Reason is worried about the spread of populism, which one of its sources defines as 'autocratization.' ("Autocratization" is defined by V-Dem as: "any substantial and significant worsening on the scale of liberal democracy. It is a matter of degree and a phenomenon that can occur both in democracies and autocracies….Semantically, it signals the opposite of democratization, describing any move away from [full] democracy.")
But wait a minute. "Populism" has its root in the Latin for 'people' just as "Democracy" has its roots in "Demos," Greek for 'people.' The first "populist" party in the United States was a late 19th century party of farmers and workers, just as the Democratic party transitioned into being during the 20th century. The article specifies that populists divide 'the true people' from another group who is exploiting or oppressing them, but just tune into one of the innumerable Democratic debates: they're all about how 'the people' are being exploited by various enemy groups -- the rich, billionaires, Republicans, white people or male people or privileged people of whatever sort. The rhetoric of the Democratic party has long been that it is the party of the honest, hard-working underdogs unfairly oppressed by the powerful; it only differs from moment to moment as to whether the system of power is racism, capitalism, sexism, or whatever else. Aside from the fact that one uses a Latin root and the other a Greek root, what's the difference?
Reason itself goes on to state that these populists aren't likely to go away soon because "People feel locked out of decision-making, and until that sense of democratic responsibility is restored, there's going to be one messy Brexit after another." If that's true, though, why would you describe "people" successfully contesting "being locked out of decision-making" as autocratization rather than democratizing? The Demos is capturing power; the system is becoming more responsive to the people who make it up, rather than whatever powers that had ruled it heretofore.
It may be that we are witnessing in America and Brazil a division of a nation into two "peoples," each of which has a democratic/populist mode of organizing. If so, both here and there it may be that division of the single nation into at least two nations is the only way to enable a democratic system to function in the healthy way, i.e., defending the interests of the people rather than imposing the will of one people onto another. Failing that, what you have isn't autocracy -- autocracy is what is ending. What you have are two different demos engaged in a struggle for dominance.
That's a serious problem, but it's not the problem these think tanks believe that they're experiencing. They are trapped in their adjectives, and unable to see the truth beyond their words.
8 comments:
Couple random thoughts.
One is my personal quirk: 2,000-year-old definitions make interesting histories, but they have little to do with current meanings. Language evolves, and with language, what matters is where we are, not how we got here.
The larger one is that Progressive-Democrat "populism" is little different from their more general segregationist identity politics. Their "populism" is just gussied up obfuscation of that sad bit. Letting the Progressive-Democrats get away with their lately definition of populism is just another example of the problems from surrendering the lexicon.
Eric Hines
I'm a Neoplatonist about language as about other things; I think forms can continue to be important. For example Tolkien found that he could reinvigorate words like warg, restoring them to their ancient function in a way that a made-up word like 'oogaloo' would not have done. Now you might argue that 'oogaloo' won't do because it's a silly sound, whereas 'warg' sounds fearsome; but why it sounds the one way or the other has something to do with the form of the word, not only with current usage (or lack thereof).
The form matters much more if it is a form we are learning about from on high, rather than one we are creating as it were beneath us. I mean for example that we find things like the Fibonacci sequence in nature, and there is something about it that resides above us and our usages and preferences. There are things about men and women that are above us in this way; but there are other things that are below us. Distinguishing the cases is important, but it is not trivial, because both sets of ideas we encounter as ideas in our mind. The ones that come from above and the ones we have invented do not necessarily feel any different to us, and many people mistake the one for the other. I think much of our current cultural confusion is an instance of this kind of confusion, where people assume that they can substitute an invented form for a form embedded in reality.
(Your point about not surrendering the lexicon holds here, I think; but the reason it holds is that we need to make sure that they don't just try to run off with the language in any old invented direction, not if there is an important form carefully extracted from reality that needs defending.)
But in any case you don't have to go back very far here. We don't have these terms from the ancients, but from Americans who were educated in the ancient languages. "Populist" in the US sense was invented in 1892, not 800 BC; "Democratic" a little earlier, but its current meaning is really 20th century rather than Jeffersonian. The language has drifted a bit, and far fewer educated Americans can read Latin or Greek than a few generations ago, but the words are our words, with the forms only borrowed from ancient tongues by American scholars and politicians.
Besides, if you go back as far as Jackson, his "Democratic" looks even more like the "Populist" usage. Why would we think of the Democratic Party's Jackson administration -- which passed power to ordinary Americans beyond the Founding elite -- as autocratic rather than democratizing? What really is the difference between the terms, if there is one? Or is it just a prejudice about adjectives: '"democratic" means our side, but "populist" connotes those heathens in the hills? '
The author seems to worry that making people feel locked out of decision might spur them to take matters in their own decision-making hands. But then they might make the wrong decisions, so it would be best to lie to them so they'll feel they're involved, but continue to ignore their wishes while they're not paying attention. That's democracy.
The mob is unruly.
Democracies are mobs who make rules for themselves and each other -- people's rules.
Aristocracies are winners within groups with customs and traditions of law, who leverage their prizes to make private laws (privileges) for the benefit of the small subset of the population: themselves and "people like us". Aristocrats work hard to ensure their gains never become losses.
Republics temporarily delegate rule-making powers to a few people who come from and return to lives among the general public. Republics are democracies that mistrust and restrict aristocrats.
When republicans become (despite the restrictions) aristocrats, tyrants raise themselves above all rules on the support of an unruly, populist, mob. Tyrants break down all the rules and restrictions and customs of the democrats in favor of, well, favors to selected members of the mob.
Dictators are lazy or elderly tyrants who have scribes to write down the (new) rules that apply to the mob (and surviving aristocrats) -- rather than deal with each problem case by case over and over.
Viziers - like Moses's father-in-law, Jethro - often serve as the spur for tyrants to become dictators, and ensure the scribes then refer to the tyrant as "the law giver".
Kings are dictators who rely on the scribes' records, and mob traditions, and delegate enforcement (usually not rule making) authority to a new group of aristocrats.
Sufficiently large groups of aristocrats begin making mutually protective rules for themselves and each other, just in case of bad kings or overly powerful mobs. In particular they begin setting up rules to pick kings, and "squires" (proto-aristos). Aristocratic factions go to war to control kingdoms. They levy and enlist other people into the struggles.
And apparently, once in a great while, a successfuly self-governing aristocratic group enlarges its allied factions and ranks with so many squires, yeomen, gentlemen and officers -- and they change kings so often -- the aristocracy becomes effectively somewhat democratic. Or Republican.
And here we are.
Grim: your point about populism being the antithesis of "autocratization" is spot on. The definition of "autocrat": a ruler who has absolute power; someone who insists on complete obedience from others; an imperious or domineering person. It's downright bizarre to equate authoritarian rule by one person with widespread delegation of decision-making power back to the madding/amorphous crowd.
On the otter heiny, I find the fascination with "populism" (right now, lust for it on the right, and fear/loathing on the left) somewhat perplexing. I get why the left doesn't like populism currently - they don't trust "the people" to know what's good for them, and their popular appeal depends on fear mongering and stoking resentment against big corporations and millionaires. Clear those last two away, and who will volunteer to be the useful boogeyman?
I don't get why the right is so enamored with populism, unless it's expressed as a move to more federalism and less centralization of power in fedgov (which isn't really populism at all - it preserves the same basic forms, but moves the infrastructure closer to the people it serves).
Occupy was a deeply populist movement. We saw how that turned out, and it wasn't good. I can't think of a single populist government that was worked out well because "the people" aren't monolithic (hell, most people don't think very hard about anything), and thus determining, then satisfying their "will" is problematic at best ... and at worst, devolves into rule by the mob. Populist leaders are generally frauds who promise to be guided by "the people" but end up just like any other elite person with power (except worse, because there aren't any formal rules to keep them in check). "The rules" are whatever they claim the people want... this week.
I don't get why the right is so enamored with populism, unless it's expressed as a move to more federalism and less centralization of power...
I gather it is because the alternative has not been local-governmentism but supra-nationalism. The movement to restore government to the citizens of Britain as opposed to the non-democratic EU, for example, has been movement in the right direction.
The attempt to restore US citizenship as the central fact in US governance is also a movement of that type. When we argue that we shouldn't be appropriating seats in Congress on the basis of non-citizen populations -- especially those who have come in violation of American laws -- we are trying to restore self governance. When we try to get voter ID laws to ensure that only citizens are voting, it's a way of trying to ensure that our governance lies within the nation rather than outside of it.
Likewise objections to trans-national trade organizations with legislative abilities like the TPP, T-TIP, etc.
Now, within the USA, I'm with you that we should be trying to push powers down to the local level; break up states and localities as necessary to ensure that the citizens can rule themselves instead of being ruled-over by outsiders. But the supra-national government leaders have stolen such a march in the last decades, it may be first necessary to restore national government before we can focus on federalist government. The Brits were at the point of having to do that if they didn't just want to be overruled by the EU.
I gather it is because the alternative has not been local-governmentism but supra-nationalism. The movement to restore government to the citizens of Britain as opposed to the non-democratic EU, for example, has been movement in the right direction.
Couldn't agree more, but it seems worth noting that "the people" *voted* for Brexit (and it was autocratic elites who kept suggesting this vote - which isn't anything like true populism at all, but merely a feature of the existing system of representative government - should somehow be set aside). Which seems downright... autocratic!
Likewise, I haven't seen much sentiment in the populace over here for allowing illegal immigrants to be granted all the rights of actual citizens.
The word "populism" is one of many being hijacked because it has negative connotations.
That's a serious problem, but it's not the problem these think tanks believe that they're experiencing. They are trapped in their adjectives, and unable to see the truth beyond their words.
That continues to this day across humanity, with people's relationship to the Word of God or the Words of God.
That whole mechanism is still in dispute, and it's not about atheism either.
Post a Comment