November 28, 2006
What Is a Populist? III Posted by Fredric Smoler at 10:15 AM EST John Steele Gordon writes that the dictionary offers two definitions for populist, one being a member of any political party claiming to represent the interest of the common people, the other the being “a believer in the rights, wisdom or virtues of the common people.” The first definition describes all modern political parties, few if any of which fail to make such a claim, the second describes what politicians operating under the rule of universal suffrage inevitably assert, although Mr. Gordon seems to suspect that they probably do not make this claim most convincingly in the immediate aftermath of lost elections. I share his suspicion. I do not find these very useful definitions, and my guess is that Mr. Gordon feels the same. Mr. Gordon then suggests that believers in free markets might be considered the true populists, which is clever, and in some cases even true, but runs afoul of some historical and much current usage, for example Mr. Uchitelle’s usage in the Times. I think that parties and politicians nowadays described as populist in economic terms instead often claim to protect “the common people” from the effects of markets (I am thinking of increased restraints on immigration or trade, which I oppose, but also of attempts to raise the minimum wage, which I support). To the best of my knowledge, no one uses the word in the sense Mr. Gordon perhaps whimsically offers as a linguistic innovation.
My guess is that Mr. Gordon does not use the word other than in its narrowest sense (a member of the party founded in 1891), and is gently suggesting that any other use of the word is problematic, because so few people admit, even to themselves, that they are working against the true interest of the majority. If so, he has a point. So now I am wondering why I use the word. Thinking this through a bit, I believe that in modern parlance “populist” implies at least two different things. In one meaning the word indicates a belief that the interests of ordinary people and elites are in at least some instances directly opposed, and in this sense a populist is someone who advocates the interests of ordinary people against the interests of elites. In the other sense the word means someone who either mistakenly or insincerely and opportunistically embraces a popular but mistaken economic (or other) prejudice. I think The New York Times article by Louis Uchitelle may have serially intended both meanings in the same piece of writing.
So I think I use the word to denote politicians who conceal and contradict their beliefs about our collective long-term interests when seeking votes—and also politicians who sincerely share popular but in my view false ideas about the interests of the majority (for example, Dick Gephardt’s support of protectionism during one presidential primary campaign). But at other times I say “populist” to praise politicians I imagine to be standing up for the interests of ordinary people, when those interests are opposed to at least some elite interests. Here’s where it gets tricky. My sincere belief in the merits of the minimum wage strikes me as populism in the good sense, but it presumably strikes Mr. Gordon as at best error, and if I am insincere about those merits, and running for office, demagogy. So my guess is that Mr. Gordon refuses the word because he suspects that one man’s populist is always another man’s demagogue, and that while it is worthwhile trying to determine whether economic ideas are true or false, it is less worthwhile trying to determine whether they are sincerely held.
I continue to use the word because populism is like that old saw about obscenity—you are pretty sure that you know it when you see it (in either sense of its meaning). On the other hand, distinguishing obscenity from erotica is a notoriously contentious business, similarly (good) populism and demagogy. I would like to thank Mr. Gordon for helping me think this through.
|
