Europe's Populist Left

[Admiral Yi]

Basically, if you're riling up the people (or tapping into pre-existing somewhat incoherent dissatisfaction) and going on about how the system is messed up and these basic, common-sense solutions that you're proposing will make things better you're a populist (if your message resonates with sectors of the populace).

The various anti-EU, anti-immigrant parties that have risen across Europe are populist, for example, and their economic policies don't follow any particularly clear line as far as I can tell (other than generally favouring the interests of the population groups that buy into - or are likely to buy into - the anti-EU or anti-immigrant line).

This broad definition works better for European anti-immigration than it does economic populism.  3rd World fuel subsidies, for example, (the classic case of economic populism) don't need a vague sense of dissatisfaction as a starting point; rather they rely on the fact that voters reward people who give them free stuff.

Also have issues with Shelf's establishment/populist dychotomy.  The Mexican PRI was the populist establishment for 50 years.

I posit two types of populism, economic and ethnic, and that they are too different for a single definition to include both (without sweeping in most of politics).

[Martinus]

is there a left that isn't populist when push comes to shove?

is there a right or any successful party that isn't populist, at all?

The right has made quite a good political fare out of demonising gays, immigrants or sexually active women - that's pure populism.

[Sheilbh]

Indeed. Yi's "definition" strikes me as an attempt to definte populism to it only applies to the populists he doesn't like...

The current Tea Party inanity, for example, is certainly populist. A perfect example is the right's current views on immigration. Pure populism of the worst kind, IMO.

And I'd add that in my view populism isn't a negative term. In the UK I think Thatcher was a populist politician and so was Tony Blair.

Part of the reason I think UKIP, the SNP and the Greens are rising in the UK is that all of the mainstream parties are too compromised to run a populist campaign. The Lib Dems could've before they entered coalition; Miliband's as populist (and popular) as a seminar on Polanyi; and David Cameron's an establishment man to his very bones.

By contrast Thatcher never stopped being a grocer's daughter from Lincolnshire and Tony Blair was able to method act his man of the people routine.

Also have issues with Shelf's establishment/populist dychotomy.  The Mexican PRI was the populist establishment for 50 years.

I'd probably limit my analysis to actual democratic countries which Mexico wasn't for most of those 50 years. In unfree countries I agree there's a different dynamic.

[Razgovory]

I think that populism is more about trying to draw a distinction the common people and the "elites".  Pretty much every successful politician in the Democratic West is a populist.

[mongers]

...
And I'd add that in my view populism isn't a negative term. In the UK I think Thatcher was a populist politician and so was Tony Blair

By contrast Thatcher never stopped being a grocer's daughter from Lincolnshire and Tony Blair was able to method act his man of the people routine.
...

Sometimes the mask slipped; chatting with a friend yesterday, he said he met Mrs Thatcher twice, whilst she was opposition leader she had a house nearly opposite his motorcycle shop on/nr the Kings road, he and his friend used to chat with the policeman on outside duty and bring them the occasional cup of tea. He said on a couple of occasions whilst he and a friend were passing the time of day with the copper, she passed them going into the house. The politely said hello etc and on both occasions she completely blank them.  I think she was actually rather a snob, you just had to look a little past the veneer.

[Sheilbh]

Well yeah, there was always an element of Hyacinth Bucket about her.

[mongers]

Well yeah, there was always an element of Hyacinth Bucket about her.

Yeah to me it was very obvious, barely concealed, whereas Blair was much more successful with his act.

[Jacob]

This broad definition works better for European anti-immigration than it does economic populism.  3rd World fuel subsidies, for example, (the classic case of economic populism) don't need a vague sense of dissatisfaction as a starting point; rather they rely on the fact that voters reward people who give them free stuff.

Well, yeah, Economic Populism is more specific than Populism. I'd argue it's a subset. But I think my definition holds - Economic Populism relies on simple common sense solutions to a complex issue; fuel subsidies are pretty simple and common sense, and does nothing to address the complexities of the situation.

Also have issues with Shelf's establishment/populist dychotomy.  The Mexican PRI was the populist establishment for 50 years.

Populists tend to try to hang on to their populist credentials even when they get power; many do so for a while (see the common tactic of incumbents in the US running against "politics as usual" and "Washington insiders").

I posit two types of populism, economic and ethnic, and that they are too different for a single definition to include both (without sweeping in most of politics).

I remain more comfortable with my taxonomy, where economic populism is a subset of general populism. As Marty notes non-economic populism doesn't have to be ethnic - issues of sexuality can be used as populist fodder, for example. I'd argue that things such as gun control and religious bits like displaying the ten commandments and things surrounding the American flag are used as populist issues as well currently in the US. I'd also argue that the "no new taxes" and "shrink the government" are populist poses in their constituencies as well.

[Eddie Teach]

I think that populism is more about trying to draw a distinction the common people and the "elites".  Pretty much every successful politician in the Democratic West is a populist.

Yes, at least as far as public consumption goes. Give them a smaller audience and a false sense of privacy and you get Romney's 47% or Obama's "clinging to guns and religion".

[Norgy]

I posit two types of populism, economic and ethnic, and that they are too different for a single definition to include both (without sweeping in most of politics).

No, I would disagree. Anti-immigration policies have tended to go hand in hand with low taxes/more public spending. At least in the Nordic countries.

Right-wing or left-wing, populism generally rallies the common man and is all about the common man. It is anti-intellectual, anti-establishment and anti-globalist. It's a nativist return to some past Great Era where everything was allright.

[Razgovory]

I suspect that Populism has a bad rap here because it's about opposing the elites, and a lot of us here like to think of ourselves as "elite".

[Zanza]

I suspect that Populism has a bad rap here because it's about opposing the elites, and a lot of us here like to think of ourselves as "elite".

I think populism always has an element of opposing the mainstream/establishment - which is in turn represented by the existing elites - and most here probably consider themselves mainstream/centrist/establishment.

[crazy canuck]

Meh, most politicians here who are branded as "populists" earn that title simply by doing things that are perceived as being popular rather than grounded in policy.  So, like others have said, populist = successful politician.  We have had a few successful politicians who are more policy wonks than "populists" but they are probably the exceptions that prove the rule.  The next Federal election in Canada will be interesting as it will involve two policy wonks (on opposite sides of the political spectrum) and a centrist populist.

I really hope one of the two policy wonks wins.

[dps]

IMO, populism isn't about whether or not you support or disagree with various policy positions, it's about why you support them or not.  For example, protectionism.  You might have a populist politician who advocates high protective tariffs to protect local jobs while an elitist advocates those policies because they benefit the local factory owners.  OTOH, a populist might support free trade because it can mean cheaper consumer goods, while an elitist favors it because abstract economic principles suggest it is the better trading policy.

[Jacob]

IMO, populism isn't about whether or not you support or disagree with various policy positions, it's about why you support them or not.  For example, protectionism.  You might have a populist politician who advocates high protective tariffs to protect local jobs while an elitist advocates those policies because they benefit the local factory owners.  OTOH, a populist might support free trade because it can mean cheaper consumer goods, while an elitist favors it because abstract economic principles suggest it is the better trading policy.

Yeah, populism is more of a style and a political strategy - it can be applied to any substance (or even without much substance at all).