About Populism

I wrote this letter to Mr. Edwin Leigh (www.edwinleigh.blogspot.com) to shed light on the definition of populism. He never replied but I am sure he learned the lesson.

Some days ago Mr. Leigh and I had a bit of an argument about the true meaning of the political doctrine called populism. The issue arose when, in replying to some of his considerations about the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, whom he defined a populist, I said that president George W. Bush (GWB) also could be perceived as a populist figure. Leigh promptly replied that I was completely misapplying the term “populist” and, as a support to his point, he thought it was a good idea to send me the link of an online dictionary (http://www.answers.com/topic/populism), where I would find the correct definition of the term. This that follows is the general definition the dictionary gives: “Populism: a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite”. Leigh argued that, according to this definition, a politician can be defined a populist only when his doctrine aims at protecting the common people rights from an economic elite, what we call “the establishment”; by this doctrine, the populist appeals to the poor and disenfranchised as a power base. Therefore, Leigh infers this definition cannot be applied to GWB, given that he himself is the establishment.

Now, I am sure Mr. Leigh is aware of the broad spectrum of historical contexts in which populism occurred and how this involved political figures of both left and right-wing orientation (the Russian Populism by the end of the XIX century, the nationalistic populism of the XX century regimes in Europe, the market populism in the United States in the Nineties, just to give a taste of the complexity of the matter). As one can see by observing the different forms populism took across history, the constant factor in the populist approach is the target for votes, namely the vast majority of the people, intended as the common people. On the other hand, what really varies depending on the historical and political context is the “enemy” towards whom the common people are directed by populists, often by means of demagogic rhetoric. The chosen enemy is always a minority which is thought to be unfairly privileged. This can be either an ethnic, economic or intellectual minority.

It becomes clear Mr. Leigh gives the term “populism” a definition which is too narrow and this is the reason why he thinks GWB does not fit the populist profile. On the contrary, it is my strong opinion president GWB as a politician falls neatly into the backlash populist category. In his political struggle GWB defined a political enemy against whom to rouse the american common people, his real base of power; this enemy is the liberal elite, identified as a class of intellectuals and seen as a disdainful privileged minority brought up in metropolitan areas and educated in top-ten universities, who likes ethnic cuisine and vacations in Europe. As the American writer Thomas Frank explains: “Against these maddeningly sissified tastes, backlash populism posits a true-blue heartland where real Americans eat red meat in big slabs, know all about farming, drink Budweiser, work hard with their hands and drive domestic cars” (T. Franks, Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2004). Exploiting the resentment of the common people due to their inferiority complex towards any privileged minority is an old political strategy for getting votes. In my next letter to Edwin, I will try to show the parallels with the current situation in Italy, whose government is led by president Silvio Berlusconi.

Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:45:48 PM