I have a PhD in Political Science and Public Policy, and I have no idea what “Populism” means. It is mainly used an insult against people of differing views, not much different from Leftists calling opponents “racist,” fascist,” or “nazi.”
Maybe if it were just used as a descriptive adjective of a sp…
I have a PhD in Political Science and Public Policy, and I have no idea what “Populism” means. It is mainly used an insult against people of differing views, not much different from Leftists calling opponents “racist,” fascist,” or “nazi.”
Maybe if it were just used as a descriptive adjective of a specific policy, but I hardly see it as an ideology.
The people who obsess over Populism are typically focused on style and rhetoric. It is typically done by Center-Left types who have high social status and lots of political influence within institutions. But they miss how much those institutions have been changed for the worse over the last 20 years. The Left captures institutions, changes their policies toward Leftist ends, and then accuses anyone who disagrees with them of being “Populist.”
I see no contradiction between Populism and Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is not a love of elites and established institutions. That is traditional Conservatism in pre-industrial times. They supported the King, Nobility, Church, and the Traditional Order.
Milei is a perfect example of where Classical Liberalism and Populism align.
Classical Liberalism is about institutional structures that force non-violent transparent competition between elites so those elites must offer benefits to the masses to acquire their support. This works in the marketplace, elections, and religion. This is in opposition to extractive institutions that use the threat of violence to expropriate from the masses.
The Founding Fathers were populists regarding the Tory establishment, but they established a constitutional federal republic to ensure that America did not get a new extractive elite.
Unfortunately, the growth of the Administrative state over the last century has gradually eroded the checks in balances within the Constitution.
The Anti-Populists defend the Administrative state, not Classical Liberalism or Democracy. Their path leads to a Soft Totalitarianism that is the opposite of Classical Liberalism. They are not trying to achieve that goal, but it is where they are taking us.
Classical Liberals need to better explain why their ideology is actually about channeling elite behavior towards pro-social ends, not blind obedience to what any given elite stands for.
Embracing federalism is the best path forward, so Classical Liberalism needs to explain to people who are legitimately pissed at our institutions that there are productive solutions:
This topic raises a sore point with me.
I have a PhD in Political Science and Public Policy, and I have no idea what “Populism” means. It is mainly used an insult against people of differing views, not much different from Leftists calling opponents “racist,” fascist,” or “nazi.”
Maybe if it were just used as a descriptive adjective of a specific policy, but I hardly see it as an ideology.
The people who obsess over Populism are typically focused on style and rhetoric. It is typically done by Center-Left types who have high social status and lots of political influence within institutions. But they miss how much those institutions have been changed for the worse over the last 20 years. The Left captures institutions, changes their policies toward Leftist ends, and then accuses anyone who disagrees with them of being “Populist.”
I see no contradiction between Populism and Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is not a love of elites and established institutions. That is traditional Conservatism in pre-industrial times. They supported the King, Nobility, Church, and the Traditional Order.
Milei is a perfect example of where Classical Liberalism and Populism align.
Classical Liberalism is about institutional structures that force non-violent transparent competition between elites so those elites must offer benefits to the masses to acquire their support. This works in the marketplace, elections, and religion. This is in opposition to extractive institutions that use the threat of violence to expropriate from the masses.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-non-violent-competition
The Founding Fathers were populists regarding the Tory establishment, but they established a constitutional federal republic to ensure that America did not get a new extractive elite.
Unfortunately, the growth of the Administrative state over the last century has gradually eroded the checks in balances within the Constitution.
The Anti-Populists defend the Administrative state, not Classical Liberalism or Democracy. Their path leads to a Soft Totalitarianism that is the opposite of Classical Liberalism. They are not trying to achieve that goal, but it is where they are taking us.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-dangers-of-soft-totalitarianism
Classical Liberals need to better explain why their ideology is actually about channeling elite behavior towards pro-social ends, not blind obedience to what any given elite stands for.
Embracing federalism is the best path forward, so Classical Liberalism needs to explain to people who are legitimately pissed at our institutions that there are productive solutions:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/one-radical-reform-to-solve-all-our
Elites don't like checks and balances, and that is exactly why we need them!
Yeah, it largely comes down to aesthetics from people who are put off by the masses and those who appeal to them.