Category Archives: Populism

This sudden uptick of support for far-right parties is happening all over Europe. In Germany, the Alternative fr Deutschland (AfD) is surging. It scored 22% in a recent national opinion poll and 34% in the region of Thuringia, where, for the first time, its candidate won a district mayoral election in June. In Austria, meanwhile, the Freedom Party (FP) is consistently polling above both the centre left and centre-right parties, at around 30%.

In France, where riots that centred on poor, ethnic minority communities shook Emanuel Macrons presidency last month, the political winner has been Rassemblement Nationale (RN). Its leader, Marine Le Pen who called for a crackdown on the protests has approval ratings on 39% compared to President Macrons 33%.

In the Flanders region of Belgium, the Vlaams Belang a far-right separatist party with a fascist past is on 22%. In Portugal, Chega, another openly racist far-right party, has doubled its 2022 election score to poll 12% and 14% for most of this year. In Greece no fewer than three far-right parties entered parliament in the June general election with a combined score of 12%, the largest of them overtly aligned to a jailed neo-Nazi former MP.

Meanwhile, in Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Poland and Italy, right-wing populist parties are already firmly ensconced in government. The price democracies pay for that was shown in Finland last week when deputy prime minister Riikka Purra, who leads the far-right Finns Party, was revealed to have bragged: If they gave me a gun, thered be bodies on a commuter train, referring to an incident with migrants. Her defence was that it happened in 2008 and that unlike her fellow minister she had not made any public jokes using the phrase Heil Hitler (the Hitler guy resigned).

Joe Mulhall, director of research at Hope Not Hate says: There are a series of elections due over the next five years where, apart from Germany, all the major countries in continental Europe could either end up with far-right governments or a far-right party a ruling coalition. When Austrian far-right leader Jrg Haider was elected in the 1990s, or when Le Pen did well in 2012, there were demonstrations everywhere and conniptions across the global media. Today theres just a sense of relief that they havent won.

Whats driving this new surge of right-wing populism? First, the cost-of-living crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine, which has plunged the euro area into an inflationary recession. Though the negative GDP numbers were slight minus 0.1% GDP growth for Q4/2022 and Q1/2023 the inflation figures were big: 6.1% across the Eurozone, with Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and Czechia all on 12% and Hungary on 21%.

Theres an increasing sense, for people across the continent, that the status quo isnt working, says Mulhall, and whenever we get into one of those crunch points, with economically deprived communities that are already susceptible to far-right politics, people turn round and ask, electorally: Why not look elsewhere?.

Florian Ranft, of Das Progressive Zentrum, a centre-left German thinktank, says this is particularly true of the AfDs surge in Eastern Germany. In Sonneberg, a picture-postcard town close to the Czech border, Ranft tells, me, the AfDs winning candidate only campaigned on national issues. They had thousands of posters about closing the borders, or ending the war in Ukraine, which had nothing to do with local politics. Its a protest vote.

The second factor, experts believe, is the unique situation of a rise in trans-Mediterranean refugee traffic, alongside the arrival four million refugees from Ukraine. Youre getting the idea of the deserving and undeserving refugee, says Mulhall: There are white Christians from Ukraine and then people who the far-right stigmatise as single male economic migrants of fighting age: all the primary narratives across the European far right concern the idea there are non-white people coming over to invade us and change us demographically.

But underlying these trigger factors is the deeper demographic divergence between the life experience of young, educated, skilled and urban people and those in older, ex-industrial small towns. Paul Hilder, CEO of Datapraxis, a strategic advice and research company working with progressive parties across Europe, says:

As worldviews and experiences diverge, and the system is increasingly seen as failing to deliver consistently for people, issues such as immigration and crime function as common vectors of alienation. Wherever we poll in Europe, there is either large minority or majority support for the position that all immigration, legal or illegal, should be stopped.

The cost-of-living crisis, says Hilder, has made voters go in search of immediate change and practical answers: Where the populist right are winning they often seem to attract swing voters who are experiencing insecurity in their daily lives and want something better for themselves and their families. These voters are often losing faith in mainstream politics, wanting change, and looking for any port in a storm and they will vote despite the extremist ideology of the far-right parties, not because of it.

Hilders polling shows that in France, Sweden and Italy, twice as many voters switched to far-right parties because they hoped they would change things rather than because they thought such parties have the best policies.

Another factor boosting the far-right vote is the mainstreaming of its ideology via social media, which increasingly forces the mainstream media to give it a platform. Weve had an object lesson in this process with GB News and the National Conservatives conference in the UK with one feeding off the other to legitimise anti-trans, anti-drag and white victimhood ideas. But elsewhere in Europe, the process is on steroids.

Paulina Frhlich, who heads the democratic resilience programme at Das Progressive Zentrum, says: The AfD has more than three times as many Facebook followers as the ruling SPD. They understand social media and use it to good effect. For example, they deliver their speeches in the Bundestag in a YouTube-friendly way. Within a few minutes, the video is edited and uploaded. The speech was not addressed to the colleagues in parliament, but to the partys followers beyond.

Experts believe the AfD does not need the traditional media any more because it has built up its own mass media online, where it doesnt have to deal with context or critical questions from journalists. Without social media, the AfD would not even be in parliament.

A signal moment in the evolution of the European far right came with the de facto inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in a conservative-liberal coalition last October. Though they did not get any ministers from the deal, the SDs who have well-documented origins in neo-Nazism co-signed the coalition agreement, which calls for a crackdown on gang crime, the reduction of immigration to a legal minimum and a demanding programme of cultural integration.

There was no need for Swedens mainstream parties to admit the Sweden Democrats: they could have sought to govern as a minority, or in coalition with the Social Democrats. So it was a conscious, strategic choice and gave permission for the direct absorption of the Finns Party into the government in Helsinki this year, whose neo-Nazi gaffes have now triggered a political crisis. Few doubt that, if the PP and VOX can form a majority government in Madrid after next Sunday, they will.

The underlying problem is that the ide fixe of modern fascist ideology the Great Replacement Theory has begun to structure the thinking of both the populist and the conservative right. The idea that Muslim invaders are coming to enact white genocide against the population of Europe, encouraged by an army of human rights lawyers, feminists and drag queens is of course ludicrous; but its an order of magnitude more dangerous than the routine racial prejudice of the 1970s and 80s.

Because its practical conclusions are alarming. First, it has begun to frame all politics to the right of traditional conservatism around the myth of a coming inter-ethnic conflict. Second, it elevates misogyny and anti-LBTQ+ prejudices to the same status as racism within far-right folklore opening up recruitment pathways for young men. Third, it swirls through, and collides with, an amorphous cloud of online conspiracy theories. Fourth, it maps more effectively on to the widespread anti-systemic sentiment among voters.

So, for the French far right, the recent uprisings by minority ethnic communities in response to the police murder of an unarmed teenager are no longer simply cited as a justification for ending migration or tougher policing: they are framed as a rehearsal for Day X when liberal democracy erupts into a global inter-ethnic civil war.

And the critical forums where the text of far-right populism gets mixed with the subtext of outright fascism are online, says Hope Not Hates Mullhall:

Alongside the far-right parties you have a miasma of post-organisational far-right networks involving thousands of individuals operating across national boundaries. These networks are like synapses, that allow information, ideas, rhetoric, tactics to move around the internet, creating memes and content and pushing it towards wherever the next target is.

Everybody I spoke to about the far-right surge pointed to the paralysis of liberal, green and social-democratic parties in the face of it. Mulhall warns that sudden, local radicalisations, which grab the attention of party strategists weeks before elections, are often the produce of decades of local work by far-right activists. The Spanish left and centre left, meanwhile, had to scramble together messaging for the snap election they triggered, in the case of the radical left producing a whole new party, slogans and programme.

Paul Hilder of Datapraxis offers a handful of to-dos for parties of the progressive mainstream in the face of the right-wing populist surge.

Meet voters where they are, which is struggling with inflation in their daily lives; make bold, practical and credible offers on these issues. When it comes to drawing a contrast with the right wing populists, its not about calling them fascists or Putin backers its about connecting their extremism to life getting worse and not better. Progressives need to attract a diverse electorate, ranging from those who agree with them on social issues to those who dont. Finally, its about execution: making sure that clear, effective messages are reaching the right people.

Does this mean we should stay away from woke politics, I ask? Hilder, who has worked with some of the most progressive politicians across Europe and the Americas, does not mince his words.

Many marginal voters take the position that ordinary peoples daily lives are more important than social or ethnic minorities. That doesnt mean being anti-woke. If your disposable income has dropped by 10 or 20% in the past year, thats what you want politicians to be focusing on, rather than how many genders there are.

In the run-up to Sundays vote, the Spanish socialist party has been laser focused on the cost of living, campaigning on its record of getting inflation down to 1.9% by using price controls while in government. We will see whether that cuts through the tsunami of hate coming from the right.

See the rest here:

Can Spain hold back the right? - The New European

Around the world emerging new exclusionary politics are generating deepening inequalities, jobless growth, climate chaos, and social division. These processes have been intensified or exposed in many places by the Covid-19 pandemic and responses to it, but they are not new. Since 2017 the Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative (ERPI) has used engaged research to better understand these destructive dynamics, and the social and political processes in rural spaces that are generating alternatives to them. We aim to provoke debate and action among scholars, activists, practitioners and policymakers from across the world who are concerned about the current situation, and hopeful about alternatives and resistances.

Today, these questions remain urgent, worldwide. Yet organised movements and actions in and from rural areas have contributed to changing the political trajectories in many countries: the (qualified) success of the Indian farmers' protests; the electoral victories of left-wing parties in Chile, Peru and other countries in Latin America; the repositioning of the Workers Party in Brazil and more. Other tensions and dynamics are playing out in many other countries: from Turkey to Tunisia, Mozambique to the United States of America. In some places regressive populism has turned into outright authoritarianism, as in Myanmar. How do we make sense of all these changes and continuities?

Engaged researchers have published timely collections on these issues: (a) Routledge book 'Authoritarianism and the Rural World' with 20 chapters and edited by Ian Scoones, Saturnino M. Borras Jr., Marc Edelman, Ruth Hall, Lyda Fernanda Forero, Ben White and Wendy Wolford (Open Access ebook); (b) Special Issue of Sociologia Ruralis onauthoritarian populism in Europeedited by Natalia Mamonova, Jaume Franquesa and Sally Brooks; (c) Special Issue ofJournal of Rural Studieson North America edited by Antonio Roman-Alcala, Garrett Lovelace-Graddy and Marc Edelman; (d) aspecial forum ofLatin American Perspectivesedited by Daniela Andrade and Sergio Coronado and e)A View From The Countryside, co-published by TNI, FIAN, and ERPI by Katie Sandwell, Anglica Castaeda Flores, Lyda Fernanda Forero, Jennifer Franco, Sofia Monsalve Surez, Andrea Nuila and Philip Seufert.

This edition of the Agrarian Conversations Webinar Series will showcase these relevant and urgent publications, discuss recent events, and assess the progress of struggles in and from the rural areas in relation to right-wing populism.

Speakers:

Moderators:Ruth Hall(PLAAS) andKatie Sandwell(TNI)

Background reading: Preface of Authoritarian Populism and the Rural World, pages xv-xxi,https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/49632Languages: English, Spanish, French

View original post here:

Populism, authoritarianism and agrarian struggles - Transnational Institute

And now, like then, its not a story limited to the American side of the Atlantic.

Im writing from Europe, which is clarifying in ways that Ill get to, but lets start with the U.S. And specifically, the Republican Party.

Ill stipulate up front that the GOPs Trump skeptics have no easy task. As made plain in the NBC poll last weekend, half the party remains in the grip of a personality cult. What else to conclude from a survey that shows a narrow majority of Republican voters support a candidate just indicted on 37 felony counts? Even more arresting, 77 percent of GOP primary voters surveyed said the charges were either no cause for concern or only bothered them slightly.

Thats the marketplace Republican officials are working with. As many a former GOP lawmaker happily emancipated from a primary ballot will tell you, they dont have a Trump problem, they have a voter problem.

When I asked one House Republican lawmaker who endorsed Trump if not supporting him had been an option, this member said matter-of-factly: Hes going to win and hes hugely popular in my district.

Sums it up, doesnt it?

A politician taking the path of least resistance isnt exactly news. And like I said, its not easy when so many of your voters are radicalized.

But the pre-Trump wing of the party is scarcely trying or they are doing so in ways that only point to the difficulty traditional center-right parties are having in this moment.

Lets start, where else, with House Republicans.

Speaker Kevin McCarthys response to Trump inviting three-dozen felonies? No, not an opening to break with someone who could be staring at prison time as the partys nominee. McCarthy took it as an opportunity to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Yes, I know the stated move on Garland stems from Hunter Bidens misdemeanor-and-diversion arrangement. But the decision to target Garland and the Department of Justice, rather than seize the chance to at least start moving away from Trump, tells you everything about how captive McCarthy is to his Trumpian base in the House GOP conference. As is his willingness to even entertain expunging Trumps impeachments, whatever that means.

Its not like McCarthy isnt conscious of the risk Republicans bear in remaining handcuffed to Trump. Look no further than his own comments on CNBC Tuesday when, as hes given to doing, he blurted out a Kinsley gaffe.

Can he win that election? McCarthy said. Yeah he can the question is, is he the strongest to win the election, I dont know that answer. (A few hours later, unsurprisingly, McCarthy fled to a safe space, Breitbart, to clean up his comments and testify to Trumps strength in the general election.)

While House Republicans weigh impeaching the attorney general and relitigating the former presidents impeachments, many Senate Republicans are sticking with their long-running strategy: wishing Trump would go away.

Their posture reminds me of the William Faulkner line from Intruder in the Dust, the one about how Southern boys are forever fantasizing its not yet 2 p.m. at Gettysburg in 1863, and the Confederates have yet to be repelled. For more than a few Senate Republicans, its still June of 2015 and Trump has yet to come down that Manhattan elevator to take over their party. Or that, any day now, the party will revert to its pre-Trump identity.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell no more wants to spend his golden years on Marthas Vineyard than to see Trump as the Republican nominee in 2024. Yet McConnell didnt even try to round up the votes for Trumps impeachment conviction in the aftermath of Jan. 6, in hindsight the best chance the party had to be rid of Trump, and now he says nothing as the former president is charged with damning crimes.

McConnell may be betting, as he alluded to in his withering speech following Trumps acquittal, that the criminal justice system will ultimately rid him of this meddlesome hotel developer.

But thats the point. Its forever somebody else or some other intervention that will finally break the party from its Trump spell. It was going to be his 2020 defeat, then it would surely be his conduct in the aftermath of the election and, okay this is really it, it had to be his role propelling lackluster candidates in last years midterms.

As ineffectual as the traditional Republicans in Congress have been in confronting Trumpism, the 2024 field has demonstrated why, at least precarceral, Trumps hold on the GOP remains so firm.

The non-Trump Republican field today is a picture of the partys fragmentation. Its a mix of born-again Never Trumpers, those vowing to oppose him in the general election; Maybe Trumpers, those who would in fact like to beat him but dont want to imperil their future viability within the system; and those clearly open for business with Trump, whether to secure a future appointment or because the wait is shorter to run again in 2028.

This composition, its worth noting, largely reflects the non-Trump Republican electorate, a mix of voters appalled by him and desperate to move on, those who liked the policies (ask any reporter how many times you hear that verbatim) but want a different nominee and those who still like Trump and may come around to him but for now are intrigued by others.

This split is on course to play out in Iowa, where a conservative and more establishment-friendly electorate could split the non-Trump vote, and in New Hampshire, where any Trump alternative from Iowa will see their vote carved into by Chris Christie or whoever emerges to win over independents and anti-Trump Republicans.

The public presentation of the candidates also reflects this array. Take Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whos most clearly targeting those voters still enamored with Trump or at least his scent. Theres the affect, each sentence, to paraphrase President Joe Biden, being a noun, a verb and woke. And theres the substance, most recently his offensive against the immigration invasion, promise to use U.S. military assets as needed to curb the flow of fentanyl and opposition to birthright citizenship.

DeSantis isnt trying to break the party from Trumpism, hes accommodating it and in fact offering to prosecute a more efficient version. I get it. Its a reflection of where many Republicans are in 2023 and also happens to be authentic to who DeSantis is.

There are two obvious challenges for him, though. First, its exceedingly difficult to out-bid Trump on policy provocation because, well, hes Donald Trump. See his 2015 proposal to bar Muslims from migrating to the U.S., which horrified GOP elites but, revealingly, was fairly popular with their voters. Hell see your drug interdiction proposal and raise you an electrified border wall.

Ron DeSantis isnt trying to break the party from Trumpism, hes accommodating it and in fact offering to prosecute a more efficient version. | Josh Reynolds/AP Photo

More worrisome for DeSantis and the other aspirants is that Trumps appeal is more primal than policy, that, like former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he has a demagogues grasp on the electoral id.

Which brings me to Europe.

The rise of right-wing populism here owed much the same to what it did in America. It was oriented around identity, be it national, racial or sexual. Yet it sprouted as much because the traditional center-right parties were divided over whether, or how, to confront or co-opt the movement. And, much like the Republicans, theyre still not quite sure how to proceed.

Take the Germans. The CDU, the countrys traditional center-right party, should be well-positioned to take advantage of dissatisfaction with Chancellor Olaf Scholzs ungainly, tripartite coalition government. However, its the far-right AFD thats climing in the polls, posting record highs in surveys. Why? In part because the CDU isnt quite sure how to present itself. Their journeyman leader, Friedrich Merz, has long struggled with whether to embrace the grievance-mongering of the AFD or returning more to the centrism of the partys longtime leader, Angela Merkel.

A neat illustration: Merz called Ukrainian refugees welfare tourists only to express regret over using the phrase. Predictably, as my colleagues in Berlin have reported, Merz is now facing the specter of a challenge internally from the leader of Germanys most populous state, Hendrik Wst, whos unambiguously calling for a return to Merkel moderation.

In the meantime, the AFD has latched onto the backlash over energy prices and regulations, adding another potent topic alongside its most galvanizing issue, migration.

We have a lack of leadership, we have a political class unqualified to tackle these major, complicated issues, this is everywhere the same, a long-serving CDU lawmaker told me. It more and more grows into a systemic crisis of our democracy. Speaking of his own party, the lawmaker added: We are equivalently weak as the government is.

Because of its history, Germanys political parties are, for now, still adhering to the continents old cordon sanitaire when it comes to the AFD, refusing to enter into a coalition with them.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron demonstrated how corroded traditional politics had become by marching to the presidency in 2017 via a new centrist party he hatched. Yet Macron has groomed no successor who can, like he increasingly has, appeal to the center-right and do what he did twice: fend off the National Fronts Marine Le Pen in a runoff.

Spain may be the most illustrative of this moment in Europe and the U.S. After suffering steep losses in a regional election in May, Spains socialist Prime Minister Pedro Snchez decided to call a snap election for this summer. But whether the more mainstream right party can form a government in Madrid may depend in part on its capacity to form a coalition with the far-right Vox Party.

After suffering steep losses in a regional election in May, Spains socialist Prime Minister, Pedro Snchez, decided to call a snap election for this summer. | Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP Photo

Snchez knows this is and is betting the threat of Vox will prove sufficient to rally Spanish voters from far-left to center, as it did just enough for him to claim enough votes in 2019 to form his own coalition government on the left.

A weakened liberal government pinning its hopes on a narrow rejection, again, of a highly polarizing right-wing political brand? Yes, that sounds familiar.

Spain would hardly be alone among European countries relying on far-right parties to form conservative-leaning coalition governments.

Its a parliamentary concession of necessity that, of course, has no pure equivalent in the U.S. However, the GOP is, in its own way, just as reliant on the Trumpist ranks. Thats the inherent risk looming over any Republican split that they have no path to the presidency or congressional majorities if Trumps diehards dont vote. Because of their weakness in repelling Trump at the outset, Republicans are handcuffed to his supporters. Its not likely to end well.

And one only needs to glimpse at the U.K. for a window on what comes next for conservative parties in the wake of a demagogues departure. The British Tories no longer have the cult of personality but are being held accountable for Boris Johnsons chaotic reign and exit. Its the worst of both worlds. And it has Labour poised to reclaim 10 Downing Street next year sheerly by being the alternative to that.

Benjamin Johansen and Peter Wilke contributed to this column.

See the article here:

Mainstream Conservatives Are On The Run in Europe, Too - POLITICO

June 26, 2023 By Michael Weymouth

Recently a charter school principal in Tallahassee, Florida was forced toresign after several parents complained that a sixth-grade Renaissance arthistory lesson was pornographic. The issue, it seems, was a photo ofMichelangelos sculpture of David, which showed his genitals, a notuncommon feature in Renaissance art, which unashamedly glorified thehuman body. The larger-than-life statue of the young Bible character holdsa slingshot over his shoulder which he used to slay the giant Goliath. Mostsignificantly, the David was created at the beginning of the Renaissance, aperiod of enlightenment that set western civilization on a new course. Thesculpture symbolized the aspirations and hopes of that dawning era, nodoubt one of the lessons the art teacher wanted to impress on the sixth-graders. Unfortunately the presence of Davids penis was of greaterconcern to the offended parents.

This incident may seem a bit silly for most of us, but it is also an example ofthe perils of populism.

Historically populism was referred to as direct democracy, where thepeople had an unfiltered voice in running the government, versus affectingchange through elected representatives. For a government that purportedto be of, by and for the people, direct democracy would seem to makesense. But a great deal of thought was given to this subject at the foundingof our country. In an article in National Affairs, Madison and the Perils ofPopulism, George Thomas, the Wohlford Professor of American PoliticalInstitutions at Claremont McKenna College, wrote in 2016 about the rise inpopulism that led to the election of Donald Trump.https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/madison-and-the-perils-of-populism Thomas provides an extensive explanation as to why theFounders were opposed to populism, believing that elected political officialswere not merely to act as a mouthpiece of the citizenry, but to see furtherthan ordinary citizens: to refine and enlarge the public views, to have thewisdom to discern the true interest of their country, and to do so even if itmeant acting against popular views. Representative democracy waspreferable to direct democracy precisely because it was designed to placethose of superior political understanding and judgment in office.

Because the passions of the people could be openly played upon, Madisonconcluded that it was often the case that a single orator would be seen torule with as complete a sway as if a scepter had been placed in his singlehand. No better example of this exists than Donald Trumps statementearly in his campaign, I alone can fix it, indicating that Donald Trump hadlittle understanding of how the democratic process worked, or perhaps justas significantly, how his supporters believed democracy worked.

Thomas wrote that Madison believed that we should guard against this typeof would-be demagogue who uses populisms lure to flatter the prejudicesof the people in order to gain power. Unfortunately, Donald Trump hasperfected this skill to a black art, and Florida governor Ron DeSantis is notfar behind, as he is presently carrying the populism banner from Florida tothe country at large.

DeSantis set the aforementioned Florida incident in motion by appealing topopulist concerns about wokeness, which among other thingsencouraged the banning of books school children had access to. If evenone parent complained about a books content, especially having to do withLGBTQ issues or critical race theory (CRT,) or other woke issues, that bookwould be banned. DeSantis claimed that parents should have a say in whattheir kids learned in school, even if their actions contradicted advice fromeducation professionals.

My conservative friends say, no big deal, this was just an isolated incidentin an attempt to downplay it. In fact, like the crack in the foundation of anew building that would one day lead to its downfall, the incident is anexample of what the country would be subjected to if populists are allowedto control our democracy. The polarization we are presently experiencing inour nation is a direct result of politicians giving voice to populist sentimentsand to the flood of misinformation that underpins those sentiments.

It is noteworthy that the block of marble the David was hewn from wasrejected by all the sculptors of the day because of its odd configuration.Only Michelangelo saw the sculpture within. What we need today arepoliticians who have that same vision of the possibilities within ourdemocracy. And it should not be lost on us that the Italians did not refer tothat period of history as the Renaissance, they used the term Svegliato,which translated means woke.

See the rest here:

Opinion: The Perils Of Populism - Hingham Anchor

As Donald Trumps star rises again even with multiple criminal indictments looming, many observers fear that anti-establishment populism in America is no longer just a flirtation, but a feature of our democratic system.

More generally, it has become common to think that democracies anywhere with their open public spheres, majoritarian institutions and propensity for a frustrating incrementalism have fueled the rise of populist leaders and demagogues. Examples of the success of strongmen leaders abound in Brazil, Hungary, India, Italy, Turkey, El Salvador and the United States.

But it is equally possible that the very attributes of democracy that have invigorated populism are also those that will ultimately moderate its spread. Democracies transparent public spheres expose populists corruption, and the separations of power in a democracy tend to hold populists responsible for failures of governance.

New evidence suggests that elections the hallmark of democracy itself may be an equally powerful check.

According to a new Ipsos poll of about 26,000 people across 28 countries worldwide, recent democratic elections are associated with a decline in the sentiment that the system is broken. Independently of who is elected, democratic processes themselves may provide a cathartic release of frustration and reassure people of their enduring power.

Between April 2021 and November 2022, there was a global decline of broken-system sentiment, roughly returning to levels last seen in 2016. The six countries with the steepest drop each conducted a national election resulting in major political change; none of the four countries showing an uptick in this sentiment had a national election during the same period.

Since 2021, there has been a 7% global drop in the perception that the economy is rigged, a 5% and 6% drop in the perception that politicians dont care and experts dont understand average people, respectively, and a 5% drop in the belief that the country needs a strong leader to take control back from the rich and powerful.

The global share of people who want a strong leader who is willing to break the rules remains effectively unchanged.

In Brazil, where the leftist former President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva narrowly defeated the populist incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, 15% fewer people want a strong leader willing to break the rules. In Italy, which recently ushered a far-right government into power, the share of people who distrust experts and seek a strong leader both dropped by 19%.

Indeed, in all six countries showing the greatest drops in anti-establishment feelings Chile, Colombia, South Korea, Italy, Brazil and Peru the election brought in a new head of government from a different party than the incumbent.

The greatest gains in broken-system sentiment across the board are in the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party has two more years before it must call a national election despite experiencing historically low public approval numbers.

On average, countries that conducted national elections dating back to 2016 saw a 1.4 percentage point global drop in the feeling that traditional parties and politicians dont care about people like them, while those without elections experienced a 0.8 percentage point global increase.

Still, while elections appear to be a salve, they are not a full remedy. In the short term, elections that replace those in government have a cathartic effect; they act as a pressure relief valve for public frustration. But fresh leaders do not necessarily mean a better or more responsive government.

Indeed, the populist wave is far from ebbing. The prevailing view among most people polled by Ipsos remains that their political and economic system is indeed broken.

On average, 64% feel their countrys economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful and 63% say that traditional parties and politicians dont care about people like them. This is fertile ground for populist leaders and parties in the future.

But we should also not expect broken-system sentiment to disappear. So long as populist parties and leaders are operating, they will persuade a share of voters that the system is rigged against them, even when there is ample evidence to the contrary a sort of feedback loop.

More profoundly, the polling reveals the intrinsic virtue of free and fair elections. Independent of who wins, elections mitigate the authoritarian tendencies and attitudes that lead ordinary citizens to turn against the political system.

The takeaway from this poll is clear. Policies that strengthen election institutions both here and abroad should be democracy advocates central focus. As for sitting governments? Deliver on your promises, or be replaced.

Clifford A. Young is the president of Ipsos Public Affairs, United States. Justin Gest is a professor at George Mason Universitys Schar School of Policy and Governance. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Read more here:

In the global struggle with populism, elections are a salve - Frederick News Post

A Chinese proverb says, May you live in interesting times. Whether thats a curse or a blessing is up for grabs. Like it or not, Mr. Trump has certainly made things interesting. After his recent arrest, amid all the speculations and innuendos, here are several points I havent heard yet.

If you want it, here it is, come and get it, but youd better hurry cause its goin fast, Come & Get It, Badfinger by Paul McCartney

First, there is no comparison between Trumps Mar-a-Lago gaff and the actions of Pence, Biden, or even Clinton. Instead of cowboyn up, Trump went Watergate by lying and cover-up. Missing a play this obvious should concern inquiring minds as to Trumps abilities to make decisions under real pressure. Simply, he failed a test even a diminished Biden easily passed.

Second, Chris Christie pointed out that election results in 2018, 2020 and 2022 signaled Trump fatigue among voters. Election fraud is a debunked canard and voters widely rejected those claiming otherwise. If things remain as they are, a Trump vs. Biden rematch appears likely, and if, whats past is prologue, a Biden victory is imminent.

What? Not excited? While Biden was and remains, the best option since 2020, I have yet to meet anyone outside of MAGA-circles excited about either candidate. Another Trump vs. Biden race is, sadly, the best bad idea weve had by far.

Did I hear you say that there must be a catch? Will you walk away from a fool and his money?

Third, former Reagan speechwriter and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan suggests a Trump Primary victory is the end of the Republican Party. Since 2016, independents and moderates have begun voting left of center. Noonan opines a third Trump campaign will solidify the divorce. America is best served by a healthy two-party system. If you think we have problems now, a multi-party system will be a real, here, hold my drink debacle.

Fourth, Trumps arrest is a golden parachute for Republicans. Instead of defending something so easily avoidable, Republican leadership should let the courts do the dirty work for them. By backing the judicial system, the GOP could elevate trust in our institutions of self-governance, side-step an obvious dumpster fire, and re-up their claim of being the law and justice party.

Regardless of party affiliation, if someone breaks the law, they should face the justice system. By allowing the courts to deal with Trump, Bidens viability as the guy who did and can beat Trump becomes challengeable, and, voil, both candidates are eased out of the race solving problems for both parties.

If you want it, here it is, come and get it, but youd better hurry cause its goin fast.

Finally, about every 100 years, Americans get to play whack-a-mole with populism. Our sixth president, Andrew Jackson served from 1829 to 1837, Nebraskas William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner was a national figure from 1896 to 1908, and Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose Party (1912) and Ross Perot (1992 to 1996) lead us up to Trump (2016). By the mid-1990s, the Republican Party moved from Reagans conservative platform toward populism. Like the Democrats, along the way toward ideological purity, the GOP ejected moderates. Consequently, extremists in both parties have become more strident, intolerant and offering legislation less-representative of the majority of Americans.

As both parties demanded ideological loyalty, the bedrock of self-governance, civil debate, fell to the wayside and compromise became a dirty word. Healthy public discussions and political debates restrain extremism through the moderating effects of competing ideas, constructive dissent and respectful civil engagement. Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Liz Cheney, Scott Walker, Ben Sasse and Adam Kinzinger represented the future of the GOP. Alas, theyve left or were pushed out and, today, the GOPs presidential bench is discernably weak and the party is subject to the whims of, to quote Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, morons.

If theres been a silver lining, its been watching Congressman Don Bacons political evolution. Subjected to MAGA slings and arrows, Bacon was recently recognized for his cross-aisle overtures and participation in bipartisan groups such as Problems Solvers.

Former NYC mayoral candidate Ed Koch once said, If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist. Many dont agree with Bacon on everything, but hes matured into an elected official who, even under stress or disagreement, demonstrates character and integrity.

And in these moments, there is hope.

Rick Galusha writes, "Like most things, stemming the Brain Drain asks individual Nebraskans to consider how their actions, words and values affect others and thereby the economy."

Rick Galusha writes, "Patriotism has always been complex.The global rise of right-wing political extremism coupled with the growth of religious conservativism suggests that many are, understandably, looking for stability in a world of constant change."

The Omaha Free Speech Society brings people together to discuss important political and social issues, we got to know our neighbors, practice verbalizing complex ideas, rebuild trust and share coffee and donuts.

The Omaha Free Speech Society brings people together to discuss important political and social issues, we got to know our neighbors, practice verbalizing complex ideas, rebuild trust and share coffee and donuts.

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "When the nations founders met to write the U.S. Constitution, they cloaked the windows and forbade transcripts of the process so that participants could act and speak freely."

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "We love our symbols and signs by sharing them on our cars, in our yards, and on social media. Why?"

Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "The voters have spoken: there are no victory laps this time."

Community columnist Rick Galusha writes, "As Nebraskas Second District knows, sometimes choosing the best candidates means crossing party lines ... Technically, this is called strategic voting but its just a practical approach."

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "If the law is broken, regardless of party affiliation, officials need to be held accountable. But elected officials should be held to a higher standard of behavior."

Polling indicates voters are fed up with bickering and acrimony.

Occasionally, a reader suggests I am overly critical of Republicans. Its a reasonable criticism. Historically, political parties were monolit

"You gotta give the people what they want."

Columnist Rick Galusha writes: "At the heart of our model of self-governance are free speech and civic debate. I remind students their grandparents founded modern-day rights movements. It is through discussions that the language and norms develop for society to operate."

Columnist Rick Galusha writes, "While winning elections is the sole motivation of political parties, 'moving the goal posts' (or changing the rules) is monstrously unethical. Those who love this country and wish to see it continue shining freedoms beacon to the world can no longer sit by silently and allow this damaging subterfuge to continue."

Community columnist Rick Galusha writes: "Its time to weigh our own behavior while not turning a blind eye toward irresponsible actors."

Community Columnist Rick Galusha writes: "Are we defined by fear and anxiety, a $28 trillion monument to mismanagement, and manipulated societal division?"

"Take a bow for the new revolution."

We know empirically that when one strictly congregates with like-minded ideologues, they will increasingly spin further away from median voters views by becoming increasingly ideologically extreme in ideas and rhetoric.

Those who promote a known falsehood or stand by with a wink and a nod are actively dividing our nation and undermining our trust in the institutions that guide American democracy.

Federal spending and taxation demands hard, unpleasant, civil, public debate to determine national priorities. All of the above is no longer an option.

Our columnist believesNebraskas prairie populism is moderate, centrist and fed up with the growing hyperpartisanship of the last 30 years.

We need to remember those who died as well as those who served and those who suffered physical and mental injuries; these losses are personal, writes community columnist Rick Galusha.

Understandably, as groups stake their claim in the American dream, they want their journey, hardships and celebrations to be fully acknowledged.

All it took was a dry-land hurricane and just like that were helping neighbors and strangers. Helping others was the silver lining of Omahas recent windstorm, writes community columnist Rick Galusha.

'Those who imbibe in the toxic elixir of deceit are now finding each other and infecting society with a poison more subtle and dangerous than any virus or partisan activist.'

Its normal to be uncomfortable with change. Youre not alone. We all want a friendly smile, a kind word, affirmation and hope.

Unlike prior historical moments, this pandemics end will quietly creep into our lives as friends and coworkers sporadically get vaccinated.

The challenge of civics education is that one person's definition of "good" could be different than someone else's, which speaks to the importance of tolerance in our pluralistic nation.

History shows that democracies fail when political extremism abandons cooperation and compromise. During stressful times, democracies turn toward strongman leaders and right-wing authoritarianism.

Known as the principal agent problem, should elected officials be guided by their conscience or should they vote their districts preference?

This nation is facing a dark winter. We can choose to remain on a course of division and hyperpartisanship. Or we can look not to Washington, on stages or sports fields, but in the mirror.

From time to time, our nation and our community rely on moral leadership and common sense from its older members.

"To know Clare Duda is to know a laugh that explodes outward, filling the room, a smile that never fades, and the humble warmth of a man comfortable in his skin."

"If youve walked into a voting booth and thought, I dont like either of these candidates, you may be moderate. Dont worry, most voters are."

Rick Galusha, Ph.D., teaches political science at Bellevue University. Hes hosted a blues radio show for 30 years and was the president of Homers Music Stores. Galusha was active in the creation of the Old Market Business Association and served as the groups first president.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the original:

Column: The push me-pull you of political populism - Omaha World-Herald

Im a global macro investor who has been betting on whats going to happen for over 50 years. Ive been through all sorts of events and cycles in all sorts of places over a long time which led me to study how these events and cycles work. In the process, I learned that I needed to study history to understand whats going on and whats likely to happen.

Early in my career, I learned though a couple of painful mistakes that the biggest things that surprised me did so because they never happened in my lifetime but had happened many times in history. The first time that happened was on August 15, 1971 when I was clerking on the floor of the New York Stock exchange and the U.S. defaulted on its debt promise to allow people to turn in their paper dollars for gold. I thought that this was a big crisis that would send stock prices down but they went up a lot. I didnt understand why because Id never experienced a big currency devaluation before. When I looked back in history, I saw that the exact same thing happened on March 5, 1933 when Roosevelt defaulted on the U.S.s promise to let people turn in their paper money for gold and stocks went up. That led me to study and learn whywhich is that money could be created, and when its created, it goes down in value which makes things go up in price. That experience led me to study the rises and declines of markets, economies, and countries which Ive done ever since. For example, my studying how the 1920s debt bubble turned into the 1929-33 financial collapse led me to anticipate and profit from the 2008 financial crisis. Thats how I learned that its critical to take a longer-term perspective and understand the mechanics behind why history rhymes.

A few years ago, I saw three big things happening that hadnt happened in my lifetime but had happened in the 1930-45 period. These were:

Seeing these three big things that never happened in these magnitudes in my lifetime led me to study the rises and declines of markets, economies, and countries over the last 500 years, as well as the rises and declines of Chinas dynasties the last 2,100 years.

That examination showed me that these three big forcesi.e. the debt/money one, the internal conflict one, and the external conflict onetranspired in big cycles that reinforced each other to make up what I call the Big Cycle. These cycles were driven by logical cause-effect relationships Most importantly, this study of the last 500 years of history taught me that:

Said differently, history shows that the painful seismic shifts part of the Big Cycle comes about when there is simultaneously 1) too much debt creation that leads to debt bubbles bursting and economic contractions which cause central banks to print a lot of money and buy debt, 2) big conflicts within countries due to big wealth and values conflicts made worse by the bad economic conditions, and 3) big international conflicts due to rising world powers challenging the existing world powers at a time of economic and internal political crises In doing this study, I also saw two other big forces that had big effects. They are:

I call these the Five Big Forces. I saw how they affect each other and change in logical ways to produce the Big Cycle that produces big changes in the world order. I came to realize that if one understands and follows each of these forces and how they interact, one can understand most everything thats changing the world order. Thats what Im trying to do.

I will give you a quick summary of what I learned from my study but if you want to lean more about how and why things change you can get that in my book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order.

In the U.S., we are now in middle part of what I call the short-term debt cycle and is also known as the business cycle. These short-term debt cycles have lasted 7 years on average, give or take about 3 years. There have been 12 1/2 of them since the new monetary world order started in 1945. So, we are now about half-way though the 13th of the cycles, at the point of the cycle when the central bank has tightened money to fight inflation that is just before the debt and economic contractions which will likely come over next 18 months.

We are also in a late and dangerous part of the long-term debt cycle because the levels of debt assets and debt liabilities have become so high that it is difficult to give lender-creditors a high enough interest rate relative to inflation that is adequate to make them want to hold this debt as an asset without making interest rates so high that it unacceptably hurts the borrower-debtor. Because of unsustainable debt growth, we are likely approaching a major inflection point that will change the financial order. Said differently, it appears to me likely that we are approaching a debt/financial/economic restructuring that will lead to big changes to the financial order.

More specifically. it appears likely to me that because of large deficits the U.S. Treasury will have to sell a lot of debt and it appears there will not be adequate demand for it. If that happens, it will lead to either much higher interest rates or the Fed printing a lot of money and buying bonds which will devalue money. For these reasons, the debt/financial conditions could worsen, perhaps very significantly, over the next 18 months.

In several countries, most importantly the U.S., we have seen a growing percentage of the population that are populist extremists (about 20-25 percent of the right are extreme and about 10-15 percent of the left are) and a shrinking of the percentage of the population that are bipartisan moderates. Though the bipartisan moderates still remain in the majority, they constitute a declining percentage of the population and they are far less willing to fight and win at all costs. In studying history, I saw this growing populism of both sides and increased conflict has repeatedly occurred when large gaps in wealth and values existed at the same time as bad economic conditions. At such times, significant percentages of the population chose populist political leaders who vowed to fight and win for them rather than compromise. In my book, I described the state the U.S. is now in as Stage 5 (When There Are Bad Financial Conditions and Intense Conflict) of the internal order cycle, which comes just before some sort of civil war and changes in the domestic order. That is what is now happening.

Looking ahead, the next 18 months will be an increasingly intense big election period which will lead to much greater political conflict which is likely to sharper the divide between the left and the right. Thirty-three Senate seats, the presidency, and control of the House will be fought over by a number of populist candidates and there will likely be poor economic conditions, so the fights will be vicious and there will be a real test of rule-following and compromising, both of which are required to make democracies work. You can see the movement toward a win at all cost fight while the respect for the legal and political systems declines. You can see this dynamic playing out even now, in things like Donald Trump and his followers being at war with the justice system, or as he and his followers would say, the systems war against him. Whichever perspective you have, it is clear that we are headed into a type of civil war over the next 18 months. To me the most important war is between the bipartisan moderates and the populist extremes, yet the bipartisan moderates are for the most part quietly staying out of this fight. The only thing the Democrats and Republicans can agree on, which most Americans also agree on, is being anti-China which brings me to my next big force.

The conflicts between the U.S. and China are likely to intensify as domestic political tensions will likely lead to increased aggressiveness toward China. That is because in the U.S. most everyone is anti-China and those running for office will want to out-China-bash each other in an election year. China and the US are already dangerously close to some form of war, whether an all-out economic one or, worse, a military one. There are also important elections in Taiwan next year, which is already a flash point in U.S.-China elections, and a U.S.-backed push for Taiwanese independence is something to keep a close eye on when weighing the potential for even more overt U.S.-China conflict. There are several issuesTaiwan, chips, dealing with Russia, sanctioning investmentsthat are being fought over, and both sides are preparing for war. I dont mean to say that we are destined for war, but I do mean that the odds of some form of a major conflict are dangerously high.

Acts of nature are of course harder to predict accurately, but they appear to be getting worse and are likely to be more costly and damaging over the next five to ten years due to climate change. Also, the world is entering an El Nio phase of the climate cycle over the next year.

What can we expect from technology/human inventiveness? Like acts of nature, it is hard to know exactly, though there should be no doubt that generative AI and other technological advances have the potential to cause both massive productivity gains and massive destructions, depending on how they are used. The one thing that we can be sure of is that these changes will be greatly disruptive.

Exactly how events will unfold is beyond my ability to say, but there is no doubt in my mind that those who assume that things will work in the orderly ways we have gotten used in the last few decades will be shocked and probably hurt by the changes to come.

How well these changes are managed will make all the difference. If our leaders can rise above their tendencies to fight and instead focus on cooperating, we can certainly navigate these tricky times to create a better world for most people. Presumably, this outcome is best for everyone, so we should be strongly against civil disorder and war between nations, keeping it in the back of our mind so we strive for cooperative decision-making. For example, now that a debt ceiling agreement has passed, it would be great to see the Democrats and Republicans mutually agree on a bipartisan group of very skilled people to come up with a practical, long-term bipartisan plan. I wrote an article Why and How Capitalism Needs to be Reformed? years ago which is still relevant today in case youre interested. Having said that, it is probably unrealistic to believe that we can materially change the course of events, so what is most important for most people is to visualize the worst. If you do that, you will be prepared for it and will probably be fine.

In closing I should say that the most important thing Ive learned in my 50 years of being a global macro investor is that I can be wrong. For that reason, while I suggest that you consider what I am sharing, I also suggest that you assess it and the circumstances for yourself.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Original post:

Why the World Is on the Brink of Great Disorder - TIME

Populist movements in Europe are still with us, and European liberals ought to take on board how and why they appeal to voters, political scientist Zsolt Enyedi writes.

A number of European elections in recent times stronglysuggest that the wave of populism may have peaked in Europe.

Centrist parties, typically representing some version of liberalism, have managed to muddle through and retain public support in some places.

But the problems that caused Europes populist insurgency are still with us, with many of its aspects now transforming rather than falling away.

Populism is typically understood as a negative, transitory, and disruptive phenomenon. This is partly because, in the post-World War II period, populists tended to be amateurs.

Lately, however, a number of authoritarian parties have started to attract donors, campaign managers, lawyers, and government insiders to their cause.

These backers have changed the game and provided a more professional look to their operations by providing investment in institutions of socialisation, access to international contacts, and ground to forge geopolitical alliances.

Liberals, who are prone to self-flagellation, have acknowledged many of the political mistakes they committed in the past.

Neglecting national sentiments and showing insensitivity towards the plight of the losers of globalisation feature high on the list.

But they keep oscillating between two equally dangerous strategies.

The first is to focus on issues that affect tiny groups in the society. The second, typically adopted once the first proves disastrous, is to build on the assumption that ordinary citizens care only about material conditions.

They could do with observing their opponents.

Populists, while playing the nostalgia card, also capture citizens imaginations by stirring debates about the future: a future full of apocalyptic threats.

Playing on fear has a bad reputation. But it is a completely legitimate strategy. If politics has any function, it is precisely to help us avoid future disasters.

The principal disaster heralded by populists is multicultural conflict and a loss of national identity.

Many citizens consider these real dangers, and although they are critical of the authoritarian movement, they often see their countrys authoritarian insurgents as counterweights against rapid social change.

Anti-populist discourse today has an equivalent danger: climate change. But we are a long way away from a restructuring of our political space as a consequence.

Climate concerns motivate the younger generation, less so the older one. This is a problem because, in most countries, young people dont turn out to vote in such large numbers, and they are simply fewer.

This has the additional consequence that the universalistic, cosmopolitan discourse embraced by younger generations is likely to remain on the fringes of national policymaking for some time to come.

National identities are here to stay, and liberals need to remind people of the fundamental compatibility between liberalism and patriotism.

In order to reach the median citizen, liberals need to explain how personal safety and cultural continuity will be safeguarded in the future.

They also need to identify authoritarianism as the source of conflict rather than the resolution.

There may be a dramatic scenario ahead of us one of cultural and inter-cultural clashes but the facilitators of such an outcome are exactly the ones who show themselves to be most concerned about it: populists like Matteo Salvini, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Narendra Modi, and Donald Trump.

Another thing liberals can learn from populists is the rhetoric of self-respect.

While references to national sovereignty may be self-serving and often shield corrupt leaders from criticism of their self-aggrandisement, human rights abuse and restrictions on press freedom, voters hear the voice of someone who doesnt take orders and who doesnt surrender in front of impersonal processes.

Viktor Orban, for example, has long cultivated the myth of Central Europe as a region that can rejuvenate European politics and forge ahead without waiting for Brussels.

The content of such rhetoric is reactionary, but the format has huge potential.

Ultimately, the best course of action for liberals is to stay true to their fundamental values, such as freedom. The protection of freedom represents a rejection of the hard right but also of the hard left.

It is true that liberals should take the issue of equality more seriously than in the past.

But they should also openly say that imposing radical visions of social justice on citizens while curtailing their freedom to speak up is an unacceptable idea, even if it comes from well-meaning and progressive young people.

They should keep reminding us that respect toward others is a virtue, but one still has the right to free speech whether one is respectful or not.

Zsolt Enyedi is a professor at the political science department at Central European University (CEU) and lead researcher for CEUs Democracy Institute. He was also a speaker at the inaugural Budapest Forum in 2021.

This article was originally published on 8 October 2021.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

More here:

Europe's liberals should take a page or two out of the populist movement's book - Euronews

In 1954, Richard Hofstadter, the eminent American historian of modern conservatism, asked a provocative question about his eras assault on progressive and left-wing ideals, known as McCarthyism: Where did this extremism come from?

Which issues do you think we should be exploring more deeply here on The Tyee? Take our quick and easy poll.

The Tyee launches a new free newsletter with fresh reporting and curated must reads. Just in time for the big vote.

He argued in a celebrated essay that even the prosperous, post-Second World War United States was not immune to the radicalism of authoritarian populism. The so-called Red Scare of the 1950s was simply the old ultra-conservatism and the old isolationism heightened by the extraordinary pressures of the contemporary world.

Seven decades later, Hofstadters words ring true again. Conservative movements are always fighting a rearguard action against modernity by falsely claiming to protect society from progressives who trample traditional values and sneer at the forgotten men and women who embrace them.

Paranoid politics

With so much money and power behind it, this paranoid style of politics with its enemies lists, demonization of opposition leaders and often violent language has gone mainstream.

Conspiracy theories are no longer a stigma discrediting those who trade in salacious innuendo. Even mainstream politicians are now peddling them.

But is there anything to fear from the red-hot rhetoric of the paranoid style of politics? Some argue these circumstances are cyclical. In Hofstadters time, after all, American conservative politics turned away from fringe radicalism following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. The following year, Lyndon Johnson defeated right-wing Republican insurgent Barry Goldwater in one of the largest landslides in U.S. history.

But the crisis we face today is bigger in scale and scope. Its been whipped to a frenzy by political leaders who seek to profit from the chaos that it incites via social media.

Populism was supposed to bring government closer to the people, but it actually places the levers of power squarely in the hands of authoritarians. Here are four ways populism has turned poisonous and poses existential threats to democracy:

1. The shrinking middle ground

Democracy without compromise erodes popular sovereignty by fragmenting the electorate and eliminating meaningful compromise. We are now in a world of zero-sum political contests, with a shrinking middle ground. Conservative parties often force extreme referendums to maintain their grip on a deeply divided electorate.

Election campaigns have become dangerous contests over wedge issues designed to deepen cultural divisions using social media.

We saw this with Brexit as Boris Johnson and other populists stoked fears about immigration and Europeans. Donald Trump did it well with attacks on immigrants. Republicans are now doubling down on the abortion issue, even though theyre facing pushback from some state legislatures and governors.

In Canada, Albertas Premier Danielle Smith, whose United Conservative Party has been newly re-elected with a majority, has focused on demonizing her opponents and has allegedly engaged in anti-democratic conduct in her months as premier.

2. The working class isnt benefiting

Identity politics isnt empowering working people because the politics of revenge doesnt fix structural problems.

Nevertheless, conservative parties around the world are marketing themselves as parties of the working class.

Populists recognize the working class is essential to their success at the national level because of the diploma divide that now separates right and left.

There is a strong correlation between lacking a college diploma and supporting nationalist conservative movements at election time.

It used to be that working people recognized education as a path to prosperity. But massive tuition increases in the U.S., in particular, have betrayed the promise of universal access to a college degree.

Tuition fees are also heading in the wrong direction in the U.K., Canada and Australia. Education now reinforces class divisions rather than breaking down barriers to a better life.

3. The rich and powerful direct the chaos

Populism was supposed to empower people outside the corridors of power, but talk of retribution against liberal elites normalizes calls for political violence always a bad thing.

In a war of all against all, its not the wealthy who lose. Its ordinary, hard-working citizens.

Furthermore, once a lust for vengeance takes hold in the general public, its almost always being directed by elites with money and power who benefit financially or politically from the chaos.

4. Assaults on the rule of law

Authoritarian leaders have gained unprecedented institutional legitimacy by building successful movements based on fantasies of blood and soil. The paranoid style of politics has entered a new phase with a full-spectrum assault on the rule of law from inside government.

Populists are lying when they argue they want to empower the rest of us by divesting judges of their authority to oversee democracy. They really want to breach the strongest constitutional barrier against authoritarianism.

Look at the situation in Israel, where Benjamin Netanyahus extremist coalition seeks to destroy judicial checks and balances and allow the countrys parliament to overrule its Supreme Court, a move that would ease the prime ministers legal woes.

Netanyahu has been charged with corruption and influence peddling.

Trumps attempts to undermine the legitimacy of judges are equally self-serving. As he runs again for president, hes already telegraphing his violent desires, promising pardons for the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.

The road ahead for populists

The political dial is already spinning. The defeats of Trump and Brazils Jair Bolsonaro dont represent absolute rejections of their movements.

Despite an indictment for alleged financial crime and being found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case, Trump is still the 2024 frontrunner.

We cant count on an easy institutional fix, like a grand electoral coalition to push the populists off the ballot.

Opponents of Hungarys Viktor Orban formed a united front to oppose him in the countrys 2022 elections. But Orban was re-elected in a vote widely derided as free but not fair.

Opposing coalitions are an uncertain strategy in most cases, and they dont work at all in two-party systems. There is in fact no obvious electoral strategy for defeating populism, especially now that the far right has hacked the system.

Red lights flashing

We can no longer view elections as contests between the centre-right and centre-left in which undecided voters make the difference between victory and defeat. Nor can we count on the right to step back from the abyss of culture wars. We cant even say for certain that the populism will recede in the usual cyclical manner.

Only decisive rejection can force the right to abandon anger and grievance, but voters are not yet turning their backs on the paranoid populists. It will take a lot of strategic ingenuity to beat them. And it will get harder to do so as they rig the game with rules designed to disenfranchise people who are young, poor or racialized.

All citizens can do is offer is constant, concerted pushback against the many big lies told by populists. Its never enough, but for the time being, its the only way forward.

Here is the original post:

Smith, Trump and the Paranoid Populist Assault on Democracy - TheTyee.ca

While most eyes are on the Trump vs. DeSantis battle, other candidates, we'll call them the Lilliputians, are jumping into the race. We'll wait until the autumn to start handicapping these contestants, but no one should dismiss them entirely. When George W. Bush sought the presidency in 2000, people dismissed his candidacy, comparing him unfavorably not just to the other candidates but to his younger brother Jeb. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was leading the Democratic pack in 2004, until he melted down in Iowa. Barack Obama was in single digits when he entered the 2008 presidential race.

The Palmetto State has two announced candidates: former Gov. Nikki Haley and current Sen. Tim Scott. Trump's Vice President Mike Pence, set to enter the race next week, would be expected to be a front-runner, if things had turned out differently with his former boss. They didn't. Former governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, is running as the voice of sanity in a party where sanity is no longer a highly valued commodity.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to announce his candidacy next week. In 2016, he singlehandedly took down the candidacy of Sen. Marco Rubio, mocking the Floridian's robotic debate performance. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Christie for that takedown, but that doesn't mean he should be president.

In fact, none of these other candidates should become president.

It is easy in the era of Donald Trump to look back wistfully at an earlier Republican Party. We recall that GOP candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain conceded when they lost. We remember that George W. Bush was young and irresponsible when he was young and irresponsible, but like St. Paul counseled, when he became a man, he put away childish ways. And, further back, there is the memory of Ronald Reagan, optimistic, brimming with confidence as only an actor can, sketchy on policy details but someone who knew what he believed. Every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime was preferable to Trump.

The other Republican candidates running now, with the possible exception of DeSantis, would be better than Trump. None of them have his baggage, his obsessions, his acute narcissism. (Every presidential candidate has to be at least a little bit of a narcissist.) They all lack his capacity for self-delusion.

These Lilliputian candidates, however, share one characteristic that also defines their relationship to Trump in a critical way. They all subscribe to neoliberal economics that made Trump possible. Reagan was not hateful the way Trump is hateful, but he and his GOP heirs embraced policies that hollowed out the middle class, decimated the working class and denuded the government of the power needed to right the wrongs they perpetrated.

Income inequality has grown consistently since the Reagan years. This article at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities looks at the data from a variety of angles, but each angle tells the same story: The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The numbers for wealth inequality are even worse than those for income: "The best survey data show that the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2016, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33 percent to 23 percent," the CBPP article states.

Union membership is half what it was in 1983, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Not coincidentally, the decline in union membership tracks with the increase in income inequality, as this fact sheet from the Economic Policy Institute shows. The best news in the post-pandemic economy is that low-income workers have seen steady gains in both employment and wages, as the pandemic brought back classic Keynesian policies. President Joe Biden needs to be out celebrating that fact every day.

Last week, a friend drove me around Detroit. We looked at some beautiful, historic churches. All around was the fallout from neoliberalism. Vacant buildings interspersed with vacant lots. Boarded up storefronts. Few pedestrians downtown. Reagan accepted the presidential nomination of his party in that city's Cobo Hall in 1980. His shadow still lingers over the city's decline.

For every Detroit, there are scores of smaller cities that have also lost their vibrancy. Harvard politics professor Robert Putnam has been cataloging the diminishment of these communities for years, from Bowling Alone, to American Grace, to Our Kids. Those books focus on the citizens and communities that neoliberalism left socio-economically crippled. They are the same citizens and communities whose anxieties Trump figured out how to exploit. Trump's vulgar populism is different from neoliberalism, but it is dependent on the crushing economic devastation neoliberalism wrought.

So, one cheer, maybe even two, for Republicans who stand up to Trump, who insist the 2020 election was not stolen, who condemn his racist and misogynistic behaviors. But voting for neoliberals does not really help the country move forward or address the solidarity deficit; It only paves the way for other, future populists to degrade our democracy.

Read more here:

Other GOP candidates still pave the way for Trump's vile populism - National Catholic Reporter