“Populism” isn’t really a term of art or science. At best it means any popular movement or opinion that conflicts with the center-left consensus. More often it’s used just to label any bit of ignorant demagoguery whatsoever. (The fact that the word “populism” is mostly just a smear word doesn’t prevent it from being used in the vast netherworld of social science literature, of course.) Until at least the 80s dictionaries did not include the generic term “populist”, but defined the term to mean either an American Populist or a Russian Narodnik.
The generalized use of the word as a throwaway insult seems to be an function of the transformation of the left-center into an administrative elite after WWII. Richard Hofstadter’s books, among others, provided an intellectual rationale for the smear, and they are still heavily used in indoctrinating young American wonks, but his portrait of the Populists and Progressives is polemical, not based on primary research, and presentist (he thought Joe McCarthy was a populist). A case could be made that the American Populists were not populist in the current sense of the term, even though the term traces back specifically to them.
A neutral definition of populism allowing for both benevolent and malign forms might be OK, but I don’t see anyone using it that way. Historically, both in the US and in Europe a lot of the energy behind progressive movements was populist (e.g. “obrerismo” in leftist labor movements), but the administrative left today seems to be committed to an anti-populist , gradually-retreating defensive holding action preserving their positions of influence, with The People serving as the enemy.
Anti-popular politics in the Democratic goes back a long way; the era of popular politics only lasted from about 1890 to 1941, with dwindling aftershocks up until 1968, and even during that era there was fierce internal resistance. After WWII anti-populist ideology got big boosts from the Straussians, from Adorno and the critical theorists, and from the neoliberals (on whom see Mirowski’s “Road From Mont Pelerin”.) Hofstadter was watered-down pop-Freudian Adorno.
The root anti-populist argument is simple: Hitler was a populist, and look what happened. Another reading of the same data might argue that Germany in 1918 was so hierarchical and authoritarian that it couldn’t make the transition to democracy or even liberalism. (Adorno seems to have been crushed by German labor’s refusal to obey its wise Communist leaders). Mayer’s “They Thought They Were Free” describes Germans who had at least passively accepted Naziism: for them the Nazis were like urban political bosses in the US, who helped out people who needed help when none of the established authorities were willing or able to do anything. During the 20s and early 30s the German churches, vanguard left parties, and conservative parties, as well as the Austrian economists, the Straussians, and the Schmittians were all firm in their belief that The People should be seen and not heard and that The People existed to serve the State, the Church, the Party, or the Market, and not the other way around.
Hitler of course was no better, but he successfully exploited a weak spot in the existing authoritarian establishments in order to replace the lot of them with a single new authoritarian establishment.
(A response to this Crooked Timber post, which casually uses the term “populism” as a smear word.
Trollblog 
November 1, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I always thought the term was fairly neutral, and in its negative sense, harked back to reactionary popular movements, or to demagoguery. In the more general sense, how can a government which claims to be democratic oppose its own people?
Why fight over the word?
November 1, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Because populism is now unthinkingly rejected by most Democratic political pros and most educated people, because the positive sense of the word is normally obscured by the negative sense (your experience is untypical, I think), because in many cases the only criterion for populism is demagoguery, because anti-populism makes the Democratic Party elitist, plutocrstic, and politically ineffective, and because the misuse of the term is inaccurate and slanderous.
November 1, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Hmmm. So in your view, the negative sense of the word “populism” is part of an elitist view of the public on the part of intellectuals? Hmmm. I didn’t think of that before you raised the issue. But then, my intellectual background is as an engineer, photographer, and designer rather than in the verbal humanities. Is the idea of the public getting what it wants treated with such contempt on the part of intellectuals?
November 1, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Bertram is a Rawlsian, I believe. When he attacks populism, he’s not doing it as a rightist, regardless of what a few Zizekian clowns say (or KOS frat boy liberals, etc). Rawlsian rationalism offers a tactic for circumventing the problems of populism, arguably, without affirming marxist vanguardism, or the machiavellian right.
It’s a theoretical point of view, JE: a hypothetical contract–not perfect, and a bit unworkable, but aiming for egalitarianism. You’ve heard it before (and check the wiki on Theory of Justice, original position, difference principle, etc). One might read it as pre-economic, establishing egalitarianism via politics–even a type of Federalism– rather than the market, or usual democratic methods, ie popular vote. Not real sexy, or likely to appeal to Abbie Hoffmans, but a workable distribution mechanism to eliminate disparity in income, property, status, etc., without reiterating VI Lenin & Co. Sort of leftist Hobbesianism if you need the ism.
November 1, 2009 at 10:26 pm
According to Bertram on the thread, he was just casually using the word “populist” in its cliche meaning and not trying to make a statement about populism.
November 1, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Your endless clarifications of populism itself points at the problem. You’re ok with the agrarian or democratic sorts of populists, but don’t approve of the rightist sorts. So obviously you have your own political or economic criteria in place, and as “Henri” suggested, merely think of populism as a tool, a means to an end.
You’re not a pure populist or utilitarian. Pure populism would mean accepting majority rule as valid in ALL cases (say, the majority who voted in the nazi coalition in 30s). So you accept some basic givens, ala rights, or entitlement, egalitarianism whatever, which are not subject to vote/consensus. The problem then seems to relate to the usual Federalist vs. states rights dichotomy, republicanism (in older, Aristotelian/euro sense) vs. Democracy unleashed. I for one am not convinced Madison lost the battle vs. the anti-Federalists, whigs, Lockean democrats, etc., regardless of the bad Federalists (ie Adams, Hamilton), and “good” Lockeans (Jefferson,to some extent, Burr, the Lees, etc). JQ Adams still retained a bit of his pop’s Federalist spirit (took his oath on Constitution) and was not supportive of the Jacksonian democrat-populists, whatsoever.
November 1, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I’m flatly opposed to purity of anything.
My claim ius that mainstrean Dems, especially the wonks, flatly refuse to distinguish different kinds of populism and effectively identify populism with the worst examples.
November 1, 2009 at 11:26 pm
That’s sort of a regional issue. Nevada Demos aren’t CA demos–like La Cosa Nostra’s not the mex. mafia.
CA for one now is nearly evenly matched between whites and hispanics, with blacks a bit behind, and asians farther behind. Do you think most Hispanic people want to vote for Richard Gephardts, or even Al Frankens, ese? No. The sort of populism you dream of is endemic to the midwest, or north. The populism of CA leads to Arnold Schwarzeneggio.
Federalism of SOME type–Madison, Hobbes, Rawlsianism, even some bureaucratic marxism could prevent the endless factionalism. Not that it will likely come about. Class interests, comrade–combined with racial interests will prevail over any sort of reformer policies.
November 1, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I do not propose that populist Democrats should campaign exclusively to white people in bib overalls.
November 2, 2009 at 2:25 am
In a comment in a previous thread, Emerson mocks “the political equivalent of the efficient markets thesis.”
I have to confess to still being something of a sucker for market explanations, including in politics. I remain puzzled as to why no populists seem to be able to get traction on the left. John Edwards tried to be a smiley-faced populist, but where are the angry leftist populists? Seems as though there ought to be some – as though the political market should, in essence, demand some.
November 2, 2009 at 2:34 am
They’re around. Like at UFW meetings, up and down the central valley of CA. Packing sheds, outside Fresno, Modesto. Stockton. Maybe come out west and work with the migrant workers, or ag. labor, ese. That’s leftist populism. College students are not really leftists, even those wearing their Che or Bob Marley t-shirts.
November 2, 2009 at 2:46 am
I do not see a lot of angry populists either. A lot of people are cynical or hopeless. Another bunch of people are complacent, or feel that things will work out for them personally even if not for everyone else. Plenty of people want to get on the gravy train themselves, and screw everyone else.
These are overlapping groups, not distinct groups. For examples, cynics do not usually feel personally threatened; they grumble without really worrying very much.
This is the same old “the worse, the better” that sixties radicals talked about, and some of the Nader people. Looking at finance, I think the trouble might already be here. People are talking about 5 more years of 10% unemployment, and they aren’t the most pessimistic people.
I don’t claim to know. I think it’s unreasonable to rule out a worsening of the situation.
But anyway, what I was getting at is, supposing that the crisis is upon us, I don’t see anyone except the far right capable of exploiting it. The left is pretty discouraged and fragmented, and liberals have renounced populistic appeals in principle.
I saw Huckabee on TV today with his electric guitar, and he’s got it.
As far as I can tell, though, the entire university, almost the entire Democratic Party, and almost all of the media are reflexively anti-populist, and “anti-populist” includes anti-radical and anti-socialist. They will oppose any popular movement. (But least of all, Huckabee.)
November 2, 2009 at 3:01 am
Naturally anyone seeking power, such as empowered members of the Democratic Party, are going to have it in for populism–implied in the concept is people taking matters into their own hands. I see populism, libertarianism, anarchism and for that matter democracy as being more or less synonymous, in as much as they point to constructive political action. Either there is some for of collective, egalitarian rule or there is an authoritarian elite rule or, in practice, some shade in between.
Of course anarchism generally gets ridiculed by left right and center alike. But I don’t see what logical alternative there is. Even a benevolent dictator (or ruling caste or political party or whatever) can barely act responsibly because he (they) hardly understands the problems of his subjects.
Finally, I think the operative principle in politics is power (transcending material acquisitiveness). As much as possible we should organize things so it is distributed fairly evenly. In two lines this is what all of the above terms mean to me, whatever the experts say they are supposed to mean.
November 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm
people taking matters into their own hands.
Huckabees want to take matters into their own hands. So does the Mafia, or marxists. Naive anarchistic populism doesn’t solve much.
However much Marx irritates the usual American liberal, his writing on “bourgeois consciousness” still pertains to the discussion. Most Americans don’t care about economic or social injustice, anyway, even in middle or lower class. Why should they? They are not obligated to do so–even Marx objected to the utilitarian, or ethics-based reformers. Workers in the field don’t care that much either, except for taking in more money.THe Crooked timber- crew doesn’t care, except insofar that another article on Rawls, Marx, utilitarians, Keynesian wheeze, et al provides tenure, job opportunities , or happy hour conversation. Comfortably numb: that’s WASP-Zionland. It’s not until a Fidel Castro, Mao or Hugo Chavez are at the door with machine guns that anything happens (usually wrong, and reactionary as well).
November 2, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Naive anarchistic populism doesn’t solve much.
That’s a truism. Are you just writing by the word, or do you think that that’s what I’m advocating?
Prophets of failure are cheap and plentiful, ToS.
November 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Anti-rationalists of various types are far more abundant, Emo.
November 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Claim not supported by evidence.
November 2, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Jus’ keep it real, Farmer John–the Proudhonian vistas grow a bit tiresome. Maybe a thread, even po-moish, like concerning Aynnie Rynd’s pubic-hair style or somethin’.
November 2, 2009 at 7:30 pm
For Christ’s sake, Horation, you’re not someone who should be talking about “tiresome”. And you’re hardly my target audience.
November 2, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Who is yr target audience, JE? The mamasputo’s from unfogged, or accountant-filosophes of Crooked T? You need some charts then, indices, multipliers, Keynesian wheeze-speak. Holy stagflation, dude.
Some of us prefer History to charts, JE.
November 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Horation, I’m not sure you have an “us”.
November 2, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Funny—after perusing the CT gang’s latest Emerson-humiliation session, I was thinking the same of you. The difference being that you ToS being that I tell the CT nerds to phuck off and die, change proxies, etc (and take the ban from Holblo, Queergin, Henry McWankit, Berubay, et al). You instead start into yr justifying and qualifying.
November 2, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Phuck. Kahlua-java in the AM.
November 7, 2009 at 12:46 am
A touchstone of information about post-Civil War third party movements – including the populists – can be found in Frederick Emory Haynes’ Third Party Movements Since the Civil War (1916, 564 pp.). Haynes is a dispassionate and even sympathetic historian on the topic, although opinions similar to Hofstadter’s were certainly making the rounds given Haynes’ comments in the first chapter about the movements being essential for the progressive growth of government “rather than the outbursts of fanatical reformers based in the imaginings of poorly balanced minds.”