Category Archives: Populism

Farage himself may have given a hint of his disruptive desires during an interview with the Suns Never Mind the Ballots YouTube show in May.

Referring to his friend Trumps MAGA takeover of the Republican Party, he said: What Trump did, of course, is he was able to hijack the conservative party in America. Id love to have had a crack at that here in this country.

But of course, theres no open primary in this country. The Conservative Party, several times, said they wouldnt have me as a member

For some Tories, a change of heart may be underway, amid a feeling on the right of the party that Farage would be at home in their faction and could unite the countrys right-leaning voters too. Those who argue in favor of allowing Farage in include expected leadership contender Suella Braverman.

Tory MP Edward Leigh, now the Father of the House as parliaments longest-serving member, told the BBC on Friday that the Tories must invite Reform voters and Farage to join us.

Because otherwise in five years time, we are going to have a similar debacle. We cant have a divided right-wing vote, he said.

Others disagree. Robert Goodwill, an ex-Tory MP who stood down at the election, told POLITICO: We either tack right and cozy up to Farage or stay in the center where elections are won.

Tom Lubbock, former Tory Party data chief and founder of JL Partners polling firm, said the lego bricks theory of adding the two votes of Conservatives and Reform together is actually quite appealing and has taken hold in the party.`

He said that while most leadership contenders had ruled this out before the election, he believes the final results may change perspectives among senior Tories.

The exit poll and result was a cleansing fire, which will reset a lot of peoples thinking on Reform, Lubbock said.

Whatever conclusion the Tories come to may be a moot point, however; given his strong position, Farage could well fancy riding the Western wave of populism without the help of the Conservative Party.

As well as Reforms strong performance in the U.K. general election, recent international events may lead Farage to have a change of heart about the best vehicle for his ambitions.

The rise of Le Pens National Rally, which finished top in the first round of the countrys legislative elections, and its quest to replace Frances version of the Tory Party (the Republicans) presents an apt model for him to emulate.

Surging populist right-wing parties in places including Germany and the Netherlands could also portend a unique moment for upstart right-wing parties in Europe.

The official Reform line is that the party has no interest in joining forces with the Conservatives, and that its end goal is to dominate the right all by itself.

Farage told the Independent Saturday that the Tories can join us if they want but we dont need them and wont be chasing them.

We dont really need the poison they will bring, he said.

Howard Cox, Reforms defeated candidate in Dover and Deal, told POLITICO: A center-right party will now evolve led by Nigel Farage with those true Conservatives who have been betrayed by Sunaks regime.

Real Tories with Thatcherite values of low taxation, small state and strong borders will join Nigels revolution.

A Reform official, granted anonymity to comment candidly on the election fallout, was more blunt.

There is no chance anybody is joining that rabble they are already ripping shreds off each other, they said.

Bethany Dawson and Esther Webber contributed reporting.

See the original post:

Can Nigel Farage ride the wave of right-wing populism? - POLITICO Europe

Frederik Henriksen analyses anti-systemic populist movements during the Covid-19 pandemic. Here, he explains how these movements rely on alternative news media to establish their own digital information environments, and shows how ideological partisanship evolved in these echo chambers

This Future of Populism series has rightfully challenged the tendency to categorise populism and populists as exclusively left- or right-wing. Indeed, series editors Mattia Zulianello and Petra Guasti argue that populism transcends the left/right spectrum because it can interact with, and combine, a variety of ideas.

If that is the case, should we study populism beyond the left/right spectrum, of which theoretical orientations are critical to understanding the phenomenon? Dani Filc proposes a framework relying on three dimensions for a more nuanced analysis of populism. His model addresses economic structures and policies, cultural and identity issues, and democratic conceptualisation. Notably, the second and third dimensions pertain to contemporary expressions of populism, which were particularly pronounced during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The pandemic gave rise to new protest movements that transcended the conventional left/right spectrum. Movements across the globe, including the Canadian Freedom Convoy and Germanys Querdenken, emerged in response to perceived illegitimate, anti-democratic government interventionism in peoples lives and in all other aspects of society.

Fuelled by a blend of Covid denialism, anti-statism, anti-vaxxism, anti-scientism and conspiracy theories, these groups disseminated populist anti-establishment narratives. Through online and street-level activism, they challenged the (epistemic) authority of state officials, mainstream media, scientific experts, and global health bodies.

Movements protesting Covid restrictions challenged the authority of state officials, mainstream media, and scientific experts

These movements exemplify a particular form of anti-systemic populism beyond the left/right spectrum. Like valence populist movements and parties, they align instead with Filcs third democratic dimension. Anti-systemic populism uses populist communication to pit ordinary people against supposedly corrupt, failing, and/or self-interested elites. Anti-systemic populism combines this style with a range of ideas related to conspiracy theories, anti-statism, anti-vaxxism, and anti-scientism.

The phenomenon of anti-systemic populism extends beyond extra-parliamentary activism. Think of Donald Trumps allusions to a deep state or Wolfgang Gedeon of Germany's far-right Alternative fr Deutschland claiming the virus was an American bioweapon. Both these theories exemplify anti-systemic populism in formal political discourse. The deep state conspiracy theory perceives these elites as a systemic whole, hence the anti-systemic. But it is primarily social movements led by activists, ordinary citizens, political influencers, and even reality TV celebrities, that drives the spread of this form of populist communication.

During the pandemic, anti-systemic movements established alternative information environments on many digital platforms. These environments fuelled the anti-systemic movements, while countering information from state-authorised experts and health institutions. Alternative news media were instrumental in developing and sustaining these information ecologies, reinforcing and validating the perspectives and demands of anti-systemic groups.

Alternative news media define themselves as alternatives to what they see as a deficient mainstream media landscape. They are often characterised as populist, echoing populisms fundamental dichotomy of the people versus the elites. While not inherently partisan, many alternative news media exhibit hyper-partisanship. They adopt a transgressive style, showing strong biases towards certain political figures, while attacking others.

Research shows that opposition to social distancing, mask-wearing and vaccination increases with exposure to alternative news media

Marcel Lewandowsky shows how partisanship can reinforce support for populist and illiberal candidates, often at the expense of democratic principles. During the pandemic, scholars found that support and opposition to social distancing, mask-wearing and vaccines were directly related to exposure to alternative news media.

One useful way to study partisanship in information environments is by partisan homophily. This is the tendency for people connect with those who share similar beliefs. Homophily can lead to the formation of echo chambers, in which like-minded individuals interact predominantly with each other. This, of course, limits their exposure to diverse viewpoints, which is vital in democratic societies for the development of a well-informed electorate.

It is natural for people to connect with others who share similar beliefs. But this limits exposure to diverse viewpoints, and risks undermining democracy

Partisan heterophily, on the other hand, denotes a willingness to engage with opinions that differ markedly from ones own. Such cross-partisan engagement can foster political tolerance and limit polarisation. In the context of populism in wider information environments, particularly the type that fosters insular and anti-systemic movements, partisan heterophily can play a crucial role.

In collaboration with Eva Mayerhffer and Jakob Bk Kristensen, I researched the dynamics of partisanship within digital alternative news environments during the Covid-19 pandemic. We focused on a specific variant of heterophily known as source heterophily. This is the extent to which individuals accessed information from diverse sources, particularly those outside their usual political affiliations. Scholars have used source heterophily to explain growing polarisation in Western countries, but also to explain how biased and misconstrued worldviews gain traction.

Using digital information environments in Austria. Denmark, Germany and Sweden, we measured source heterophily as the tendency of users to disseminate a wide array of content. In the four case countries, we considered all larger platforms Twitter-X, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, Telegram, VKontakte, TikTok, Instagram and Gab in one single information network. By so doing, we mitigated the risk of platform-specific biases.

Our findings revealed an interesting pattern. At the onset of the Covid-19 crisis, there was a temporary phase of cross-partisan engagement across all countries, which suggests an overall increase in source heterophily. This trend, however, was short-lived. Entrenched left/right polarities soon grew to dominate once again and, in some instances, became even more pronounced. In Germany and Austria, anti-systemic sharing communities gradually aligned with right-wing communities. This left the pre-existing partisan landscape largely intact.

Our research highlights how quickly new movements can arise during disruptive global events. It also underlines the resilience of partisanship along ideological divides over time. The findings reveal just how important it is to investigate partisanship, and to analyse and interpret the digital landscape of populist politics.

No.85 in a Loop thread on the Future of Populism. Look out for theto read more

This article presents the views of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ECPR or the Editors of The Loop.

View original post here:

Anti-systemic populism during the Covid-19 pandemic - the Loop: ECPR

A recent study published in the American Behavioral Scientist has shed light on the link between life dissatisfaction and the rise of right-wing populist movements in Europe. By analyzing survey data from 14 countries collected between 2012 and 2018, researchers found that individuals who are dissatisfied with their lives are more likely to hold negative views on immigration and distrust political institutions, which in turn increases their likelihood of supporting right-wing populist parties.

The researchers aimed to understand the psychological underpinnings of the growing support for right-wing populist parties across Europe. Previous studies have suggested that economic insecurity and cultural changes contribute to the success of these parties, but the role of personal dissatisfaction with life had not been systematically explored.

The researchers hypothesized that life dissatisfaction might be an important factor linking economic and cultural discontent to support for populist parties. By examining this link, they hoped to uncover a more comprehensive understanding of the motivations behind right-wing populist voting.

The study used data from the European Social Survey, which included responses from over 54,000 individuals across 14 countries: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Only those who reported voting in the last national election were included in the analysis. The researchers focused on responses related to life satisfaction, political trust, attitudes towards immigration, and voting behavior.

Participants rated their life satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Political trust was measured by asking respondents to evaluate their trust in various political institutions, while attitudes towards immigration were assessed through questions about the perceived impact of immigration on the economy, culture, and society. The main outcome of interest was whether participants voted for a right-wing populist party in the most recent national election.

The study revealed a significant association between life dissatisfaction and support for right-wing populist parties. Specifically, individuals in the lowest quartile of life satisfaction were almost twice as likely to vote for these parties compared to those in the highest quartile. This relationship held even after controlling for other factors such as age, gender, education, economic insecurity, and health.

Additionally, the researchers found that life dissatisfaction indirectly influenced right-wing populist voting through two key attitudes: political distrust and anti-immigration sentiment. Dissatisfied individuals were more likely to distrust political institutions and view immigration negatively, which in turn increased their likelihood of voting for right-wing populist parties. Notably, anti-immigration sentiment emerged as the stronger of the two mediators.

The study also found some variation across countries. For instance, the direct link between life dissatisfaction and right-wing populist voting was not significant in countries like Hungary and Italy, suggesting that contextual factors may influence this relationship. However, in most countries, anti-immigration sentiment consistently served as a critical path through which life dissatisfaction translated into support for right-wing populist parties.

While the study provides valuable insights, it also has several limitations. The cross-sectional design of the survey data means that causal relationships cannot be definitively established. The findings suggest associations, but they do not prove that life dissatisfaction causes individuals to vote for right-wing populist parties. Future research using longitudinal data would help to confirm these causal pathways.

The study, Life Dissatisfaction and the Right-Wing Populist Vote: Evidence from the European Social Survey, was authored by Annika Lindholm, Georg Lutz, and Eva G. T. Green.

Continued here:

Unhappy lives linked to recent rise of right-wing populism in Europe - PsyPost

Tight Focus

During a brief visit to Trieste in northern Italy, Pope Francis declared that democracy is in bad shape and urged politicians to reject populism in favor of cooperation and addressing voter apathy. It is evident that democracy is not in good health in todays world, he said.

Big Picture

This visit to Trieste marks the Popes fourth Italian trip in just over two months as he preps for his longest journey yeta 12-day tour across Asia this September. Despite his age and health issues, the 87-year-old pontiff remains an active advocate for political and social change.

Key Detail

At a Roman Catholic social affairs convention, Francis said it is critical to educate children about democratic values. Indifference is a cancer of democracy, he said. I am concerned about the small number of people who went to vote. Why is it happening?

Real Surprise

Francis used the metaphor of democracy as a wounded heart, vulnerable to corruption and exclusion. He emphasized that democracy isnt just about voting but about creating conditions for everyone to participate and express themselves.

See original here:

Nikki Haley Not Invited to Republican Convention - The Daily Beast

There has been an earthquake in British politics, reporters say. Everyone from the Guardian to the Sun to CNN is reaching for the metaphor of shifting tectonic plates to describe Labours victory over the Tories in the General Election. And in a sense theyre right. The political ground has shaken. Rumblings have been felt. But it wasnt drab, grey Labour that did it it was the millions of voters who rejected both Labour and the Tories and in the process delivered one of the most devastating sucker punches to the political duopoly in decades.

To see the true quake, you need to look beyond Labours mirage-like landslide. As is now becoming clear, Labour has not been swept to power on anything like a wave of public enthusiasm. On the contrary, it won its 412 seats on the second lowest electoral turnout since 1885, and more as a result of peoples exhaustion with the Tories than their love for Sir Keir. No, it is those who refused to vote Labour who have brilliantly unsettled British politics. It is those who took a punt on Nigel Farages Reform party who have planted a bomb in the political landscape that will not be easily defused.

For me, the most fascinating stat of the election is the share of the vote received by Labour and the Tories. Labour won around 34 per cent of vote, the Tories around 24 per cent. Lets leave to one side what a lame landslide it is if only 34 per cent of the people who could be bothered to vote put an X in your box. More striking is the fact that the combined vote share of Labour and the Tories, the parties that have dominated British politics for a century, was 58 per cent. That is staggeringly and, if you will allow me, hilariously low.

To put it in historical context: at the last General Election, in 2019, their combined vote share was 75.8 per cent. In 2017 it was even higher: 82.4 per cent. In the elections of the 2000s it hovered around 70 per cent. Why has it now dropped to less than 60 per cent, giving rise to the possibility that in the next few years the two parties that have run this country for decades might see their combined vote drop to less than half of all votes cast? Largely, because of Reform. And a few independents, too. Reforms vote share is around 14 per cent, enough to shatter the Labour / Tory duopoly and to unravel the two big parties arrogant belief that they and they alone have a right to rule.

The speedy turnaround of the Reform revolt was extraordinary. It was only a few weeks ago that Farage ditched his plans to go to America to assist the Trump campaign and instead decided to become leader of Reform. He has now been elected MP for Clacton. Reform has won four seats in total. Whats shocking is that the Liberal Democrats won 71 seats despite getting fewer votes than Reform. The Lib Dems got around 12 per cent of the vote, to Reforms 14 per cent. That the democratically less popular party of the two will wield far greater power in the Commons is a testament to how busted our first-past-the-post electoral system is. This is unsustainable. It is outright undemocratic.

And yet, even without the parliamentary representation their vote share deserves, Reform has struck a blow for democracy. Their voters, in thinking for themselves and rejecting both the Labour and Tory variety of technocracy, have forcefully created a new opening in political life. They have burst a few of the buckles on the political straitjacket that is our two-party system. The last time this happened was with Farages UK Independence Party, in the 2015 General Election, when it won 12.6 per cent of the vote, reducing the Tory / Labour vote share to 67.3 per cent. But where UKIP was mostly a one-issue party, dedicated to getting Britain out of the EU, Reform has broader policy goals. The millions of working-class people who voted for it are saying something very clear indeed: We want something different.

Labours naff, Obama-lite slogan was Change. But little will change under Labour. It will be the same shit, different suit. The people who really voted for change were the masses who opted for Reform. They have voted for a party that rejects Net Zero, which is sceptical of hate-speech laws, which absolutely does not long to rejoin the EU, and which knows brace yourselves that if you have balls you are not a woman. The significance of this cannot be overstated: many, many Brits have voted to overturn almost every facet of elite consensus opinion, from green hysteria to trans mania. Now thats change.

The true story of the election is that populism isnt going anywhere. Those who thought Labour would soar to power and swiftly euthanise the post-Brexit rumblings of the pesky masses have had a rude awakening this morning. Labour is in charge, sure, but on the basis of a largely accidental landslide. And nipping at its heels is a very big section of the public who outright reject the political ideas, moral crusades and green lunacy of the establishment. Will this populist pushback grow? I think it will. Voters have made it abundantly clear in this election that the duopoly is not the only game in town. That the ruling class is not a forever thing. That other voices can burst through, bit by bit. Both the elites and ordinary people will be clocking this development, the former with dread, the latter with fascination.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Go here to see the original:

The true story of this election? Populism is here to stay - Spiked

A new study published in American Behavioral Scientist sheds light on the relationship between anxiety and support for right-wing populist parties. The findings highlight that anxiety plays a significant role in shaping contradictory attitudes, driving both authoritarian submission and anti-elitism in different contexts.

Previous research has shown conflicting evidence regarding the link between anxiety and support for right-wing populist parties. The new study aimed to clarify this relationship by examining how two seemingly opposing subdimensions of right-wing ideology authoritarian submission and anti-elitism mediate the influence of anxiety on support for right-wing populist parties.

Right-wing populist parties are on the rise in many countries around the world, including Germany. We wanted to understand why these parties are gaining so much support, said study author Susanne Veit, the head of the DeZIM.lab and co-head of DeZIM Cluster Data-Methods-Monitoring at the DeZIM Institute in Berlin.

The study involved an online survey of 1,879 German citizens in December 2020. The sample was carefully selected to represent the German electorate by considering age, gender, education, and geographic region. Respondents answered questions about their propensity to vote for the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing populist party, on a scale of 1 to 11. They also completed assessments measuring authoritarian submission (a preference to obey established authorities) and anti-elitism (a tendency to distrust and rebel against elites).

The researchers distinguished between two forms of anxiety: situational anxiety (triggered by immediate threats) and diffuse anxiety (a general tendency toward anxiety). To measure situational anxiety, participants were exposed to a societal crisis or neutral stimuli and then asked about their emotional state. Diffuse anxiety was measured as a general tendency through standard psychological tools.

The results indicated that anti-elitism played a more decisive role in mediating the relationship between anxiety and support for the AfD. This rebellious attitude had a stronger influence on political preferences than authoritarian submission, which had a dampening effect on populist support. While both subdimensions of right-wing attitudes increased with rising anxiety, the overall positive relationship between anxiety and support for the AfD was primarily mediated by anti-elitism.

Interestingly, situational anxiety and diffuse anxiety had different effects on these two attitudes. Situational anxiety, induced by immediate societal threats, was more strongly associated with authoritarian submission, as anxious individuals sought protection by rallying around established authorities. Diffuse anxiety, reflecting a general tendency toward anxiety, leaned more heavily toward anti-elitism and skepticism of established authorities.

As a result, the opposing forces of these two pathways tend to cancel each other out, leaving no significant indirect but a direct effect of situational anxiety on AfD support, the researchers explained. This finding suggests that [right-wing populist] rhetoric of fear can backfire when frightened voters seek shelter with established parties in the face of salient threats instead of rebelling against them.

The studys findings highlight the complexity of political attitudes and the contradictory role of anxiety in shaping them. On the one hand, fear and insecurity drive some individuals to seek the shelter of traditional authorities through authoritarian submission. On the other hand, anxiety can fuel rebellion against elites perceived to have caused or mishandled societal threats, fostering anti-elitism.

Anxiety is an element that makes people susceptible to right-wing populist agendas, Veit told PsyPost. Attitudes towards authority play an important, albeit contradictory, role in this. On the one hand, fear motivates submission to strong leadership, and on the other hand, anxiety can also encourage the rebellion against established authorities.

But the study, like all research, includes some caveats. As this is a correlative study, we cannot prove a causal relationship, Veit noted. We also experimentally induced anxiety by confronting half of the subjects with negative statements about societal issues (climate, pension, crime,). The experimental manipulation of anxiety was effective, and slightly different dynamics are discernible for both subgroups, but the experimental treatment was not strong enough to directly influence support for right-wing parties.

While anger is a much-studied predictor of right-wing populist attitudes, the role of anxiety is less researched, Veit added. However, psychological research suggests that anxiety (or fear) is an immediate reaction to a threat, whereas anger is a downstream reaction. With this study, we hope to stimulate research on anxiety as a predictor of support for right-wing populist parties and on the contradictory role of stances towards authority.

The study, Submission or Rebellion? Disentangling the Relationships of Anxiety, Attitudes Toward Authorities, and Right-Wing Populist Party Support, was authored by Susanne Veit, Magdalena Hirsch, Heiko Giebler, Johann Grndl, and Benjamin Schrmann.

See the article here:

Untangling the complex relationship between anxiety and right-wing populism - PsyPost

Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz warns of the rise of right-wing populists ahead of EU elections.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned of threats posed by right-wing populists Saturday as he addressed a gathering of centre-left European parties ahead of elections for the European Parliament in June.

Scholz arrived in Romania's capital Bucharest for a conference of the Party of European Socialists, part of the Socialists and Democrats group, the second biggest in the Parliament. Voters in the 27 EU member states go to the polls 6-9.

Right-wing populists are running election campaigns against our united Europe, the German leader said at the Palace of the Parliament, which hosted the conference. They are ready to destroy what we have built for the kids; they stir up sentiment against refugees and minorities."

Opinion polls indicate a significant shift to the right in the upcoming election, with the radical right Identity and Democracy group likely to gain enough seats to become the third largest group in the legislature, mainly at the expense of the Greens and the centrist Renew Europe group.

Scholz said a prosperous EU capable of getting things done is the best response to populism and autocrats. He also pledged continued support for Ukraine, saying its key to restoring peace in Europe.

Scholz leads an unpopular three-party coalition. Recent national polls have shown his centre-left party far behind Germanys main centre-right opposition bloc and at best roughly level with the far-right Alternative for Germany party.

The Socialists and Democrats President Iratxe Garca Prez also addressed the issue of rising populism in the June elections, saying those parties only pose a threat to our European project.

The meeting comes after the EUs largest political party, the centre-right European Peoples Party, also met in Bucharest last month, where representatives endorsed Ursula von der Leyens bid for a second five-year term leading the blocs powerful Commission.

Jobs and Social Rights Commissioner Nicolas Schmit from Luxembourg, was chosen as the Socialists and Democrats lead candidate for Brussels top job. The next Commission chief will require approval from leaders of all EUs member states. Almost half of the EUs 27 national leaders are members of the European Peoples Party.

Read more here:

Scholz warns of the rise of right-wing populists ahead of EU elections - Euronews

Populism in its various forms, be it from the far right or far left, is the greatest danger facing all the European countries, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has told the final day of his New Democracy partys congress.

The populist demagogues want to raise artificial divisions, which as [European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen] pointed out, was something that Greece has paid a high price for in the past. We will never allow the things that happened in the past decade to happen again, he said.

The economic crisis lasted longer in Greece because populism prevented the country from rallying round. Syntagma Square is not far from here. We remember the two sides of the lie uniting in anti-European, supposedly anti-systemic demonstrations, he continued, referencing the Indignant protests that took place there at the height of the crisis.

He said that Greece has progressed from laggard to leader in economic growth, with an increase in investments, a reduction of unemployment and an easing of public debt and higher wages and pensions.

We are closing the gap with Europe and we want to close it everywhere. In this effort, we have the support of the EU, Mitsotakis said, accusing the opposition parties of seeking to stop this progress and of polluting the political dialogue with toxicity.

He said the instrumentalization of pain from the 2023 railway collision which cost 57 people their lives was an example. As if there are some Greeks who are more greatly grieved by this tragedy. On the way to the polls we must turn our backs on division.

He concluded by noting that a vote for ND in the upcoming European elections was a vote for the stability and progress of the country.

Addressing the delegates, von der Leyen described Greece as a pillar of stability and security, a pillar of NATO and the European Union, that has helped Ukraine defend itself. [AMNA]

Go here to see the original:

Greatest threat facing EU is populism, Mitsotakis tells ND faithful - Kathimerini English Edition

Ken Buck.MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Ex-Colorado Rep. Ken Buck said many conservatives have compromised their values over populism.

"The Constitution is just a thing of the past to the very same people who were Tea Party patriots," he told WaPo.

Buck retired from the House in March, leaving months before his term was set to end.

During his nearly decadelong tenure in the US House of Representatives, Ken Buck was well-known for his conservatism.

But the former Colorado congressman recently told The Washington Post that over the years, some of his fellow conservatives shifted their focus from curtailing government spending to shielding former President Donald Trump from criticism while becoming more partisan in the process.

"I think that the populist wave has eroded the conservative values that I had when I came to this place," the former lawmaker told the newspaper. "Now we're impeaching people like it's some kind of carnival and the Constitution is just a thing of the past to the very same people who were Tea Party patriots 10 to 12 years ago."

In February, Buck was one of just three House Republicans to reject the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whom GOP leaders have tussled with over the Biden administration's immigration policies.

Last month, shortly before he left Congress, the House Freedom Caucus voted to remove Buck from the group for "nonattendance," according to Axios.

During his interview with the Post, Buck also stressed that the desire for ideologically pure pieces of legislation has been detrimental to the GOP's ability to secure conservative victories, adding that "you have to have consensus" to find success on Capitol Hill.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Here is the original post:

An ex-GOP congressman blasts the 'populist wave' that he says has corroded conservatism: 'Now we're impeaching ... - Yahoo Canada

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Donald Trump has given populism a bad name.

Populism is okay, even if Trump isnt.

I can imagine a successful political party in the United States that advocated populist positions. Some of those positions would mirror policies that Trump is advocating; some would not.

My populist party would favor high tariffs, to protect American businesses and middle-class jobs. Im not sure this analysis is correct. For example, some economists say that by increasing the cost of raw materials, such as steel, tariffs actually hurt automobile manufacturers, ultimately reducing jobs. But high tariffs feel as though they protect domestic jobs, so my populist party would favor them.

Trump, of course, favors high tariffs, so he is, in that sense, a populist.

My populist party would restrict immigration, so that foreign workers werent competing with domestic ones for jobs. Again, Im not sure this is correct, since many open jobs arent being filled by Americans, so maybe we could use immigrants to fill those jobs. But low immigration feels as though it protects domestic jobs, so my party would favor them.

Trump, of course, favors restricting immigration, so he is, in that sense, a populist.

My populist party would want to raise the minimum wage, so that low-income workers could support themselves. On this issue, too, the policy could be misguided. Some economists say that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment: If the economics of a job justifies paying $10 an hour, but the minimum wage is $15 an hour, then there will be no $10-an-hour job. Thats increased unemployment. But I dont think people focus on this. I think the average person earning the minimum wage thinks, Thank God for the minimum wage! Without it, Id be earning even less! The average unemployed person does not think, If the government only lowered the minimum wage, then more jobs would exist, and I might land one of them. Damn the high minimum wage! So my populist party would favor a high minimum wage.

Most recently, Trump has opposed raising the minimum wage. In that sense, hes not a populist.

My populist party would be pro-union, so that unions could advocate for better pay and working conditions for middle-income workers. Again, this might be the wrong policy: Some economists say that raising wages makes domestic industries noncompetitive, actually harming American manufacturing. Im not passing judgment on whos right about this. Im just saying that people are more likely to think, The union raised my wages than The union decreases employment in the United States, and thats why Im unemployed. My populist party would be pro-union.

Trump is generally anti-union.

My populist party would support lowering taxes on the poor and middle-class and raising taxes on the rich. This probably helps the poor and middle-class, which is what my partys trying to do. And this is great politics: This country has many more poor and middle-class people than rich ones; if you win the votes of the poor and middle-class, and you lose the votes of the rich, youve been elected. Im once again agnostic on the merits of this: Perhaps raising taxes on the rich creates some disincentives to working hard or maybe trickle-down economics really works. My populist party doesnt care; it would favor low taxes on the poor and high taxes on the rich.

Trump generally favors tax cuts for everyone. (I guess I do, too, but I recognize the need to pay for government services and control the deficit.)

My populist party can take whatever position it likes on social issues. Just look at the polls and pick the positions the public prefers on abortion, gun control, transgender rights, and the like. Im thinking only about economics here; beyond that, lets take whatever position will win the most votes.

So, too, on foreign policy. If the majority of the voting public thinks that NATOs a waste of money, then my party should want to pull out. If the majority likes NATO, then stay in. The same with supporting Ukraine, or Israel, or any of the rest of the hot-button issues. I dont think theres a populist position on those subjects, so my party can do as it likes.

I think my hypothetical party could do pretty well at the ballot box. My party would support economic issues that favor the majority (the little guy) and would hold positions with majority support on social issues and foreign policy (because Im insisting that my party stake out positions favored by the majority on those issues).

My party would differ from the Trumpian Republican Party in one other way: My party wont be nasty. My party wont make up insulting nicknames for our opponents; we wont call anyone vermin; we wont say that the country wont exist in four years if you dont vote for the populist candidate. Well just lay out the issues, garner majority support, and take over the country. (I sure hope that Trumps nastiness reflects simply the character of the candidate and is not the reason why people support him. If being a jerk is now the preferred quality in a candidate, well be walking a long and ugly road.)

I wouldnt necessarily vote for a candidate that espoused populist positions; indeed, I havent said a word about where I come down on the issues. Im just saying that an intelligent populist party, led by a pleasant and engaging candidate, could succeed in the United States.

Trump, of course, is not that candidate.

MarkHerrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeons Guide to Practicing LawandDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy(affiliate links). You can reach him by email atinhouse@abovethelaw.com.

See more here:

Thinking About A Truly Populist Party - Above the Law