There’s this word, populism, that keeps showing up. Here’s a basic definition from an online dictionary:
Populism:
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their
struggle against the privileged elite.
The word doesn’t show up in my 1980s dictionary, although Populist shows up as the name of a US political party from 1891-1904. It’s also not in the 1820s dictionary. I did some minimal research online, and definitions and examples are all over the place.
Super lawyer Robert Barnes uses the term freely to describe
Donald Trump, along with others in such a category (including VP candidate J.
D. Vance). I’ve noticed some anti-establishment leaders around the world,
although I hadn’t attached the word to them. These would be Bolsonaro in Brazil,
the entire Brexit movement (I thought Boris Johnson might be one, but he caved
during COVID), a couple of Latin American leaders—Bukele in El Salvador and Milei in Argentina. There’s Meloni in Italy, and possibly Orban in Hungary. These do not necessarily
represent “populist” parties in various countries, although they can. But
populism seems to be more about the individual leaders than any party.
Examples are of bold, charismatic leaders, who are by
definition popular. That is, the people like them, prefer them, vote for them.
They are, then, democratic, in that the will of the people expresses its favor
toward them. They are not installed or foisted upon the people by some
behind-the-scenes cabal, or even by rising in any existing party or faction. In
fact, these populist leaders seem to rise up in opposition to the powers that
be. But they are not simply popular people; they are popular for what they are
trying to do.
Oddly, some of the online definitions refer to them as typically
authoritarian. Here’s this from a Britannica article:
In its
contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an
authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition,
revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will
of the people in order to consolidate their own power.
The article later lists some examples: Juan Perón
(Argentina), Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). In that same
paragraph it adds Donald Trump:
In the United
States, according to some historians and political scholars, the administration
of Republican Pres. Donald Trump (2017–21) also displayed some aspects of
authoritarian populism. Among them were conspiracy mongering, racism toward
African Americans and nonwhite immigrants, distrust of democratic institutions
among Trump’s core supporters, and the subservient position of the national
Republican Party. Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the existence of
authoritarian populism under Trump was his incitement of a mob of his
supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn his defeat in the 2020
presidential election (see United States Capitol attack of 2021).
Except, at last count, every conspiracy theory attached to
us Trump supporters (and anyone else who didn’t support the administrative
state’s controlled narrative) has turned out to be conspiracy fact. Every
example of racism was invented without actual examples—because such examples
don’t exist. I’ll grant you distrust of various democratic institutions—which
have given us plenty of reason to distrust them. Finally, we know that Trump
did not incite a mob; the vast majority of people at the capitol on
January 6, 2021, were asking for a fair look at the widespread evidence of
fraud in the 2020 election, but the rioters stopped them from getting what they
were asking for; and we now know the mob was infiltrated with literally
hundreds of government assets. Hmm. Trump had offered National Guard and
greater security simply based on the large numbers expected; Pelosi and DC
Mayor Muriel Bowser refused the offer.
In short, their attempts to attach the authoritarian label
to Trump—after a 4-year term in which he was for less government regulation,
greater economic freedom, less foreign entanglement, etc.—is another example of
their doing what they accuse their opposition of doing.
A recent example offered by the Webster’s online dictionary shows this quote from an article in Source Journal last week:
The populist positioning pitted Harris against monopolistic
conglomerates, firmly entrenching her on the side of average businesses and
consumers. “I believe competition is the life blood of our economy, more
competition means lower prices for you and your families,” she said.
It appears the Harris campaign is “positioning” her as a
“populist” to make her seem like a champion of the little people. Except, while
she is authoritarian (see example here), she is—or was, until her campaign invented a suddenly “popular” version of
her—vastly unpopular. It was as if she were chosen as VP as insurance that Biden
would be left in to avoid having her take over. And, no, she is not in any way
on the side of consumers. I think she would be hard-pressed to summon up even
the most basic vocabulary for sane economic policy. She thinks taxing us on our
“unrealized gains” is a good idea.
[I’m not fully going down that rabbit hole today, but here’s
a good metaphor to explain her proposal, from Tom Woods’ daily email August 28:
Here's what
it means (mathematical example shared with me by a friend):
(1)
January
2020, you buy 100 shares of Zoom stock at $75 per share.
(2)
That
stock ends the year at $350, which means you made a gain of $27,500. But it's
an unrealized gain, because you didn't sell the stock. You still have it.
(3)
Kamala
would tax you 75% on that $27,500 that you don't actually have.
(4)
Since
you don't have the cash to pay it (you never sold the stock, remember, so you
never actually experienced this "gain"), you withdraw from your
savings.
(5)
You
hold the stock until August 2024, when it's only $60 a share.
(6)
You
decide to sell because this is the most you think you'll ever get for the
stock. You sell at a loss (remember, you bought it at $75) at $60.
(7)
Oh,
and those taxes on your "unrealized capital gain"? Well, you ended up
with a loss, not a gain, but Kamala keeps your money anyway.]
In short, if you want to understand actual populism today,
you can’t go to the standard sources; you’ve got to ferret out the meaning
yourself.
So, am I a supporter of populism—as Robert Barnes says he is? I am not. I am a skeptic. Maybe that’s a leftover suspicion of popularity from long-ago high school. Popular often meant inauthentic, unkind, and prejudicially disdainful. But, granted, popular can also mean something good, something or someone that a majority of people have discovered and express their approval of. You can’t dismiss the choices of the masses out of hand. But you also don’t have to accept them.
found on Facebook stories |
One of the things about the populous is that it is
susceptible to manipulation by the media. That’s what makes pure democracy so
dangerous.
In our time, the current populists, particularly Trump, seem
aligned with my values: I’m a constitutional conservative. That is, I want the
US Constitution conserved, and its laws and principles applied as intended—as
far as we can ascertain what was intended; there’s a lot of historical writings
to inform us on that (The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist
Papers, writings by the founders, notes from the Constitutional Convention,
etc.)
That’s the standard I use for any candidate. I’ve pretty
much discarded all Democrat candidates, because they do not believe in limited
government, and their interference makes things worse. [While I would not have
wanted RFK Jr as my president, I do see him as anti-establishment old-time
Democrat, and he has, I think, integrity. We can work with such a person.]
Beyond that, the current Democrat Party is unlike the sane but wrongheaded
party of some decades ago, which claimed to be for working people, etc. Now
they are something of a death cult, with control over the media to lie to the
public to cover their real motives, which you can discern by listening
carefully to what they say and what they try to do.
I haven’t written off the Republican Party as a whole. At
the top, I don’t have much use for them. But at the state and local level, here
in Texas, it looks to me like a majority of those active in the party support
constitutional conservative principles—and we’re all about spreading that wherever
we can.
So, if a populist candidate comes around—if they’re Democrat, assume they are authoritarians, since that is the standard in that party. But if they are Republican, you may have to test them somewhat deeper.
image posted by Tom Glass on Facebook |
Back in 2015-16, Trump was saying things I agreed with. But
I didn’t believe him. It took a couple of years of him actually abiding by the
Constitution—better than I’d seen done since Reagan—and doing it under great
pressure, that I finally realized he wasn’t what he’d been portrayed to be. He
still may be a very rough stone, but I believe he is someone God can use for
the good of our nation, and the world.
There are test questions, if you can get a chance to ask them of candidates, which I’ve shared before (2013 and 2021). But, here we are in another election season, so they might be worth repeating. These come from the Spherical Model idea that you can differentiate between freedom and tyranny in the political sphere, between prosperity and poverty in the economic sphere, and between civilization and savagery in the social sphere. I recognize some limitations to this list: you’ll hardly ever get to ask them of a national candidate, where the US Constitution is the law they need to be limited by. Maybe you’ll get lucky and ask them of a congressional candidate. But the questions will still help you get to know the mind of a more local candidate. And maybe, by listening closely to debates, press conference, and stump speeches, you might get some of these answered even by a presidential candidate. I haven’t provided the “right” answers here. Some may not have a right answer. Some definitely have a range of better answers than others. If you’re actually a constitutional conservative, you can probably imagine what those might be, so I’ll leave you to it. Or, you might want to check out the Spherical Model website and read the rather long articles there on the three spheres.
The political, economic, and social spheres of the Spherical Model |
·
What do you believe is the proper role of government, and
what are the limits?
·
Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution,
and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?
·
When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe
is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or
legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?
·
What do you believe is the proper balance between public
safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do
to reach that balance?
·
Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since
1900—and what about them do you admire?
·
How do you define extremists, and what views do you think
are examples of extreme?
Economic Sphere
·
What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that
should be taken in taxes?
·
What do you believe is the government’s role in
contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession
(as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?
·
What do you believe is government’s role in the
distribution of income when there’s a wide discrepancy between the poor and the
wealthy?
·
What do you believe should be government’s role in
charitable help to the poor and suffering?
·
What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the
commerce clause of the Constitution?
·
What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and
how/whether it is benefiting the economy?
Civilization Sphere
·
What do you believe about the connection between moral
values and the law?
·
Which institution is most responsible for raising a
generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches,
nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?
·
Which constituency’s desires is public education best
accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government,
teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?
·
What do you believe should be government’s role in
homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?
·
What do you think is government’s role in defining
marriage, and why?
The original list (2013) included some issue-related
questions. And in December 2021 I added some new questions. Let’s see if
they’re still relevant (the subpoints are my current comments):
Specific Issue Questions
·
What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do
you think should be done?
o I
still think it’s wrong. As with just about any program that gets passed, it’s
very hard to untangle and extricate ourselves afterward. No one is talking
about it this year. But we do have Kamala Harris blathering about taking away
private insurance from everyone—calling it Medicare for all, although she
sometimes hides from that policy statement.
·
What do you believe are the motivations of people who
support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?
o The
woke agenda is receiving a lot of pushback from people who are sick of the
LGBTQ agenda being shoved down our throats. But the fight against gay marriage
is pretty much lost. Now it’s a matter of keeping our children safe from the
indoctrination.
·
What are your beliefs about border security and
immigration?
o This
is still a huge issue. Suddenly Harris, the border czar who has done nothing
but facilitate illegal entry is talking about closing the border as soon as
she’s elected.
·
What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning
climate?
o This
is still an issue for Dems, but it’s not gaining traction among conservatives,
who view the draconian rules as more about control than climate.
·
What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is
your view of the UN?
o Warmongering
Dems and Republicans are on the opposite side from the populists on this issue.
Trump didn’t start any wars and got us out of some. Biden/Harris are ready to
give our entire military budget to Ukraine, and they are not exactly dedicated
to Israel nor exactly against violent Palestinians.
·
What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit,
tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget?
o If we
could just get back to some free market principles, that would be nice.
New Questions This Year
(end of 2021, going into 2022 primary)
·
It is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v.
Wade this year. How do you see Texas and the United States moving forward on
this issue?
o Something
actually got done! Now it’s an issue for the states. The Dems keep claiming
Trump will do more, but he has not indicated any intention of doing more at a
national level.
·
In the Declaration of Independence, we dissolved political
bands, not for “light and transient causes,” but for a “long train of abuses
and usurpations.” Assuming that restoring and preserving our Constitution is
the goal, could there be a catalyst for dissolving political bands, intended to
be indivisible, and returning Texas to an independent nation? What would
trigger such an action after the long train of abuses and usurpations we’re
already seeing?
o This
is a Texit question. I still personally wonder what the catalyst might be. If
we get through this election with a peaceful transfer of power, then maybe we
won’t need to face it anytime soon.
·
One of the actual responsibilities of the federal
government is protection of our national borders. When the federal government
fails in that duty, what should our state do to protect our sovereignty?
o This
is another pertinent question for Texas leaders.
·
When the government deprives a person of property, such as
a business, as it did during the pandemic shutdowns, what is the government’s
obligation to restore that property to those who were deprived of it?
o I’m
still waiting for an answer—while the Biden/Harris administration is giving
housing, income, and education to illegals. They just got shut down from using
our taxes to pay off college loans (buy votes).
·
Is there anything that can/should be done about election
law crimes of the past election? And what do you see as the way to restore
election integrity going forward?
o The
Republicans are still concerned, with good reason. In Harris County, one
judicial candidate won a lawsuit, and the judge is requiring a new election for
that race; we haven’t heard when that will be. The term is now half over. And
nothing was done about the other 23 or so cases from that election.
·
While conservatives generally support freedom for business,
what can/should we do when large monopolies censor certain points of view on
their platforms, or companies make requirements for employment or attendance
based on private health decisions?
o This
is gaining in importance as the evidence of censorship and other social
engineering by companies comes to the surface—along with the pressure from
government on those companies.
Bonus QuestionsHarris and Walz, image found here,
photo credit to Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Thursday night, while I was writing this, was the first interview with candidate Kamala
Harris, who brought along her VP choice, Tim Walz. I won’t review that here.
But in preparation, Breitbart offered “31 Questions Dana Bash Should Ask Kamala Harris, Walz in First Interview,” in categories such as the economy, immigration, freedom, foreign policy, and
questions for Walz. Here’s a sampling:
17. Your party has
claimed the mantle of “defending democracy,” but you were appointed as your
party’s nominee despite never having received any vote as a presidential
candidate in any primary. In what way did your nomination process reflect
democracy?
22. Is there a fixed limit in your mind of how many U.S.
taxpayer dollars should go to Ukraine, or is your sentiment “as many tax
dollars as it takes?”
(for Walz) 29. You ran a hotline for Minnesotans to report their neighbors who violated your
lockdown orders during the coronavirus pandemic. How is that compatible with
your mantra of “Mind your own damn business?”
My guess is
that Breitbart will not be tapped to host a debate or do an interview, as
entertaining as that might be.
Less
entertaining, but possibly effective, there’s another list, this one from Daily
Mail, of 25 “Questions CNN’s Dana Bash SHOULD Ask Kamala Harris in First Interview.” The first question is:
1. Were you the 'last person in the room' with President Joe Biden
as he prepared to enact his evacuation plan in Afghanistan, and did you voice
any concerns about his strategy?
National Review also offered a list of questions that won’t be asked but should be, here.
Ah, if only we didn’t have to invent the questions and the answers. If only real journalists could get near the candidates, as you would possibly see in a populist-led constitutional republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment