The way many use "populism," it means only that the electorate has policy preferences that the managerial elite will refuse to respect, regardless of how elections turn out.
The "right wing populists" are correct that immigration (in both the US and Europe) is totally out of control. I don't want to "defeat" that, I want to restrict immigration according to some actual sensible sustainable policy. So as a citizen (remember those?) of the US (and a registered Democrat for 50 years), I will be voting for Trump.
I suppose this is brave for a Columbia faculty member. But it focuses on the relative arcana of the AfD and omits to say what is appealing to American right wing populism (and French, British, and Italian populism, too--remember Brexit?). The implication is that what drives American right wing populism is the fear of immigration. And if that is it, then it is old-fashioned jingoism--the fear of OTHER people.
How should relatively centrist people (admittedly I am a Brahmin centrist) address that fear? We can use data to show that immigration is good, that immigrants do not commit more crimes than other residents, etc. But that makes us seem even more out of touch. We are just establishment figures telling hoi polloi that they are bad people. And of course that will backfire.
The only solution is to listen to them and adopt policies that really address their concerns, whether we agree with them or not. The left will scream bloody murder. But the left has few votes in America. To create a sustainable majority, one must truly listen to their concerns and adopt policies that address them. Is that pandering? Sure. But that is part of what democracy is about.
Daniel Klein is professor of economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, "Populism = Bad in politics: This is analogous to the word waywardness we witness when reading adversaries of ‘neoliberalism’—and, inversely, when reading those who use ‘democratic’ to mean good. A lot of classical liberals are using ‘populist’ in a fuzzy, untenable, wayward way, and it seems, in effect, to mean politically bad or as a codeword for certain political baddies. The test to put to them is two-fold: First, ask, “What do you mean by ‘populist’?” Let us suppose that they answer that question, and in a way that does not effectively reduce ‘populist’ to politically bad. Then ask: “OK, so you distinguish between bad political parties or movements that are populist and those that are not populist. Tell me which baddies you do not count as ‘populist’ and let’s test to see whether your definition really excludes them from ‘populism’ as you claim to understand it.” One has to agree with another point of view than this one expressed in her article. 😐
While I am in general agreement with the points that Prof. Berman makes, including the comparison with the AfD, I think she is too optimistic about the ability of change away from Trump/AfD.at least in the in the short term.
Economics: Trump has strongest support in the rural and rust-belt areas and the AfD is strongest in the former East Germany which has lagged behind its West Germany brethren. Indeed, greater Berlin is "blue" while the surrounding area in AfD "Red." Decent jobs for non-college attendees (esp. men) will be slow in coming.
Women's movement: The similar population groups in both countries face the weakening of the male role in the family and in the world. The new jobs that are created, draw many more women than men leaving the younger men with the least attractive positions. Resentment grows from this.
Racism: There are these long-term undercurrents in both countries. The Black movements in the US coupled with the Asian migration more recently, provide handy scapegoats.The pre-WWII German anti-semitism transfers itself to anti-Muslim views, especially in poorer areas such as the Eastern part of the country.
I'd like to be more optimistic about the possibility of change in the both countries, but working through these issues is going to take many years.
One of the problems in Europe, even in the oldest democratic societies as Sweden is that many people think and feel that democracy = the rule of majority after 4 years electoral period. But majority decisions and positions do not have to be democratic and alternatives to democracy are not only one party dictatorship or military government. Right-wing populists party are combining nationalism, populism and ethnocracy where the idea in practice is majoritarian governance if the majority can be shaped to be anti-democratic .
Negativity bias is a key driver of why the representation gap is so hard to close. Positive facts about the strength of the economy or the benefits of immigration will always get drowned out by negative narratives to the contrary, even if those negative narratives aren't reflective of facts on the ground. Grassroots campaigns that educate on negativity bias can be a good way to allow for the accomplishment of options 2 and 3.
Why would you want to defeat it? Left wingism doesn't seem to be making too many people happier.
The way many use "populism," it means only that the electorate has policy preferences that the managerial elite will refuse to respect, regardless of how elections turn out.
The "right wing populists" are correct that immigration (in both the US and Europe) is totally out of control. I don't want to "defeat" that, I want to restrict immigration according to some actual sensible sustainable policy. So as a citizen (remember those?) of the US (and a registered Democrat for 50 years), I will be voting for Trump.
I suppose this is brave for a Columbia faculty member. But it focuses on the relative arcana of the AfD and omits to say what is appealing to American right wing populism (and French, British, and Italian populism, too--remember Brexit?). The implication is that what drives American right wing populism is the fear of immigration. And if that is it, then it is old-fashioned jingoism--the fear of OTHER people.
How should relatively centrist people (admittedly I am a Brahmin centrist) address that fear? We can use data to show that immigration is good, that immigrants do not commit more crimes than other residents, etc. But that makes us seem even more out of touch. We are just establishment figures telling hoi polloi that they are bad people. And of course that will backfire.
The only solution is to listen to them and adopt policies that really address their concerns, whether we agree with them or not. The left will scream bloody murder. But the left has few votes in America. To create a sustainable majority, one must truly listen to their concerns and adopt policies that address them. Is that pandering? Sure. But that is part of what democracy is about.
Daniel Klein is professor of economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, "Populism = Bad in politics: This is analogous to the word waywardness we witness when reading adversaries of ‘neoliberalism’—and, inversely, when reading those who use ‘democratic’ to mean good. A lot of classical liberals are using ‘populist’ in a fuzzy, untenable, wayward way, and it seems, in effect, to mean politically bad or as a codeword for certain political baddies. The test to put to them is two-fold: First, ask, “What do you mean by ‘populist’?” Let us suppose that they answer that question, and in a way that does not effectively reduce ‘populist’ to politically bad. Then ask: “OK, so you distinguish between bad political parties or movements that are populist and those that are not populist. Tell me which baddies you do not count as ‘populist’ and let’s test to see whether your definition really excludes them from ‘populism’ as you claim to understand it.” One has to agree with another point of view than this one expressed in her article. 😐
While I am in general agreement with the points that Prof. Berman makes, including the comparison with the AfD, I think she is too optimistic about the ability of change away from Trump/AfD.at least in the in the short term.
Economics: Trump has strongest support in the rural and rust-belt areas and the AfD is strongest in the former East Germany which has lagged behind its West Germany brethren. Indeed, greater Berlin is "blue" while the surrounding area in AfD "Red." Decent jobs for non-college attendees (esp. men) will be slow in coming.
Women's movement: The similar population groups in both countries face the weakening of the male role in the family and in the world. The new jobs that are created, draw many more women than men leaving the younger men with the least attractive positions. Resentment grows from this.
Racism: There are these long-term undercurrents in both countries. The Black movements in the US coupled with the Asian migration more recently, provide handy scapegoats.The pre-WWII German anti-semitism transfers itself to anti-Muslim views, especially in poorer areas such as the Eastern part of the country.
I'd like to be more optimistic about the possibility of change in the both countries, but working through these issues is going to take many years.
One of the problems in Europe, even in the oldest democratic societies as Sweden is that many people think and feel that democracy = the rule of majority after 4 years electoral period. But majority decisions and positions do not have to be democratic and alternatives to democracy are not only one party dictatorship or military government. Right-wing populists party are combining nationalism, populism and ethnocracy where the idea in practice is majoritarian governance if the majority can be shaped to be anti-democratic .
Negativity bias is a key driver of why the representation gap is so hard to close. Positive facts about the strength of the economy or the benefits of immigration will always get drowned out by negative narratives to the contrary, even if those negative narratives aren't reflective of facts on the ground. Grassroots campaigns that educate on negativity bias can be a good way to allow for the accomplishment of options 2 and 3.