Populism?

The campaigns of Sanders and Trump has led the mainstream media (msm) to a frequent use of the term "populism" to describe them--they are the "populist" candidates. But true to form, the msm are good at injecting a new idea into the media mix, but they do little to inform the audience as to the meaning of "populism." So we will give it a try.

The early moments of populism was experienced through the People's Party at the end of the nineteenth century and found expression in the twentieth century in different bases of discontent shared by different groups. Throughout the twentieth century, populist rhetoric and movements have embraced an array of moral and political crusades, beginning early in the century with the prohibitionists' war against alcohol and closed out the century with the religious Right's attacks on the amoral elites, who, it was claimed, were undermining the core values of the majority. The targets of populist attacks are superficially the same: entrenched irresponsible elites. But for the early leftist populists, elite targets were symbolized by "fat cat" and "plutocrat" labels, whereas for contemporary rightist populists, evil is represented by "cultural elites," as represented in Hollywood, the media, and governmental elites who administer the growing bureaucratic state.

The most recent examples of populism in presidential campaigns  may be found in the efforts by Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Pat Buchanan who managed to attack immigration, trade agreements like NAFTA, and groups like the national Association of Manufacturers and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. They were not treated kindly by the corporate media. Ralph Nader was dismissed as unrealistic, and Perot and Buchanan were presented as "traitors" to the interests of the privileged class that was embedded in the corporate and political worlds. Perot was given the persona of a quirky, eccentric millionaire who had nothing better to do with his time and money, while Buchanan was vilified as a crypto-racist, anti-Semite, and general all-around loose cannon. The media did little to recognize the role of economic change in these populist moments.

Populist rhetoric has been used by labor organizations, social movement leaders, and mainstream politicians to shape and mobilize public discontent. In its classic form, populist messages seek to simultaneously elevate the masses and attack the privileged for their undeserved rewards. But the rhetoric of economic grievances and the defense of small farmers, wage earners, and small business owners were usually not aimed at the overthrow of capitalism, but called for a fair share of the fruits of workers' productive labor. As a noted historian of populist movements Michael Kazin has stated: "Early populist critiques of American society attempted to build new bonds among people by returning to the core beliefs of the new American nation--rule by the people, reward for hard work and diligence, and faith in God." 

As history illustrates, the American populist tradition has been both a powerful and ambivalent instrument for reform. Many real or aspiring leaders have picked up the populist instrument hoping to play a tune powerful enough to stir the sleeping masses into sweeping away corrupt elites. The power of that tradition rests in its roots in the early American experience, stressing the dignity of the common man and a rejection of the "foreign" influences of aristocracy and elitism. The ambivalence associated with the populist tradition stems from its majoritarian beliefs, reflected in its support for direct participatory democracy. The majoritarian emphasis does not sit well with members of religious or ethnic groups that are numerically small and therefore feel that their interests will be ignored by the usually white and Christian majority. The majoritarian emphasis also does not sit well with "privileged leftists" who support populist ideology but whose education and credentialed-class privileges make them wary of "marching with the people."