Populism (part II): The United States

In my previous blog I focused on populism in Scandinavia – which also, by the way, is characteristic of how populism works in several countries further south. This time I want to consider US populism.

American populism is a well-known historical fact, in particular from the beginning of the previous century. Populist movements are also quite active in the US today (“Occupy Wall Street”, for example, or the Tea Party). But is the term “populism” recognizable the way it is used in Scandinavia and Northwestern Europe, as a pejorative term, to shame people for “irresponsible” political ideas and behavior? Without really having conducted any closer study of the matter, it seems to me the answer must clearly be no. Why? Because in the US, populism in the European sense is the norm, it is normal politics.

First of all, I believe it can be said that the United States has been structurally “designed”, from the start, all the way back in the late 1700s, to be open to challenges from below. This is not populism defined by what it says, but by how it works.

The British political scientist Margaret Canovan, who has written extensively on populism, notes the initial difficulty faced by anyone approaching the subject because of its indistinct nature. She suggests that we should "... shift our attention from the ideology and policy content of populist movements and concentrate instead on structural considerations. Populism in modern democratic societies is best seen as an appeal to 'the people' against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values of the society.” (*, p. 3.)

In other words, it doesn't matter who is in government or who the populists are (left or right). The point is the opposition raised by populists to the powers that be, those that are "inside the Beltway." In every US election this epithet appears.

This links back to my previous blog about the fear-driven campaigns of established Scandinavian political parties against any political challenge from outside their control, no matter how disorganized. The curious point about the United States in this context is that the powers of government in Washington DC show little or no fear of populism; indeed, the United States has arranged itself constitutionally to be maximally open to popular challenges from below. Let me just point out a few characteristics of the system that embody this quality:

• the US Constitution's design for the House of Representatives, notably its 2-year term – exceptionally short for a major legislature - and single-member districts, qualities which forcefully push the incumbents' attention to the concerns of their constituents;
• the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution, which is probably the strongest instrument protecting freedom of speech existing anywhere in the world;
  
• the 2^nd Amendment protecting the right to organize citizens' militias and hence the citizens' right to bear arms; a veritable implicit “right to revolt”;
  
• the widely shared and strongly held values regarding individual rights and the collective foundation of the constitutional system (“we, the people ...”)
• the deeply inculcated and widespread popular attitudes regarding the people's rights.

All of these structural characteristics function together to make up a political system that takes populist tendencies for granted, and which is unsurprised by novel proposals and “outrageous” ideas steadily being fed into the institutional setup from below. Its size and complexity also mean that very few populist challenges come to anything more than pinpricks against the system, although the Tea Party in recent years has shown that it is possible to wreak havoc with sufficient funding and determination.

In short, this is why the “charge” of “populism” has very little relevance in US public debate, and why at the same time populism in the US is alive and kicking at all hours of the day and night. US grassroots movements are myriad and unstoppably active all over the country.

This is not to say the country is governed by populism, more that it is governed by the “populism” of the North European mindset, the unpredictable and messy kind of politics produced by political actors “out of control” by responsible political parties, and well funded.

In other words, the “noise” emerging every day from the bottom layer of the US political system is vastly greater than in Europe, where political parties always have to be mediators before the tiny squeaks from below can be heard at the top. Indeed, the unpredictable nature of US politics and the steady appearance of ever new 'loonies' on the American political scene is exactly what makes political elites in Northern Europe so nervous about the United States, their major ally. Just imagine one of these characters winning the next presidential election!

With Europe being as much affected by US policies as they are, such fears are far from idle. And they may have something to do with why “populism” is so vehemently opposed whenever it appears in Stockholm or Oslo.

*Margaret Canovan, “Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy”, Political Studies (1999), XLVII, 2-16.

Populism and Ostracism

(NOTE: Revised version. The previous version with an unfinished section on US politics has been withdrawn.)

Populism - a name, a category of politics, sometimes used with positive connotations, sometimes neutrally, but mostly pejoratively. Princeton web defines it as “the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite”. Basically it has to do with allowing “the voice of the people” to be heard – and heeded - in government. It is a call for power to be given to the great masses, a call made by unorthodox politicians driven by a fundamental dislike, or even hatred, of the elites in power. Populists are those who make the call, but not many of them call themselves populist.

In Latin America successful populist politicians like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and before them Peron, have become in effect dictators, manipulating their followers into a frenzied kind of support that continues for years. The special character of Latin American societies, with large impoverished masses without education and vast gaps in wealth, makes these countries vulnerable to the rule of demagogues. It can easily occur in other parts of the world where similar conditions obtain. In Europe today we have seen it in Berlusconi's Italy, and in Lukashenko's Belarus. In Asia, Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra is a clear example. But populism in power has not usually been a Western-industrialized phenomenon.

What concerns me here is not successful populism, but the use of populism in political manipulation, as it is found in Scandinavia. The tendency of this region is that political elites defend their position by ostracizing people and ideas they fear or don't like, using the label “populist”. And this is effective, a banishment from the "good society" as strong as the old Greek method. Many Scandinavians are actually intimidated to refrain from voicing their true views.

Politics in Northern Europe – and in particular in Norway - is tightly fixed to the center. Therefore, when the recent Norwegian elections were won by the conservative right, international media paid much attention to what was called Norwegian right-wing populism, in part because of the mass killer who in 2011 went on a rampage taking over 70 lives in the name of right-wing, quasi-nazi ideas. Inevitably, his actions have been linked by some to the party closest to his deranged ideas, the liberal/right-wing Progress Party, which is currently about to enter the government in coalition with the Conservatives. There is no basis for such a link.

The Progress Party is sharply critical of the dominant social democracy, with high taxes, heavy bureaucracy and a very liberal immigration policy. For 30 years the Progress Party has polled around 15% of the votes, but always been kept out of government coalitions – until now. Clearly, the appeal of the Progress Party among the voters is a threat to the mainstream parties. So the latter have gone for the ostracizing option, the populist bogeyman, to defend their position. 

The populist bogeyman is nothing new in Nordic politics, he has been around for a long time. While in US politics populism has more of a positive ring to it (which actually protects the loonies), in Norway and Sweden when “populism” is used in public discourse it is routinely framed as a threat to public health, or worse, marking dangerously popular ideas, such as tax cuts and other opportunistic causes likely to endanger the Scandinavian welfare state. Many call these parties xenophobic or racist for their critical view of liberal immigration policies. Since 2009 the Norwegian Progress Party for the first time has a Swedish fellow party of similar views, the Sweden Democrats. The media in these two countries have spared no ink in smearing these parties' views, which would hardly be called extremist in other countries. In Denmark, by contrast, critical views of welfare and immigration are much more widely held than in Sweden and Norway.

Consider, in Denmark, the following view of immigration offered by a well-known party: “It will do nobody any good that Denmark receives more foreigners than society can absorb. It will do nobody any good that unemployed immigrants are allowed to walk around without anything to do – and it will do nobody any good that we, out of misunderstood kindness, allow values like freedom, equality and democracy to be undermined.” (Translation: OFK.) Says who? Right-wingers? No, the Danish Socialist People's Party, to the left of the Social Democrats.

In Norway, we find roughly the same view held by the right wing Progress Party: “Norwegian immigration policy must take as its starting point that demands are made on immigrants who come to settle here. Participation in the work force, in language courses, and showing respect for Norwegian law are central elements in a successful policy of integration. Equal treatment of Norwegians and immigrants is decisive for the prevention of conflicts, which means that special arrangements for immigrants must be terminated.” (Trans.: OFK) Racist? Xenophobic? 

Indeed, there is a gap in Nordic political culture between Denmark to the south and its two northerly sisters. While keeping “populist” parties out of the circle of clean-nosed politics has been a common project of all centrist and center-left parties in Norway and Sweden, Denmark is a different story. Here a succession of populist parties have had a strong minority position since the 1970s. The frank Danish manner of speaking is shocking to the refined ears of more northerly politicians, who would never condone a socialist party having an immigration policy like the one just quoted. Hence the slight pariah-stamp on Danish politics as seen from Sweden or Norway, where everybody is supposed to be a social democrat at heart. 

It is perhaps time for the nervous social democrats of the center-left in these countries to recognize that in the forgotten everyday politics behind the scenes, nobody has come from more populist roots than the labor movements. Ultimately, I would hope, Scandinavian political elites can find the courage to admit the legitimacy of all of "the people" - regardless of what opinions they hold.