Category Archives: Populism

Feeling optimistic about the state of American politics is hard. The country is deeply polarized. Much of the debate consists of name-calling and demonization. Dissatisfied with a strategy of maximal obstructionism in Congress, Republicans in state houses are trying to make subverting the outcome of the next election easier.

But we cant forget how much worse things could be right nowand what a major achievement it was for Joe Biden to have defeated Donald Trump. America booted an authoritarian populist from office in a free and fair election at the conclusion of his first term.

For those who are interested in the fate of liberal democracy around the world, that triumph raises a key question: Was Trumps loss an aberration owed to specifically American factors? Or did it portend the beginning of a more difficult period for authoritarian populists around the worldone in which they might be held accountable for their many mistakes and misdeeds?

You could make the case for a pessimistic answer. In some countries, such as the Philippines, authoritarian leaders remain highly popular among voters. In others, such as Peru, the populist wave is just now coming ashore. And even in the United States, it is plausible that extremist leaders who have recently been ousted may soon stage a comebackTrump is widely believed to be interested in running for the presidency in 2024, and the Republican Party seems to be growing more extreme by the day.

But you could also make the case for optimism. Recent developments in Europe and Latin America suggest that some of the populists and antidemocratic leaders who have dominated the political landscape for the past decade might finally be encountering serious trouble. If the picture looked almost unremittingly bleak a few years ago, now distinct patches of hope are on the horizon.

Read: The autocrats legacy

Take Germany. When the far-right Alternative for Germany first presented itself in national elections, in 2013, it fell just short of the 5 percent of the national vote it required to enter Parliament. Four years later, the party more than doubled its support, taking 13 percent of the national vote. If that rate of growth were to continue, the AfD would become the countrys largest party in elections this fall.

But as they say in financial markets, assuming that past performance is indicative of future results is a mistake. Far from continuing its rapid rise, the AfD is now losing popular support for the first time in its short history. Some polls suggest that the party may fall back to single-digit support in the September election. Even after Angela Merkel, Germanys long-serving head of government, leaves office, there is little immediate reason to fear for the stability of German democracy.

The situation in neighboring France looks more precarious. Like his three predecessors, President Emmanuel Macron has quickly become unpopular, and the countrys traditional parties are sad shadows of their former selves. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally, who has long aspired to step into the void, should be in a strong position: Only about 52 percent of French voters prefer Macron to Le Pen, according to some recent polls.

Yet recent regional electionswidely seen as a preview of next years presidential racehave suggested that her position is weaker than many feared. Le Pen failed to win power in a single region, and the traditional parties, whose death has so often been prognosticated, were the ones that showed surprising signs of electoral resilience. For now, the defensive bulwark against Le Pen seems to be holding.

Other long-established democracies in Western and Northern Europe have also seen populists lose momentum. Sizable populist movements won parliamentary seats in Denmark, Sweden, Greece, and the Netherlands. In all of these countries, these movements will likely remain part of politics for the foreseeable future. But in all of them, they have also, for now, ceased to grow.

Anne Applebaum: The disturbing new hybrid of democracy and autocracy

Extremist leaders remain in power in some of the worlds most populous democracies. But even some of those strongmen are now starting to face a real reversal of fortune.

Jair Bolsonaro, a former army captain known for his extremist rhetoric and open nostalgia for Brazils departed military dictatorship, unexpectedly assumed the countrys presidency in 2019. But he is now in deep political trouble. Lacking loyal allies in the countrys Congress, Bolsonaro has so far proved unable to concentrate power and, thanks to his disastrous mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic, his popularity has plummeted. Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, a former president better known simply as Lula, is likely to beat Bolsonaro in an upcoming election.

Extremist politicians in other Latin American countries are also doing poorly. Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador, a left-wing populist, won Mexicos presidency by making big promises about economic redistribution and an end to corruption. Even before the coronavirus hit, his government had failed to deliver. Then his mishandling of the pandemica deadly mix of complacency and denialism that was strikingly similar to that of Lpez Obradors nominal ideological adversaries, Trump and Bolsonarofurther dented his popularity. In congressional elections in 2018, Lpez Obradors party won a crushing majority. In elections last month, it bled nearly 20 percent of its support. While Lpez Obradors party retains a nominal majority in Congress thanks to the support of two smaller allies, his ability to pass controversial legislation has been significantly curtailed.

Even some authoritarian populists who had long since seemed to consolidate their power now face some difficulty. Narendra Modi, Indias prime minister, has recently suffered painful setbacks in important state elections. Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdoan has grown highly unpopular amid a deep financial crisis. Though both are likely to remain in the saddle for the foreseeable future, their electoral stars are not shining quite as brightly as they did a few years ago.

Perhaps the most interesting case is that of Hungary, a country that, despite its relatively small population, holds special significance for scholars of authoritarian populism. Before Viktor Orbn concentrated immense power in his own hands, many political scientists thought that Hungarys democratic institutions had consolidated, meaning that they should have been able to weather serious crises without much damage. But because of Orbns assault on independent institutions, Freedom House, the prodemocracy NGO, has found that the country is no longer fully freea historic first for a member state of the European Union.

But now, the opposition is finally getting its act together. After years during which Orbns control over the media, judiciary, and electoral commission left him with little effective resistance, opinion polls for next years parliamentary elections suggest that a broad ideological alliance is running neck and neck with his ruling party. If the united opposition ekes out a majority despite competing on an uneven playing field, the moment will be decisive for Hungarian democracy: Orbn will need to decide whether to ignore the outcome of the election, turning himself into an outright dictator, or give up the office on which he seemed to have such a firm hold just a few months ago.

Read: The populists finally breaking with Trump

It is far too early to declare that we have reached peak populism.

The coming years could well turn out to be even worse for liberal democracies around the world. By 2025, France and the United States might plausibly be ruled by Le Pen and Trump (or one of his family members), respectively. Modi and Erdoan will likely still be in office. Countries that are now governed by moderates could have new populist leaders of their own. This is hardly the time to stop sounding the alarm.

And yet, there is, for the first time in years, real evidence for the more optimistic scenario.

At the beginning of the populist rise, a new crop of political leaders made huge promises to voters and lacked a record on which they could be judged. But after winning power, they have largely failed to live up to their promises and bungled the handling of a once-in-a-century pandemic. Voters in many countries have thus started to grow disenchanted. Though populists usually retain a fervent following, their ability to build support from a broad cross section of voters seems to be rapidly fading in many countries.

The ability of mainstream parties to compete with populists has also improved. In many places, traditional parties had failed to realize how angry their own voters had become, and to what extent their policies were out of keeping with the preferences of the majority. Some have since corrected course, showing that they can beat populists at the ballot box if they steadfastly oppose extremism and take the grievances of ordinary voters seriously.

In a joke beloved by the writer David Foster Wallace, an old fish greets two young fish. Hows the water this morning? he asks them. Once the young fish are out of the old fishs earshot, they turn to the other. What the hell is water? one asks. The moral of the joke is obvious: We often become so accustomed to our environment that we start to take it for granted.

The rules and norms that sustain liberal democracies are similar. In good times, most voters dont care about who sits on the electoral commission or regulates the media. But when authoritarian leaders stack those institutions with loyalists, banning popular candidates or shutting down independent television stations, voters start to pay attention.

In many countries around the world, the past few years have been a crash course in the importance of the water were swimming in. And though the future remains highly uncertain, we have good reason to hope that people are more willing to fight for its preservation. Authoritarian populists remain a serious threat to the future of liberal democracy around the world. But the democratic fight back has begun in earnest.

Read the original:

We Might Have Reached Peak Populism - The Atlantic

Pakistans Prime Minister Imran Khan makes a brief statement to reporters before a meeting with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the US Capitol on July 23, 2019, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

IslamabadPakistans embattled prime minister, Imran Khan, in a speech that is likely to reverberate in both Washington and Beijing, accused the United States last week of having crushed the self-esteem of the Pakistani people.

During his address to Parliament, which was ostensibly about the fiscal budget passed the previous day, Khan pontificated on topics as diverse as the golden age of Islam, genetic modifications of Pakistani livestock, and the miraculous achievements of the Communist Party of China.

But nowherenot even while recounting his own achievementswas he as impassioned as when he trained his ire on US-Pakistan relations. Describing Pakistans involvement in the War on Terror as the blackest period in the countrys history, he vowed to never again be a partner in conflict with the United States.

The extent to which he remains able to honor this commitment is yet to be seen. Widely held responsible for mismanaging the economy, which has returned disappointing growth figures and calamitous levels of inflation, he has been hemorrhaging support ever since he was elected amid accusations of vote rigging in 2018. In the Senate elections of March 3, his party failed to gain a majority in the upper house, which was seen as an indictment of not just his leadership but also his ability to enforce party discipline. Members of the lower housewhere Khan has a numerical advantageand four provincial assemblies are tasked with electing senators in a secret ballot, and it is uncommon for the ruling party not to win outright.

There is also a sense in Islamabad that the countrys powerful military elite would prefer to keep positive relations with America and that the timing of Khans speech, which came a day after he told Chinese state media that Pakistan would maintain its close relations with China in defiance of US pressure, could be construed as an attempt at taking sides. Speaking on the 100-year anniversary of the CPC, Khan lauded the special relationship between China and Pakistan and promised to maintain it whatever the circumstances. You only remember a friend who stands with you in your difficult times, he told Liu Xin of CGTN, andnot one to rely on the subtlety of implicationKhan returned to the theme of friendship in his speech the following day. Is America our friend? he asked Parliament. Have you ever heard of a friend bombing you? Have you ever heard of an ally using drone attacks against you?

In the febrile atmosphere of Pakistani politicsexacerbated in this parliament by the oppositions belief that the prime minister was selected by the military rather than elected by the people, it must count as something of a victory for Khan that his remarks on America seemed to energize the housebut then anti-Americanism has always been a popular rallying call. For Sartaj Azizwho served in the previous administration as adviser to the prime minister on foreign affairsit is also an effective way of diverting the agenda from Khans domestic failings. Imrans stock is falling, and he sees this as a way of elevating himself, he told The Nation.

Aziz also suggested that Khan might have been lashing out at having been seemingly slighted by the Biden administration. Even though he became president in January, Joe Biden has apparently yet to make contact with Khan, and senior members of the US cabinet have repeatedly skipped Pakistan in their visits to the region. Just last week, Khans US-educated national security adviser, Moeed Yusuf, appeared to bristle at suggestions that Islamabad was being snubbed by Washington. If they dont want to speak to us, its up to them. No one here is waiting for their phone call.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

But while the US has yet to reach out to the Khan government, it has contacted the Pakistan military. Back in May, the US Charge dAffairs to Pakistan, Angela Aggeler, met with Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa to discuss matters of mutual interest and the possibility of strengthening ties. In the aftermath of Khans incendiary speech to parliament, some observers have even begun to speculate that the Prime Minister is trying to show the people that he is still calling the shots.

Whether or not this leads to the kind of protracted tussle between the political and military spheres that resulted in the ouster of former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, only time will tell. But what is certain is that the failure of the Biden administration to reach out has allowed Khan and his government to paint the United States as a cynical and exploitative superpower prone to pathological displays of irrationality. Speaking about General Musharrafs decision to join the War on Terror, Khan said, At the time, we were told that America was angry [after 9/11] and that like a wounded bear it could throw its claw anywhere. I used to ask repeatedly what business we had getting involved in that war. Al Qaeda and the Militant Taliban were in Afghanistan, not here.Related Articles

Pakistans relationship with America has been placed in sharp focus by the news that the United States is on the verge of withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan, something that has led many in Pakistan to draw parallels with the end of the Soviet Afghan war. Islamabad believeswith some justificationthat it was left to deal with the blowback of the Mujahideen and the resultant refugee crisis that enveloped the region. The subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan, catalyzed by the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, made Pakistan a frontline state in the War on Terror, according to Khan. I asked repeatedly what we had to do with that war, he said. Does any country get involved in anothers war and lose 70,000 lives? What they [America] said, we kept on doing. Musharraf said in his book that he took money and sent people to Guantnamo Bay.

In a lately resurfaced interview from January 2002, however, Khan appears to defend Musharrafs decision to join forces with America. Bearing in mind how opinion has changed since September 11I do not think the president had much choice. I think in the circumstances this is the best he could have done.

Still, what is clear despite the U-turn is that Khan is planning to fight the next election on an anti-America platform. Buoyed no doubt by the exploits of his foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who was given a heros welcome on his return to Pakistan after he accused Israel of having deep pockets in a CNN interview, it would appear that Khans strategy is to position himself as an Islamic leaderalbeit one that doesnt seem terribly interested in the plight of the Uighursat odds with the West and American Imperialism. Whether that will be enough to persuade voters disenchanted with his domestic performance remains to be seen. At the moment it would appear unlikely, but a week is a long time in politics and the next election is not for a couple of years.

Read the original post:

The US Finds Itself on the Wrong Side of Imran Khans Populism - The Nation

Photo: PA Images / Alamy Stock Photo

It is a sacred tenet for populists that they alone know what the people want. Common-sense Britain has, they insist, had enough of the woke, liberal nonsense peddled by an out-of-touch mainstream media which tells people what to think and what not to say. If theyre right, then there should be money in providing an alternative. Hence the idea for GB News, a new, Brexit-flavoured TV channel founded by telecoms executives Andrew Cole and Mark Schneider (both close to the right-wing American cable TV billionaire John Malone) and chaired by legendary ex-BBC journalist Andrew Neil.

Despite panic from hyperventilating liberals, it wasnt exactly meant to be a British Fox NewsOfcom regulations preclude thatbut hoped to serve neglected viewers beyond the supposed metropolitan bubble, airing arguments not broadcast elsewhere. The idea was to ditch conventional news bulletins for punchy debates likely to go viral on social media. There would be an upbeat patriotic twistno more talking Britains post-Brexit prospects downand dedicated good news slots. It launched on 13th June with a bang, although arguably not the one it wanted.

Bold choice to film it on a Nokia 3310, tweeted one viewer, as a nation peered into studios so under-lit it wasnt easy to see the presenters. An anti-lockdown monologue from the former Sun journalist turned GB News presenter Dan Wootton, accusing doomsday scientists of terrifying the public, sparked 390 complaints to Ofcom (the regulator subsequently ruled out further action). The next few days brought technical glitches that repeatedly cut guests off, prank calls (one video caller flashed his bare bottom on air), and the socialite Lady Colin Campbell insisting that the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein be described not as a paedophile but an ephebophile, a historic term for someone attracted to older teenagers. It was cult viewing in Westminster, if only because everyone was agog for the next disaster, and its first night viewing figures of 164,000 trumped Sky News. But as the novelty faded, so did the ratings.

By the end of June, audiences had halved, Welsh language versions of the childrens cartoon Paw Patrol were beating GB Newss flagship breakfast show, and star presenter Andrew Neil announced he was taking some time off to recharge his batteries. So why, when culture wars play so well politically for Boris Johnson, arent they translating better onto television?

One explanation is that GB News, whose projected 25m running costs are a quarter of Skys, is simply trying to do things too cheaply. Another is that the people arent quite what populists think. GB News is lockdown-sceptic, yet polling shows this is the view of a noisy minority, not the masses. Some fans may have booed England footballers taking the knee, but only one in five Britons oppose Black Lives Matter and over a third dont even know what woke means, according to pollsters Ipsos Mori. For all the sound and fury, culture wars are a niche pursuit. Britons would rather watch a boxset than a rant about Meghan Markle, which means the single biggest problem for GB News is getting noticed.

Johnson successfully bolted a base-rallying culture war onto an already established Tory brand. But GB News more resembles the anti-lockdown actor Laurence Foxs doomed run for London mayor; its a startup trying to break a market stacked against new entrants, where Netflix and YouTube are eating far bigger players for breakfast. (Rupert Murdochs News UK recently canned plans to start its own TV channel, concluding it wasnt viable in this climate.) Even if, as some suspect, the real intention is to shift the political dial or put pressure on the BBC, that wont happen unless viewers defect to GB News. The biggest threat to its survival isnt brands like Ikea pulling advertising in protest at its perceived valuesit thrives on that kind of controversybut pulling ads because nobodys actually watching.

Theres clearly a loyalif limitedmarket for GB News, much as there is for the Daily Express, and perhaps its backers are politically committed enough to subsidise it indefinitely. But if it cant scale up in the next few months, then a channel that lives by the mantra go woke, go broke could prove instead that populism isnt quite as popular as it thought.

See the original post:

What you need to know about GB News - Prospect Magazine

Pope Francis leads an audience with participants in the general assembly of the Focolare movement, in the Paul VI hall at the Vatican Feb. 6, 2021. The pope encouraged the movement to continue to grow in dialogue with the world today. (Photo: CNS/Vatican Media)

By Ins San Martn

ROME (Crux) One of the projects most dear to Pope Francis is having the first part of its fourth edition on Friday, before continuing in September.

The Fourth World Meeting of Popular Movements will bring together activists from the most marginalized communities of society in the most visible example of the popularism the pontiff has proposed to counter the populism that has been sweeping many nations around the world.

A preparatory meeting is taking place in the Vatican on Friday via Zoom, due to the pandemic sponsored by the Dicastery for Integral Human Development.

The Vatican office said the meeting is in response to the invitation of Pope Francis that the poor and organized communities do not become resigned and to become the protagonists of the change process.

The World Meeting of Popular Movements the first of which was held in the Vatican in 2014 promotes popular movements and organizations coming together to fight bravely but without arrogance, with determination but without violence, for human dignity, nature, and social justice.

Among those who will participate in the meeting is Gloria Morales, who arrived in the United States from Mexico as an illegal immigrant when she was 16. Now a U.S. citizen, she works with the PICO Network, a grassroots faith-based social justice network.

Having the worldwide meeting of the popular movements, especially amidst the COVID-19 crisis, is very important, because it gives people the opportunity to come together, think about and come to conclusions regarding how different popular movements confronted the situation, she told Crux over the phone on Wednesday. As Pope Francis said, we either come out better or worse.

She said she hopes that the outcome of the meeting will be a document on the rights to access to land, jobs, and housing, which will be given to Pope Francis.

What can we do so that the neediest and most abandoned of communities can also have a chance to thrive in life? Morales said.

Although critics have accused the popularism promoted by the World Meeting of Popular Movements as just a socialist version of populism, Morales said its not about socialism, but about doing things right.

She said when assistance is allocated to help the poor, that money should reach the poor instead of remaining in the pockets of a few people. When goods are exported, the people who actually produced them should make enough money to survive.

In many cases, people dont have the opportunity to work their own land because there are no economic benefits from doing so, she said, adding that in many places, including Mexico, laborers also have to factor in the impact of organized crime.

The fact that grassroots movements are coming together with the support of the Vatican, Morales said, means that Im not the only person who thinks that a fairer distribution of wealth is possible. And seeing that Im inspired by my faith in this, having the support of the Holy Father means a lot to me.

After the first meeting in 2014, the second took place the next year in Bolivia, with Pope Francis taking part and delivering a poignant speech that is often referred to as a mini-social encyclical.

During that speech, the pontiff gave the popular movement three major tasks: To place the economy at the service of the people, to unite people on the road to peace and justice, and to defend mother Earth.

The third world meeting took place in the Vatican in 2016.

The fourth meeting will discuss the impact of COVID on the most excluded people and the other dilemmas facing humanity today.

It makes me very emotional to know that a person like Pope Francis is supporting us, having our back, because it creates even more commitment from the part of each one of us to help the other, Morales said.

Having seen many opportunities pass me by because she didnt have her papers in order, today she feels motivated to help the over 11 million people in the United States who came here to make a better life for themselves but cannot do so because they are illegal.

Its not OK to criminalize them for the fact that they wanted a better life for their children or because they were fleeing organized crime, Morales said. Ive always had that passion to help migrants, [which is the] reason why in our community we have an office through which we help people become legal citizens.

Jesus himself was someone who made people uncomfortable in his decision to help others, she said. He gave his last drop of blood to help me, so how could I not try to do the same to help others?

Morales is convinced that the Catholic Church is a mother of the people, and its role is to embrace all people, and the pope is not just the pope of Catholics, but for all people.

Pope Francis, she said, is making a difference, hes truly being a pastor and asking his own people to smell like the sheep, to actually do the work, make people uncomfortable, as Jesus did.

People dont always like to hear the truth, and I dont think that the pope is supporting socialism, but the Church is called to embrace everyone, she said, referring to the many voices that are critical of the social movements.

Those who are critical of the pope supporting us, maybe have to ask themselves what are they afraid of having their money disappear? Being called or inspired through prayer if theyre believers to help others, better distribute their wealth through, for instance, paying their workers a fair wage?

Read the original:

Vatican Meeting of Popular Movements to Work for 'Fairer World' - The Tablet Catholic Newspaper

What is populism?

Thats a vexed question. Populism is usually described as a strategic approach that frames politics as a battle between the virtuous, ordinary masses and a nefarious or corrupt elite.

It can be used by politicians who are either left- or rightwing, and occasionally neither.

It is not sustained by a single consistent ideology or issue position. In the words of the leading populism scholar Cas Mudde, it is a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the pure people versus the corrupt elite.

He also says that populists tend argue that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people, while others stress populists often have a Manichean world view, breaking politics into a binary view of good or evil.

For example, in the words of the archpopulist Donald Trump, from his January 2017 inauguration address: For too long, a small group in our nations capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Populism is as old as democracy itself. The sophists of Athens golden age were at it hundreds of years before Julius Caesar brought his populist touch to the Roman republic.

From the 19th century, populist instincts can be detected in pro-peasantry agitation by Russian intellectuals in the 1860s and an agrarian movement in the US that grew into the Peoples party 20 years later.

In the mid-20th century, academics have used the p-word to describe everything from Peronism in Argentina and McCarthyism in the US, to Nassers Egypt and the Poujadiste movement led by Pierre Poujade in 1950s France.

Given so many politicians of such different stripes can be populist, some argue the term is useless. But with so-called populists on the left and right experiencing a resurgence in the 21st century, the term is once again in the spotlight.

On the right, Trump, Viktor Orbn, Rodrigo Duterte and Matteo Salvini are often characterised as populists and so too is the Tea party movement that emerged out of the 2008 financial crisis.

Scholars have long-described some leftist politicians, particularly in Latin America, as populists, such as Bolivias Evo Morales, Mexicos Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador or the late Venezuela president Hugo Chavez. In Spain, the anti-austerity party Podemos is characterised as populist, and so too is the Democratic senator Bernie Sanders in the US.

Not everyone agrees about all this. The influential political scientist Jan-Werner Mller has cast doubt on whether some of these leftists are true populists.

Absolutely not. One of the reasons the word has proven so problematic is that politicians who adopt populist styles or their supporters balk at the idea they should be compared to their opposites on the ideological spectrum. The fact a politicians uses a populist strategy does not need to define them. Their dominant ideology socialist, neoliberal, authoritarian can be much more relevant to the kind of politician they are.

Some scholars argue rightwing populists tend to be exclusionary (omitting, say, migrants or ethnic minorities from their conception of a virtuous people), whereas leftwing populists have a broader, inclusive concept of who counts as the people.

Increasingly so. Populists have broken through in India, Mexico, the Philippines, Brazil and the US to win power in recent years.

In Europe, Guardian research has established that populists have tripled their vote over the past 20 years, such that more than one in four Europeans voted for populist parties on average at their last election. While 12.5 million Europeans lived in a country with at least one populist cabinet member in 1998, in 2018 that had risen more than tenfold, to 170.2 million.

In Germany, the far-right populist party Alternative fur Deutschland increased its vote more than sixfold in 2017 to become the third-largest party in parliament. In Italy, populists performed even better in 2018, with three populist parties in the top five, gaining between them more than half of the vote.

In the UK, Ukip drove its vote tally from 100,000 in 1997 to almost 4 million in 2015, though it fell back two years later once the partys core policy leaving the EU had been all but delivered in the 2016 referendum.

In the past 10 years, populists have also gained power in Greece, Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic, and a have share of power in Austria and Norway.Why have the new populists emerged now?

Globalisation. Recession. Mass migration. Soaring inequality. The perceived failure of the political establishment to deal with any of the above. A slew of factors have combined in recent years to create the impression some would say, the reality that the world is run by plutocrats, oligarchs and semi-detached politicians in the interests of the few not the many.

A quarter of a billion people are on the move around the world, providing more ammunition than ever before for rightwing populists who argue that political elites have failed to get a handle on the kind of immigration that they say threatens jobs, wages and social cohesion.

Meanwhile, the number of billionaires has jumped fivefold in the last 20 years, to more than 2,200, according to Forbes, as globalisation opened up new markets for entrepreneurs to tap while at the same time making it possible to shield capital, assets and income from the taxman. The worlds eight richest people own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion. The amount of money offshored by the financial elite is put at as much as 10 trillion thats a number with 13 zeroes.

But there are also many non-economic factors that may offer partial explanations for populisms rise: a cultural backlash against elites, a technological revolution that has rewired our politics, a convergence of now indistinguishable left and right political parties on a technocratic centre.

Exactly what mix of factors has created such a fertile backdrop for populists is a subject of much debate. But as Benjamin Moffitt puts it in his book, The Global Rise of Populism: The time is ripe for canny political actors who can speak effectively in the name of the people to make great political gains.

By definition, yes. Populists operate within democratic systems, even though, once in power, some have a habit of chipping away at the tenets of liberal democracy, as Orbn has done in Hungary.

In fact, it could be argued that as populism galvanises a large, disillusioned base of overlooked voters and offers them fresh representation, it is quintessentially democratic.

That depends on who you ask. It is probably fair to say populism has acquired negative associations, particularly in Europe, where divisive rightwing populists are on the rise. Research by a global network of academics Team Populism found that by privileging majority rule populists often erode tents of liberal democracy like minority rights and the separation of powers. But they say that populists in government can also have a modest, positive effect on voter turnout and dignify forgotten sectors of the population.

Some leftwing political theorists, such as the late Argentinian academic Ernesto Laclau and his widow, Chantal Mouffe, at the University of Westminster, have long argued that populism is an effective political strategy that can and should be used to revitalise politics on the left.

Populists tend to resort to a similar kind of rhetoric to win over their audiences. Kirk Hawkins, an associate professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, says it is not as simple as a single word or a catchphrase; a broad rhetorical lexicon tends to recur in populist oratory.

You will see a leader talk about ordinary people in a way that reifies and romanticises them, he says. Examples might be referring to the will of the people or dropping in adjectives such as ordinary, hard-working or taxpaying to describe the noble masses.

The other element you will see is a reference to the evil elite, Hawkins says. One thing youll see is an emphasis on things that are clearly meant to question their fundamental dignity as political actors if not human beings.

It is time to free the French people from an arrogant elite Marine Le Pen

People want to take back control of their countries and they want to take back control of their lives and the lives of their family Donald Trump

The European elite has failed, and this failures symbol is the European Commission Victor Orban

Brexit was about ordinary people rising up to defeat the establishment and weve now seen the same happen in the US Nigel Farage

Some resort to nicknames to vilify their opponents Crooked Hilary, for example. Theyll use verbs and adjectives to describe actions to show its not just incompetence but an intentional betrayal, Hawkins says.

But it is not just what they say but how they say it. Some academics argue that populism necessarily comes with a performative element: it is about the style, the show. Charismatic populists need crowds, a stage, the limelight, usually coupled with a plain-speaking approach that everyone will understand.

Populist politicians are revolutionising the ways in which politics is being performed, and they are performing it, says Claudia Alvares, an associate professor at Lusfona University in Lisbon. They are not just operating within rightwing or leftwing boundaries because it transcends those affiliations. It is more of a style.Who votes populist?

Support for populism strongly correlates with lower personal life satisfaction, frustration with democracy and how it is working, and conspiratorial thinking among voters. Blame is a standard populist tool.

On the other hand, minorities of all stripes tend to reject populists because of the narrative, on the right, that identifies the people in nativist terms as those who have historically inhabited a country.

A Guardian quiz, devised by political scientists, but answered by a self-selecting group of readers, found that almost half a million respondents subdivided as follows:

It depends on the populist. Technically speaking, some argue the opposite of populism would be pluralism or elitism.

But different populists have varied adversaries: the Davos set, the Bilderberg group, Christian democrats, social democrats, liberals, technocrats, centrists, totalitarians, minorities. (And journalists.)

Latin America faces a big moment in 2019, as its two most populous countries, Brazil and Mexico, are to governed by populist leaders Jair Bolsonaro and Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador that come from opposites sides of the political spectrum.

A few months later, Asias two biggest democracies will hold general elections. In India, the rightwing populist Narendra Modi looks likely to secure re-election in spring polls. Indonesia faces its own high noon in April with a populist challenger to the incumbent, Joko Widodo.

The European parliament elections of next May will be key in assessing populist progress on the continent. Hitherto populists of the right and left have been fairly marginalised, with just a few dozen seats in the 751-seat parliament.

Besides that, there are elections next year in Finland, Ukraine, Belgium and Denmark, in which populist parties will be vigorously contesting seats.

Populism: A Very Short Introduction by Cas Mudde and Cristbal Rovira Kaltwasser

The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation by Benjamin Moffitt

For a Left Populism, Chantal Mouffe

What is populism? by Team Populism

Read the original post:

How to spot a populist | World news | The Guardian

This year's Global Media Forum (GMF) brings together media professionals and decision-makers from across the globe under the banner of "Disruption and Innovation."

In a nod to an unprecedented year, the 14th annual event, which is heldon June 14 andJune 15, will take an in-depth look at how journalism is faring in an age of disinformation and whether it can find a way to turn the tables back in the direction of truth and accuracy.

Following opening remarks by DW Director General Peter Limbourg, a number of high-profile speakers from Germany will kick off the event, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, Christian Democratic (CDU)chancellor candidate Armin Laschet and Green party chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock. These will be followed by a number of other renowned figures from across the globe, includingRappler CEO Maria Ressa, American historian Timothy Snyder, cognitive scientistSteven Pinker and Nobel Peace Laureate Leymah Gbowee, hailing from civil society, culture and the sciences.

The unbridled power of social media

Among them is Brazilian Felipe Neto, whose battle against censorship has made him a divisive figure in Brazil and beyond, landing him with death threats and defamation campaigns for taking President Jair Bolsonaro to task.

"When we are facing fascism and fascists, everyone who decides to stay silent is an accomplice of this fascist regime,"he told DW.

Brazilian entertainer and vlogger Felipe Neto has millions of followers across the globe

"It's just very shameful in my point of viewthat artists and influencers are deciding to stay silent when we have this regime that is taking over Brazil. I stand by myopinionand I believe you cannot stay silent when you are facing someone like Jair Bolsonaro."

With 17 million subscribers on YouTube and a following of 41 million worldwide, Neto knows firsthand how influential social media can be.

"If you are followed by a million people, then a million people can be misinformed if you tell a lie or say something just from the top of your head without researching. That's basically the responsibility that I take very seriously," he said.

Simon Kolawoleagrees that big social platforms like Twitter and Facebook are a double-edged sword for mass information.

"Social media can be used as a force for good and bad. While the big platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, have greatly helped with the distribution and amplification of reportsby the professional media, they have also provided the biggest space formobs to congregate and pontificate."

Nigerian journalist Simon Kolawole warns social media has opened the door to 'mob censorship'

The slate of GMF panelists will also include social media leaders, like Jesper Doub, Facebook's Director of News Partnerships, and Philip Justus, Google's vice president for Central Europe.

Creating a safe space for journalists

Another rising concern in journalism, especially with regard to the influence of technologies like social media and surveillance, is that of personal safety not just from physical attacks and harassment, but also from prosecution.

Irene Khan, who will be speaking about media freedom, fears for the lives of journalists especially women. As UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression, she has observed a worrying trend, and is fighting to reverse it.

Journalism is an 'essential element of the modern information ecosystem,' says UN special rapporteur Irene Khan

"Journalists rely on access to sources who feel sufficiently safe to share information on sensitive matters. All too often, journalists suffer reprisals for their investigative work, and are often forced to reveal their sources who then are also often harassed, attacked, prosecuted," she told DW.

Another speaker weighing on the topic attacks on freedom of speech and the need for diverse voices in the media is Turkish-British novelistElif Shafak.

"Coming from a country like Turkey, I do know that words can be heavy because of something you say in an interview. Because of something you write in a book you can be put on trial, you can be demonized, you can be attacked and targeted on social media and media," she told DW.

Turkish-British author Elif Shafak uses fiction to give 'a voice to the voiceless'

"We live in a world that does not celebrate or understand multiplicity, and we're constantly being reduced down to narrow identities or just threats of identities. I want to be able to celebrate multiplicity."

Broadcasters need meaningful legislation

This year's Global Media Forum will also focus on solutions to propel journalism forward. One driving trend, at least where Europe is concerned, will be strengthening public broadcasters, says Noel Curran, the director general of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

"During the COVID-19 lockdown, public service media stepped up, providing trustworthy news,educationand much-needed entertainment.Audience figures show that the public turned to our members in large numbers," he told DW.

EBU Director General Noel Curran: 'It's always been our job to ensure that governments, authorities and audiences understand the critical role that public service media plays in society'

Securing funding for these broadcasters post-COVID will be crucial, and to do so, the EU will need to pass "meaningful platform legislation."

"There is an urgent need to secure Europe's digital sovereignty so the next generations can continue to benefit from strong public service media," he said.

This year's event is free of charge to the public. Clickhereto register for your free digital pass.

Federal Chancellor of Germany

Leader of Germanys governing CDU party and candidate for federal chancellor in the 2021 elections as well as incumbent Minister-President of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia.

US-American cognitive scientist at Harvard University and popular writer on language, mind, and human nature

Chairwoman of the Green Party of Germany and candidate for federal chancellor in the 2021 elections

Minister of State for International Cultural Policy at the German Federal Foreign Office

Palestinian-Israeli video blogger who first became an online hit by creating 1,000 daily 1-minute videos on Facebook

Director General of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC)

Leading Belarusian opposition leader and candidate in the 2020 presidential election

Best-selling US-American author and Professor for History at Yale University. His words are quoted in political demonstrations around the world, most recently in Hong Kong.

Celebrated Filipino journalist and CEO of the news website Rappler

Vice President Central Europe, Google

Taiwans Digital Minister, is also a prominent advocate of media literacy and digital competence - both of which Tang regards as foundations of democracies.

Digital Director at BBC News. She oversees BBC News digital and social strategy and product development on all digital channels.

One of the most watched youtubers worldwide from Brazil and one of TIME magazines 100 most influential personalities in 2020.

Vice-President for Values and Transparency in the EU Commission

Peace activist, determined fighter for womens rights and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2011 from Liberia

Director of Media Partnerships Europe, Middle East and Africa at Facebook

Pulizer Prize winning US-American historian and journalist

Investigative journalist, producer and Director General of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)

UN Rapporteur on Promotion of Freedom of Expression

See the original post:

Global Media Forum to focus on effects of disinformation, populism - DW (English)

OTTAWA -- Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella marked her last day on the bench on Friday, a day she says was filled with emotion and reflection of the long and decorated career path that got her to this point.

In an exclusive interview on CTVs Question Period airing Sunday, Abella said she thought about her parents, her husband, and her two sons before she said goodbye to a seat she was appointed to 17 years ago.

I thought of my family, I thought of the people I went on this journey with. I thought of my parents, who encouraged me to be whatever I wanted to be. I thought of my husband, who was married to the only woman he knew, she said.

I thought of my kids, my amazing two sons, their wonderful wives and my grandchildren. So it was a day to think about origins, because when you come to endings you start to give yourself permission to think about the arc and where it began.

Friday was the last hearing of the spring session and Abellas last day, but she will officially retire on July 1, 2021, on her 75th birthday. She will continue to work on judgments for cases shes heard for up to six months after retirement.

Abella was born to Holocaust survivors in a Displaced Person's Camp in Stuttgart, Germany on July 1, 1946. They moved to Canada as refugees in 1950 and despite the horror they witnessed, she said her home was filled with optimism.

I never, never felt anyone had a happier home than I did, notwithstanding what they'd gone through. That to me is the ongoing miracle of their life, the way they reconstituted their lives here in Canada, and the way they never stopped being grateful to the country, for all of the opportunities it gave their children, she said.

Her quest for justice was sparked after her father, a trained lawyer, wasnt able to practice when he arrived in Canada because he wasnt a citizen.

In 1976, she was appointed to the Ontario Family Court and was the first pregnant person appointed to the judiciary in Canada. She was then appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992.

I didnt know any other mothers who were lawyers and then when I got appointed to the bench and was pregnant with our younger son, there were no women on the Family Court bench at the time, Family Court bench, no women. So, I had no idea how this was going to work out, none, because I had nobody to look to to say, You can do this, this can work. So, my husband and I just kind of worked together in a way that we thought worked best for us and for our kids, she said.

In 1984, she was appointed as the commissioner of the royal commission on equality in the workforce, famously coining the term employment equity. Her work in that report was adopted by the governments of Canada, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and South Africa.

Asked whether its this accomplishment that shes most proud of, Abella said shes found pride in many of her legal experiences.

I was very proud of being able to be a lawyer, having clients that I could steer towards a remedy that made them comfortable. I loved being a family court judge and learning how to judge, she said.

So I mean if you want me to identify one legal item, it's, I guess it's the chance to have had so many of those legal experiences.

In 2004, she made her debut at the Supreme Court of Canada becoming the first Jewish woman to hold the position.

Years later, delivering a speech at Brandeis University in Massachusetts while accepting an honorary degree, she told a crowd of faculty, staff and graduates that she was deeply worried about the state of justice in the world.

She spoke about the Second World War and the commitment made by nations to unite in democratic solidarity to protect values that prevent war and human rights abuses.

Yet here we are in 2017, barely seven decades later, watching never again turn into again and again, and watching that wonderful democratic consensus fragment, shattered by narcissistic populism, an unhealthy tolerance for intolerance, a cavalier indifference to equality, a deliberate amnesia about the instruments and values of democracy that are no less crucial than elections, and a shocking disrespect for the borders between power and its independent adjudicators like the press and the courts.

On CTVs Question Period, she said this concern remains top of mind.

It is terrifying to me, because I think if there is failure of rights somewhere, there is a failure of rights potentially everywhere and the greater our tolerance becomes for abuses that we shouldn't for a second tolerate, the less we become the world that I was born into, in 1946, she said, adding the global community has lost the ability to enforce moral standards.

We've demonized the words of democracy, we've replaced majority, minority relationships and the balancing with populism, with authoritarianism, with crushing the media, crushing the independence of the judiciary, crushing the independence of the bar and the rights of minorities And we read about it all the time and we worry about it all the time and nothing happens.

On criticism that the courts, because of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are taking too prominent a role in Canadian society and infringing on the roles and responsibilities of elected officials, Abella said we never didnt stick to our lane.

We interpret statutes, we interpret laws and policies, and we interpret constitutions and the constitution since 1982 including the protection of rights, human rights and civil liberties.

She added that while interpreting and enforcing a set of rights might end up upsetting people, judges have tenures, so that they can protect their impartiality, cannot be removed from office until they're 75 for decisions they make that are unpopular because that's not our role, we're not there to be popular.

Above all else, she said Canadians should be reassured by their judicial system and the judges who work within it.

The good faith in Canada's judges, the wisdom and the intelligence is extraordinary. I don't have a slight hesitation, their ability to deliver justice to the Canadian public.

Read more here:

Retiring Supreme Court judge Abella on dangers of populism, the role of the courts and a cherished family life - CTV News

However, in the run up to the second round the more centrist candidates joined forces pushing centre-right candidate Guillermo Lasso to a surprise victory in the runoff, Sones said. Following that result, short-term Ecuadorean bonds went from languishing in the US$50 range following Arauzs primary win to more than US$80 after Lassos victory.

Of course, things could play out much less favourably, as they did for Argentina. Sones recounted how in 2018, then-president Mauricio Macri took on an ambitious program of fiscal restraint and structural renewal as the country had just been the beneficiary of the largest IMF bailout ever up to that point. While that austerity program delighted global debt investors, it sorely tested the electorate and, in 2019, they voted to replace Macri with centre-left populist Alberto Fernandez.

Since then, the fiscal deficit has worsened, and the Argentinian peso has tumbled, Sones said, noting that the country last year defaulted on its debt for the ninth time in its history, leaving its bonds trading at roughly 35 cents on the U.S. dollar today. Meanwhile, foreign currency reserves are near zero making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Argentina to make debt payments to the IMF or anyone else.

Those contrasting examples, he said, show just how divergent the fortunes of EMs can be, and how some EM bonds suppressed by political concerns might see their price appreciate substantially if concerns surrounding them prove unwarranted. Beyond that, developing economies that are highly exposed to the global economy today may be able to take advantage of a post-COVID recovery tomorrow.

In todays environment, with yields low and spreads between bond classes tight, it makes sense for fixed income investors to have the flexibility to consider some EM bond exposure that might take advantage of situations where politics and economic reform are in play, Sones said. The risks, however, can be high, and it is important to be thoughtful and avoid bias.

See the rest here:

Considering populism's impact in the EM bond space - Wealth Professional

As the economy prepares to re-open, many of us are full of pent-up energy, with plans of what wed like to do, and were in no mood to be judged or controlled by others.

Funnily enough, however, were also approaching the re-opening afflicted by various forms of fatigue: tired by Covid, tired of politicians, exhausted by the corruption.

We know theyre important but were not in a mood to sit and listen to more information. We just want to get up and go.

Its all understandable but heres why its important to see that corruption isnt just something you learn about. Its something that blocks you and shackles you from doing what you want to do. Its not the corruption revelations that weigh you down: it is the corruption itself.

The vicious circle is all documented. Transparency International looks at the impact of corruption on growth and inequality. It does not take a moralistic perspective. It simply focuses on corruption as an obstacle to economic growth, with a corrosive impact on business operations.

Ultimately, says Transparency International: Corruption is costly for companies There is a strong business case for fighting corruption. At the company level, corruption raises costs, introduces uncertainties, reputational risks and vulnerability to extortion. It depresses a companys valuations, makes access to capital more expensive and undermines fair competition While facilitation payments typically consist of small amounts, they can add up to substantial amounts when aggregated at the company, national or global level.

Transparency International also highlights that corruption affects inequality and income distribution. We can certainly see this is undeniably true of Malta.

As Noel Grima wrote in this paper a month ago, There is now incontrovertible proof that the years the Labour Party has been in office did not really benefit the social class a socialist government should be defending and promoting the poor.

Grima analysed the report published by The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, known as Eurofound. It found that the bottom half of Maltese society, which in 2010 owned 14% of total national wealth, by 2017 found it was owning just 10%.

In short, in just seven years, the poorer half of Malta saw its share of the nations wealth go down by a third of what it used to be.

And the richest 5% of the Maltese population, which under the capitalist PN administration owned one third of the national wealth, by 2017 was owning 40%.

In other words, the poor are getting poorer, and the super-rich are getting much richer.

Labour went into government mouthing the mantra that they would be eradicating poverty. They promised meritocracy (ha!). All they did was spout slogans against the establishment while secretly striking deals with a favoured few within it.

According to a study called A Political Theory of Populism, authored by Daron Acemoglu, Georgy Egorov and Konstantin Sonin, and published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2013, the year Joseph Muscat came to power:

There has recently been a resurgence of populist politicians in several developing countries, particularly in Latin America. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Kirchners in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Alan Garca in Peru, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador are some of the examples. The label populist is often used to emphasize that these politicians use a rhetoric that aggressively defends the interests of the common man against the privileged elite.

Of course, at the time, Joseph Muscat was about to become the notorious populist he turned out to be, but he would have fit the same profile as the Latin American leaders mentioned in the article.

The same authors quote another study, which states: Populist regimes have historically tried to deal with income inequality problems through the use of overly expansive macroeconomic policies. These policies, which have relied on deficit financing, generalized controls, and a disregard for basic economic equilibria, have almost unavoidably resulted in major macroeconomic crises that have ended up hurting the poorer segments of society.

Sounds familiar, doesnt it? In Malta, Muscat was the protagonist of this movement. He left nothing to chance. He deliberately did what he did. Sadly, he had no plans for this countrys future economic growth and instead focused on the short-term business cycles in which he and his friends were (and are still) involved in a huge money-making political scam. He sold himself and his famous roadmap as the solution to the countrys problems, but his intentions were far from noble.

Muscat is no longer the Prime Minister of this country. Invictus left the scene with the award of the most corrupt leader in the world. Our country is sadly still caught up in the mess he left behind.

Corruption and populism have blurred our vision. In the eyes of many, politicians have all become not just dirty, but totally filthy. People are finding it hard to tell apart the clean politicians from the ones who gave us all such a bad name.

I honestly hope we all see the danger of the situation we are in. Our democracy will suffer if we do not collectively make an effort to change. This is not the responsibility of just a few of us. We all have to work hard towards this, not from the ivory tower but by rolling up our sleeves to clean up our country once and for all.

View post:

Corruption and populism - Malta Independent Online

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

The wrongheaded but ubiquitous notion that the Republican Amerikaner Trump base is the (um, white) working-class drawn to populism has been disproven in study after study showing that the Trumpenvolk are relatively affluent, not proletarian and poor, and driven by an ugly, mutually reinforcing mixture of racism, sexism, nativism, fundamentalism, and authoritarianism.

Those who have habitually called the backers of Trump and his white nationalist party working class have tended to badly conflate education level and region of residence with class. They have fallen for the foolish notion that someone is working class and economically anxious simply because one does not possess a college degree and/or lives in a region that does not contribute much to the national gross domestic product.

They ignore evidence available in social science and everyday observation showing that the main thing driving the right-wing and frankly (though they wont say so and indeed often recoil against the description) fascist (not populist) sentiments of the Amerikaner Trumpenvolk is racist patriarchal authoritarian nationalism, not economic anxiety.

Whats it all about? I get why the working class [well, um, white working-class] Trump base narrative is strong on the right. Snotty corporate Republicans in the Fred Whirlpool Upton-Liz Cheney-National Review mode like to blame the takeover of their right-wing party by the lowbrow variant of white nationalism (Trumpism) on uncouth trailer trash. Classism provides them a convenient explanation for how the racist and reactionary politics they helped cultivate for decades became a tariff-bashing, coup-plotting Frankensteins monster beyond their control.

At the same time, Republicans in the Trump mode enjoy and embrace the populist and working class mantle, wrapping their virulently racist, sexist, ecocidal and stealthily plutocratic politics in the deceptive flag of the forgotten working men and women (but men primarily) of the heartland.

But why is the false (um, white) Trumpenproletarian narrative so widely shared in the center and even on the left? Neoliberal Democrats in the Clinton-Obama-Citigroup-Council on Foreign Relations-Third Way mode like the empirically unsupported storyline because it helps to justify their own long progressive-neoliberal (historian Nancy Frasers clever if oxymoronic phrase) flight from working-class causes and so-called populism to the corporate and managerial center-right. If the (um, white) proletariat is a reactionary basket of deplorables, to use Hillary Clintons colorful but impolitic 2016 language, well, then the Hell with the working-class and with populism.

Okay, but what about Bernie Sanders, and several progressive intellectuals Id rather not name, who seem irretrievably fixated basic data and social science be damned on the notion that the Trumpenvolk is composed of potentially progressive proletarian victims of neoliberalism to whom Democrats and the left must reach out? What is their foolish, anti-science judgement all about?

I have theories about this. Part of it, I suspect, is a kind of intellectual laziness and a certain data-phobic innumeracy related to a faux-left refusal to engage with quantitative social-scientific findings generated by the bourgeois academy. Theres work involved with data, work that has nothing to do with how many volumes of Marx or David Harvey or Chomsky or Zizek youve read. Without digging into the data, or at least into the work of people who dug into the data, one is left with the dominant and superficial political reporting, which has been running with the Trumpenproletarian (white) narrative from day one. The idea of Trumps base as working class has been planted by sheer repetition in the heads of even leading Left thinkers by the mainstream media. It resonates with the lefties memory of that [excessively praised 2004] Thomas Frank book on Kansas (Whats the Matter with Kansas? which left out race) and perhaps with their anecdotal knowledge of some local white guy Teamster who voted for Obama in 2012 but for Trump in 2016 and 2020.

Another part of it, I suspect, is that many people on the left, and this applies particularly to left intellectuals and academics, have little if any contact with actual human beings on the Trumpist right. They rarely or never talk to or closely observe the real socialism-loathing Trump base, much of which is far from proletarian and poor and little of which can ever be won over to Medicare for All and a Green New Deal (or even to the re-empowerment of unions). This also predisposes them towards acceptance of the ubiquitous mainstream narrative of Trumpism as white-proletarian populism.

Another part of it, I suspect, is the widespread refusal of many on the Left to acknowledge that Trump and Trumpism were and are neofascist. If you buy into the silly academic and journalistic notion that Trumpism is populism, you are likely to see working-class (um, white) content in it and blow-off actual research proving otherwise.

Another part of it, I suspect, is the tendency on the left to automatically associate any legitimate concerns with sexism, racism, nativism, transphobia, and homophobia with bourgeois identity politics. As you try to explain that reactionary social sentiments and related political authoritarianism, not economic populism and anxiety, are the real driving passions behind the Amerikaner base, these leftists curl up their faces in disgust and charge identity politics! as if being a Lefitst interested in building popular solidarity against capitalism-imperialism doesnt mean steadfastly opposing racism, nativism, sexism, trans-bashing, and homophobia.

And here, at the risk of being accused of that horrible sin bourgeois/PMC identity politics (false: I am a full-on communist opponent of capitalist class rule) I will (yes, anecdotally) observe that preponderant majority of avowed lefties who have curled their lips and advanced to me the empirically unsupported Trumpenproletarian thesis are themselves older and straight white males. Sometimes I wonder if they hold the thesis in part because they share at least some of the rights white patriarchal revulsion against anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-nativism, anti-transphobia, and anti-homophobia. At the same time, their white male privilege (the ones I hear from are typically quite comfortably situated) insulates them from the dangerous white nationalist sentiments and forces afoot in the land. Calling Trumps base working class gives them a way of stealthily putting a left spin on white male reaction and indifference. How pathetic.

More here:

From What to Why on the Trump Proletarian Narrative - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch