Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Using “populism” to describe traditional mindsets is a clever rhetorical trick. You don’t need a label to describe the desire of people to protect local industries and not have foreigners come live in their country. That’s just how most people in the world have felt historically, and how most people in the world still feel.

If you look at China, most of the rest of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc., those things are no-brainers. What requires a label is the new thing. The new idea that embraces freedom of movement of capital, goods, and labor, across national borders. “Populism” is nothing more than the opposition to this new, unlabeled thing.

View on HN

Category error. Populism isn't an issue portfolio; there is left-populism and right-populism. Populism is a vector for influencing politics (specifically: it's the vector that rejects pluralism, divides the polity into "the people" and "the elites", and declares that a particular political agenda, in its entirety, represents the true will of the people).

If "traditional mindsets" are pursued by means of populism, it's a populist campaign. If not, it isn't. There is nothing intrinsically populist about anti-globalism, but, like many political agendas, it's easy to create a populist lozenge for it to get it down the polity's throat easily.

What are the other possible vectors for influencing politics in a republic/democracy like the US. Now that I think of it, it seems like both sides are populist.

> (specifically: it's the vector that rejects pluralism, divides the polity into "the people" and "the elites", and declares that a particular political agenda, in its entirety, represents the true will of the people)

The elites vs the people distinction is usually the key characteristic of populism in most definitions. Populist movements also tend to be very anti-establishment. Many vectors for influencing politics don't involve viewing society as this battle between the people and the elites. For example, while it's true that left-wing populists exist in the US I wouldn't describe the current Democratic party as a populist party. It is more of an institutionalist party and they don't tend to attack elites, because most groups traditionally considered part of the elite support the party. This is in contrast to the current Republican party which very much casts itself as being opposed to the elite. All the rhetoric about battling the deep state and draining the swamp is very much populist.

It depends on your definition of elites. "Deep state" and "drain the swamp" is about attacking government elites but the same movement promotes less regulation and lower taxes for business elites.

It doesn't matter who the elites are; it only matters that some notion of them exists. The key to populism is the claim that some political platform (left, right, religious or secular) represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven. If you're looking to understand the term by its opposition, the antonym of "populism" is "pluralism".

> represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven

It's funny how this starts to sound more and more like just Marxism.

No, Marxism is an political platform. Populism obviously isn't Marxism; there is right-populism (which is currently the most popular form).

"Hey all the experts who have studied this phenomenon in depth suggest we should do this"

"According to this religious text, this is how we should be living"

"This will be good for the economy and put more money in your pockets"

"If we don't do this, the terrorists win"

"Think of the children"

While it is easy to get people to support doing what they already want to do, people's opinions can also be swayed.

Further, while populist movements try to present their positions as widely held by the majority, oftentimes that's a bluff. It's usually the case that populists are really just a vocal minority.

The condescension in your post is a good example of why someone might turn to "populism."

A lot of people have lost trust in those experts and people who claim to know what's good for other people. They also don't appreciate being talked down to.

Any condescension you read in my post is imagined.

It's entirely possible for two opposing sides in a polarized polity to both employ a populist strategy. How you'd see that happening is that the two sides would deliberately exclude moderates and centrists.

> the two sides would deliberately exclude moderates and centrists

Which is exactly what's happening lately.

If you say so. I'm a moderate (non-progressive) Democrat and feel perfectly at home in the party, but we don't have to agree. The "Democrat vs. Republican" thing is boring, and we won't get anywhere with it. But popularism vs. pluralism is a discussion we can have; there are left-populists to dunk on!

You're not a politician so there's no need to for the party to exclude you. Moderates with actual power, like Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, have been excluded from the modern Democratic party.

As Manchin said: "The bottom line is — will the middle speak up? Does the middle have a voice?"

I don't love the way Twitter treats Sinema or Manchin (Sinema I could take or leave though!) but they are objectively two of the most powerful people in the party. I don't think this is a winnable argument. Look at the 2020 candidate field, and look who won. Look at the track record for Justice Dems over the past 3 cycles. We have a strategy, and it's "win the suburbs". I'm fine with it.

> they are objectively two of the most powerful people in the party.

You didn't hear that Sinema left the party? And Manchin is considering leaving it?

That's what I was referring to when I said they were (or at least felt) excluded from the party.

I'm not even sure if Sinema is really running, and Manchin definitely isn't.

Yeah, I think 2016 with Bernie employing one populism and Trump another one tells this story well. They're more different than similar, to be clear but their pitches had similar shapes. There's an elite, they cause all the policies you dislike, and if we could just engage all the disaffected voters we'd easily get the things we want. For Bernie it was the economic elite preventing expanded welfare programs, especially Medicare For All. For Trump it was a globalist elite preventing nativist policies.

It was more obvious in 2020 (with a less complicated, more policy-driven primary) that tons of Democratic primary voters don't want Medicare For All, and that the story as Bernie had told it didn't match the reality on the ground of differing policy goals even within the party's constituents.

Immediately following 2016, there was a vogue for left populism as a response or corrective to the right populism that carried the election, an idea that "our side" needed to get some of that energy for itself. 2018 was a test of that idea, and it failed pretty conclusively.

My point is that people are incorrectly using the term “populist” to describe people who simply oppose immigration and free trade. In that respect, I agree it’s a category error.

I disagree that populism is merely a “vector for influencing politics.” That makes it sound like a choice or tactic. But oftentimes, particular issues just happen to break down along lines where people who can be described as “elite” converge on a view, while non-elites tend to adopt a different view.

For example in India, secularism is an idea championed mainly by elites, and largely opposed by the masses. Thats what makes opposition to secularism a populist viewpoint, not Modi’s choice to point that out.

Secularism is a policy platform. You can be a secular populist or a sectarian populist. It's important to understand that populism claims the support of "the masses", sometimes even in good faith, but the actual support of the "masses" isn't core to the strategy. A key part of popularism is acceptance of an agenda in its entirety. If you could just scope platforms down to the bits that everyone agreed with, you wouldn't need a term for it (though David Shor proposed one, "popularism".)

Clearly, when there is real disagreement between elites and the masses, you can't "scope platforms down to the bits that everyone agreed with".

In such a case, what would you call a political movement that embraced the position of the non-elites, not as a political tactic, but because actual support of the "masses" is core to the movement?

Whatever word you would use for that, I think you'd understand Rayiner's post better if you replace populist with the word you prefer.

If (and I'm not sure this is true) the "masses" do oppose globalism (worldwide) and secularism (in India), then there is something inherently ______ about those positions.

This side discussion about the true meaning of the word "populist" only distracts from the more important question of whether the people's desires are actually being suppressed by an elite who control the levers of power and the channels of communication.

The problem with populism is there's no one platform that captures the masses. It's very much like Spolsky's observation about how the 80% solution in software, and the fact that everybody has a different 20% of dealbreakers on top of that.

To capture the core "popularist" stuff we all agree about, you have to be willing to compromise on that 20%. Populism is defined by not doing that.

I think you two have earned a special section of this tech forum where you can slug it out about politics in peace.

Like the comments on a post about a "Populist backlash against globalization"? That seems like an appropriate place to discuss politics.

I follow HN by user threads so I don't necessarily notice where the rayiner/tptacek walls of text are rooted.

Follow 'jcranmer. He's great.

It’s the better way to follow comments. I wish the gui made it easier

Also follow kasey!

> Secularism is a policy platform. You can be a secular populist or a sectarian populist.

Except, in practice, secularism is a policy originating with and being championed mainly by western-educated elites like Nehru.

You're fixated on bringing your own definition of "elite" into this conversation. Sometimes, a populist argument about who the elites are is plausible. Sometimes it isn't. But it's besides the point. There argument against populism isn't that there isn't some real "elite". It's that there's no singular "populace" aligned perfectly in opposition to that elite. Half the population is, say, 80% aligned with the "elite"; the other, 15%.

The people pushing secularism in India (and Bangladesh) are undeniably an “elite.” They’re part of the 1-2% with college degrees, they’re often exposed to the west or even western educated, they work in industries where they have contact with the west, etc. my dad, who got a college education and then left the country, is a secularist. The other people from his village aren’t.

The fact that some of the proles might agree or disagree with the elites for various reasons (e.g. Indian Muslims) is irrelevant. Indian Muslims don’t believe in secularism either, the elite view on secularism just happens to be beneficial to their situation as a religious minority in the country. That doesn’t change the fact that secularism originates in and is advanced by the elite.

But remember, my point is that “populist” isn’t a good description of this. It’s common in politics to assign lower moral weight to the views of various groups—in India or Bangladesh, ideas of western origin are viewed as suspect. In America, anything supported by “Wall Street” or “the Harvard faculty lounge” is automatically questionable. Playing to that was a staple of ordinary liberal and conservative rhetoric throughout the 20th century. Thats not “populist.”

You haven't established that populism isn't a good description of it. All you've said is that there's a definable elite that occupies a policy position in India. That's orthogonal.

Occupy Wall Street was certainly a populist movement! Its slogan was a capsule summary of the whole concept of populism. They were the 99%! That they didn't in reality speak for all or even a majority of the 99% was just a detail.

He is leaning out way over his skis now. I’m sorry, but his sample size doesn’t qualify him to pronounce on this. Maybe his dad could.

Leaving aside the fact that Indian secularism as practiced by Congress has more in common with the Roman Empire than with western secularism.

This is where I actually pick up a loudspeaker. How many of these people did and do you know? My uncle and his wife from UP certainly did (and she was a Communist from a Khaksar family [yes, she went to SMU and Smith and then Germany for higher ed but that’s a consequence of already existing attitudes]!) I had relatives forced to flee for their lives for being Ahmedi in Pakistan. Maybe you should talk to some people for whom this is actually a life and death issue.

Populism is not neccesarily protectionism. Its less about the specific policies as how they are made.

Also its not like populism is a new term or idea. It goes back to Roman times at least.

Populism isn’t new. But the ideas being called “populist” today wouldn’t have warranted that label even a few decades ago. It’s turned into a label for everyone who opposes globalized industries and mass immigration.

It is not new. America is special because we are a nation of immigrants. Always have been. And it is one of America's biggest strengths, one of the reason why we have been so prosperous. The acrimonious immigration debate is also not new, there has always been anti and pro factions. What is new is the level of surveillance and bureaucracy to notice and control immigration and the partisan polarization on the issue.

Immigration is not in and of itself a cause of prosperity, it is the diversity of thought and opinion that comes as a result. Like all things in the world, too much of anything becomes harmful. A nation is a system that must maintain a certain level of order or it ceases to exist as such. There’s a reason the immigration debate is so passionate and it’s not xenophobia or nationalism

> What requires a label is the new thing. The new idea that embraces freedom of movement of capital, goods, and labor, across national borders. “Populism” is nothing more than the opposition to this new, unlabeled thing.

Isn't that "new, unlabeled thing" called liberalism?

Anti-globalist seems like a more precise term for what you're describing.

It also avoids clashing with populist movements of the past, which dealt with issues other than those that you're describing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com