Dear Princess ‘Ishka,
I have recently re-read a wonderful article about populism on Jacobin Magazine by Anton Jäger, a doctoral student in history at the University of Cambridge. In this article, the term “populism” as it is understood in Europe and as I have referred to myself in the past, is challenged historically and opposed to the American notion of populism. Big-p populism refers to late 19th century political movements in the US, which
…called for the nationalization of the American railroad system, the centralization of federal monetary policy, and the burial of post-bellum rivalries. It also advocated the “democratization” of the federal government, in which the state apparatus would be handed back to who Populists considered to be its legitimate owner — the people.
Small-p populism refers instead to a totalitarian degeneration of democracy, thanks to a controversial reading of history by American historian Hofstadter, which gained popularity in Europe from the late 20th century.
Now, this historically argued piece calls into question my rather ideological and ahistorical understanding of populism (click here for more). Thence, I shall either abandon my view or defend it. I choose this second option because I think that, at least in Europe, it is much more useful to prefer the small-p populism reading to the big-p one.
As Jäger himself writes
In the 1940s, this vision [big-p Populism] still reigned supreme. Marxist historians like Anne Rochester and Chester McArthur Destler, for example, found a distinct brand of American radicalism in populism: it was the socialist movement the United States never had.
I don’t know why American Populists (before McChartyism) didn’t like to call themselves socialists all the way. In Europe, socialists, not populists, call for nationalization of essential services for the people, defend workers’ rights and fight for a more equal society. But I have absolutely nothing against Populism understood as socialism. It just sounds superfluous and misleading in Europe, where we already have (had?) socialism.
Jäger’s article presents a peculiar turn when he focuses on the success of the term “populism” in France by the end of last century. The term was made popular by historian Pierre-André Tagueiff with probably unexpected consequences. In a 1991 interview, Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the extreme right-wing party Front National (now Rassemblement National) declared
… “a populist is someone who listens to the voice of the people.” “If that’s your definition,” Le Pen replied, “then indeed, I’m definitely populist.”
And Jäger’s comment leaves little doubt to what he thinks about “selling” the term to right-wing parties:
A term originally coined to discredit a neofascist party had become one of its most effective weapons. In the eyes of some, Taguieff had done the FN a costly favor, helping them in their transformation from Vichy fan club to socially acceptable opposition party — one that would eventually capture a considerable part of the French electorate.
Some things shall be noticed here:
- A party’s electoral success does not mean that it stands for people’s real needs and interests. If the term populism can be used to lure a big portion of the population, tired of politicians ignoring their interests, to vote for a neofascist party, that’s not a merit of a virtuous concept, but rather of a strong collective delusion (the delusion of being unified in one single will).
- Banner at Trump’s rally. Source: Lake Side Theatre
- Populists do not only claim to listen to the voice of the people. They claim to represent the will of the people, as if it were unified and as if something like the will of the people could transparently determine what is good for the people. This is not true: there is an undeniable logical distinction between what one wills for oneself and what one truly needs, which becomes an actual distinction in times of distress. (This is the current socialist challenge: trying to make will and need converge, and not take the convergence for granted, as populists do).
- Jäger’s idea that an extreme right-wing party can so easily seize the term populism for its own interests, but can’t with a term like socialism, speaks in favour of the idea that populism is a much more confused term and far less established than socialism. Populism, lacking the strong intellectual tradition socialism has had, falls all too easily prey of right-wing parties.
In his otherwise very well argued and highly interesting article, the reading of which I strongly recommend, Jäger points out that Bernie Sanders is unashamedly called a “progressive populist” in the US. However, he does not mention that Bernie prefers to call himself a “democratic socialist”. And I guess ol’ Bernie has all the good reasons.
Forever yours,
‘Miasha
Cover Image Credits: Heinrich Böll Stiftung
Letters to 'Ishka 