the bottom percolating up. What is referred to today as "populism" is top down demagoguery more like Peronism and other movements led from the top by demagogues. The use of the term "populist" is a symptom of the press's lack of guts. If the press had guts it would call Trump et al. demagogues, not "populists."
211
Publius, thanks for the evidence you give supporting Roger Cohen's point that the term "populism" is being abused and distorted by journalists and pundits.
5
And if not for "the press's lack of guts" it would have called Obama out for his Neo-Marxism and Hillary for her royal sense of entitlement. The NYT Opinion Kingdom has ad nauseam called out "Trump et al."--to what end? He's stronger today than when he entered office.
Trump has never represented a "populist" movement, but rather a sense that the deep-swamp cares only for what it can suck from the public weal for its own benefit--both Politburos, DNC-RNC.
1
A little harsh perhaps, Trump got his winning votes from three to four states where Dem. and Obama did well. The Trump 'we all know well' but not what he might do tomorrow was not a defined item, what was clear was that the Rep. Favorites were not the hot item, and Clinton was losing votes even among the reliable Black vote.
Condemning them all is harsh, but by being unpredictable he has developed a following -- its meaning yet undefined.
"They (Trumpists) wanted disruption of . . . a rigged system". You haven't got it quite right, we want reform of a failing system. Democrats like to say Republicans are backward looking, but it's really the opposite. Dems want a return to the status quo ante, with a resumption of more unearned rights for minorities, more government spending, more punishing regulation of business, more freebees for the undeserving provided at taxpayer expense. It is in fact Donald Trump who is leading the nation forward to a more productive economy with greater freedom and prosperity for the energetically self-responsible. The Dems of course cannot see this, they see Trumpian disruption as an unwelcome interregnum, they want to return to what went before. Their attitude reminds me of what Talleyrand said about the Bourbon restoration, "They had learned nothing, and forgotten nothing". Dems yearn for a lost world, they need to wake up, they don't want too. Maybe they need to be repeatedly hit over the head by a 2X4 in several election cycles before they learn that the post-war world, which lasted 70 years, is over. Voters should be on guard against their pleas to return to the past.
9
Obama, and Trump is doing all he can to take any small gains away from our shrinking middle class through tax breaks for the 1% and tarrifs. As for unearned rights for minorities, I suppose those rights must be reserved for white men, who start out life on third base. The rest of us are still at bat, swinging at pebbles thrown at us. I hope you are right, and that the post war world is over. That doesn't mean that Russia is our friend and Europe our enemy. That is an alternate universe Rebublicans have chosen to live in along with alternate facts.
3
"Unearned rights for minorities?" You believe, then, that people who are not white or heterosexual or Christian, or whatever you believe the "majority" is or should be, must "earn" the the full spectrum rights guaranteed in our Constitution? Excuse me, but I was taught in school that being an American citizen, or applying for citizenship, guarantees those rights, regardless of so-called minority status. What, then, in your opinion, must a minority citizen do to "earn" the rights granted in our Constitution, its amendments, and the American ideal? Let me answer that for you: we don't have to "earn" those rights at all. We, like you, are born with them.
4
Ronald:
You might want to pay attention to what Mr Trump actually does, instead of what he says, or what the right wing media say about him.
4
THIS is a key idea for all of us to take away today. "It’s a fair premise that nobody ever had his or her mind changed by being made to feel stupid."
25
Flagged for ageism, reverse racism, and reverse sexism.
Urban elites do have a condescending attitude.
Thank you!
Trump and his enablers are absolutely populists. Dividing the world into us and them is exactly what populists do. Populism is a simplistic and easy-answer philosophy that supposedly defends the supposed common man from an all-powerful enemy, such as elites, corporations, Jews, immigrants, Obama, the 1 percent - you take your pick depending on your political tribe.
15
Trump is NOT a populist. But he did exploit populist sentiments to get elected. Most of what he says that sound populist are lies. He's a corporate elitist, the exact opposite of populist.
3
It is ironic how Trump and the Republican Party got to co-opt the world populism. Trump is no true outsider.
He is a demagogic real estate millionaire best known for
his virtual reality tv series. The Republican Party is the establishment. The party of the business establishment, of the religious right, of rural voters and Southerners.
They have been anti-government in that they are always trying to eliminate programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security through privatization as a ruse to cut benefits. They are primarily interested in lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations with the misguided libertarian idea that this promotes freedom and that somehow wealth will trickle down to the average American. They are always anti regulation too on the same generalized basis that they harm business.
Other than angry slogans I see nothing populist about Trump's actual policies. They are standard Republican positions of low taxes for the wealthy, huge deficits, threats to cut earned credit programs, deregulation of environmental and financial sectors, and anti union programs. Their policies are the fantasies of the elites who run America! Trump just used authoritarian rhetorics with call for trade wars, for destroying alliances, for buildings walls and demonizing immigrants, and evoking an imaginary American carnage to con his voters.
He stokes their anger and resentment with simplistic fantasies and with appeals to racism. His voters are not so innocent.
125
You describe the conservative wing of American politics very well. The addition of Trump to that stew has allowed it to come to a simmer, perhaps even to boil over soon. Lower taxes, protect our borders, laissez-faire economics, let the weakest go to the wall, and that about sums it up. The problem with that straightforward philosophy is that it doesn't work any better than Marxist communism. There are always many, many more of the "common man" than there are leaders of various stripes. Sooner or later, the demagogue is always dragged down from his podium, the hollowness of his words and ideas having become apparent. In a democratic republic, government exists to serve the people, and the nature of that service is for the people to decided, not the demagogue. "Some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time...", and there it stops.
Roger Cohen needs to tell us what he might rename these different groups of "disaffecteds". Since he has visited many of them he may have an idea from them what they consider themselves. Certainly lots of them (us) are Bernie supporters. But would they (we) relate to being calling Independants or Socialists. I can't help thinking that they are lumped as Populists by some as a means of tarnishing them and Bernie too. I love the term Social Democrats, but the pre-WW2 German Social democrats were more like Hilary's Democrats and not like Bernie in fact they campaigned against the Marxist left wing party. Perhaps the present day German Social Democrats or the English Labor Party are closer to our "Populists" so why not call them by those labels?
Roger, please help us out here!
10
Populism is but one lazy label among many that need to be retired by the media and social influencers alike.
While you refer to the contempt of the liberal elite, I find the contempt of the conservative elite to be truly noxious and rampant. Infantalizing and patronizing not only their constituents but the general public in the guise of patriotism and religious values is more than galling. In the political mad men era of reductionist soundbites and propaganda, it's no wonder we resort to simplistic words with jingles and lies burrowing into our head.
16