What Does Populism Mean?

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

Political Sphere

·        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 Questions

Harris 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.

 

An Age of Populism

This past Saturday we had a specially scheduled extra Tea Party meeting to hear from author/historian Larry Schweikart. He’s the author of A Patriot’s History of the United States, published back in 2004. It was a NYT #1 bestseller, but that didn’t happen until 2010, after Glenn Beck talked about it multiple times on his show. Six years after publication. It was kind of a shock for an academician used to never selling more than a boxful of books.

He has written several other books, and is on tour now with the biography Reagan: The American President. There are other bios of Reagan; why do another? Dr. Schweikart says it’s because the others didn’t get to who Reagan really was. He says, “Reagan was the guy you saw on TV. He bled red white and blue.” That was not an act or a public face.

As an actor, Reagan definitely wasn’t a “method actor.” He knew how to be himself, but he didn’t like portraying someone he wasn’t. He only once portrayed a bad buy. But he did have two good roles: the dying George Gip, the Gipper, in Knute Rockne—he had played football and that was real to him. And the other was Kings Row, in which he plays a man who started as a wealthy socialite who loses his money and has to do labor. His legs are crushed in a railroad yard accident, and a sadistic doctor assures him they’re operable but then amputates the legs unnecessarily out of hatred. Reagan’s character is embittered and despondent for much of the movie, but when his friend tells him what actually happened, he responds with defiance. Did the doctor think he lived in his legs? He recovers his spirit and renews his will to live.

Dr. Schweikart, and many people, believe Reagan deserved an Academy Award for that role, but Spencer Tracy won that year.

There are other actors who are best playing characters like themselves. John Wayne was one. (Coincidentally, they both had the nickname Duke.) John Wayne also avoided playing bad guys. Whoever he played, he was visibly John Wayne playing that role—and we liked seeing him do that. Reagan’s acting method was like that. It’s different from Johnny Depp, or Tom Hanks, or Meryl Streep. But we’re OK with that.

His experience in media—which included sports announcing, and hosting Death Valley Days (history stories I remember watching weekly as a child), in addition to acting—helped him appear at ease in front of a camera. He knew how to speak directly to people, so the media didn’t have to (didn't get to) filter what he meant through them. That was something relatively new, for a president. FDR started fireside chats on radio, but wouldn’t have translated well to television. JFK was the first to benefit from television. But Reagan was the first to handle television and other media platforms with comfortable ease.

He had a simple approach to being president—two goals that very few people believed were possible, but he believed them and said so, and they connected with the American people:

1.       Defeat the Soviet Union.

2.       Build the economy.

The two goals were intertwined, according to Dr. Schweikart. For example, “The Soviets exported vodka, gold, oil, and spies. They still do.” So Reagan set out to control inflation, no matter the cost. By 1982 inflation dropped to zero. From 7-8%. That dropped the price of gold. Then Reagan met with oil dealers in Saudi and told them to burn their reserves, to control prices. The Soviets were outraged, because this affected their ability to sell their oil. Without money, they floundered in the Cold War.

Reagan allied with Pope John Paul II to do an end run around the Soviets. Together they increased funding to Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, pumping in rock music—which is the music of freedom. (Dr. Schweikart recommends a video on this: Rockin’ the Wall: How Music Ripped the Iron Curtain.) Rock music made Soviet people want to be like Americans—and even want to be Americans.

Reagan was out of office by the time the Berlin Wall fell, but ending the Cold War—that was Reagan’s doing.

Dr. Larry Schweikart
image from here

There are plenty of other stories. But I’m interested in some connections Dr. Schweikart made during the Q&A, about populism, which is something I don’t understand. I think our country works best when the people are good citizens, educate themselves on issues and candidates, and then make informed decisions when they go vote. I do that; I do my part.

But the outcome of voting depends on swaying those who haven’t done their study and due diligence.

There are people who make comparisons between Reagan and Trump. Their personalities and characters are quite different. But both of them understand the media really well. They both lived and worked in media before ever entering politics. And the public knew them through their media appearances long before getting acquainted with their politics.

Trump has also had a fairly simple message/plan:

·         Secure borders.

·         Appoint constitutionalist judges.

·         Lower taxes and roll back over-regulation to improve the economy.

These things, he told us directly, would Make America Great Again. He'd have none of this managing a superpower in decline, like Obama was doing. As Carter was doing before Reagan, too—another parallel.

I recall that my household was for Reagan in 1968. (Fun fact: the political pundits of the day thought he was too old to run in 1968.) We watched his speech at the Republican National Convention on TV. My dad was into politics, and even ran for office once. My mom wasn’t interested in politics—but she was interested in Ronald Reagan—whom she knew from movies and TV, and he was so handsome. (Another fun fact, or rather, personal opinion: my dad had a similar look, although blond—thick hair, rosy cheeks, similar face shape, at least in his younger years.) Anyway, it’s my experience that there was a good portion of the electorate, from at least the 1960s, who selected their candidate based on his popularity—his name recognition plus personal appeal to the common people.

Dr. Schweikart wrote a book called How Trump Won—which he wrote before the election. He knew what was coming when most of the media did not. I intend to read it, but I gather his theory is that only a populist candidate can win in today’s America.

The Democrats don’t have a populist candidate. That’s why their ridiculously large field is flailing. When asked who he thinks their nominee will be, he says, “She’s not in the race—yet.” People suggest Michelle Obama. Good guess, because she does have a sort of populist appeal. But he believes she’s not interested in politics or actually running the country. No, he’s predicting Hillary Clinton. Because she’s obsessed, and feels entitled. And certainly has the name recognition the others don’t.

I hope he’s wrong. I don’t believe she could win; I just don’t want to see her in front of our faces ever again.

But he made another somewhat wild prediction: Who will be the Republican nominee in 2024? Kanye West.

I did not see that one coming. Again, I hope he’s wrong. I’ve been paying attention, and I’m aware of Kanye West’s conversion to Christianity, and somewhat to conservatism. He seems sincere. People report that there’s true humility there. I’d much rather that than anyone the Democrats would put forward. But I prefer someone with a track record of living a Christian life through some hard times and still sticking with it. And I prefer as a president someone who is so well-versed in the Constitution that they could chat with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, and add his own federalist paper to their conversation. I don’t expect a person dedicated to writing and promoting his music will be spending sufficient time on economics and foreign policy to qualify.

I didn’t think Trump had either. But at least economics was his bailiwick.

But populism counts, Dr. Schweikart is convinced. For example, there may not be a person under 40 in the United States who doesn’t know who Kanye West is. Only a fraction of that large demographic have any idea who Mike Pence is—even though he’s the vice-president.

Populism requires a candidate who connects with young people who are not paying attention to politics. You’ve got to have someone who speaks their language, and appeals to what they’re thinking about—while convincing them that freedom, prosperity, and civilization are preferable to tyranny, poverty, and savagery disguised as “free stuff” that someone richer will pay for.

Dr. Schweikart told us to write down his predictions, and we'll see if he can stand by them. By the way, Kanye said on radio a year ago, “When I’m president…” referring to after 2024. It’s actually on his mind.

It’s a short wait to find out if Dr. Schweikart is right about Hillary Clinton. I heard on radio today that she has only until around the 15^th (or maybe 18^th) of November to get on the ballot in one of the earliest primary voting states.

While I had a historian handy, I asked, how do we keep our history, keep truth? He said that will be the fight of the next 5-7 years. The dinosaur media is being pushed out. New media, including online media is taking over. We need to write. And we need to make videos—to reach the youth. We need to be involved in popular culture.

As the late Andrew Breitbart said, “Politics is downstream from culture.” So, if we want to have a say in how we're governed, we have to contribute to the culture.

I don’t know how to do these that. But I hope there are people out there who do. Because apparently our future depends on what younger people watch, hear, see, read, and pay attention to.