Reading Populism

[Smokeandsteam]

Not a fan of Mudde but I can disagree with the main point here.
I think I'd disagree with that last sentence a little, I think post-crisis there's opportunity for the RN, League etc to make some hay re the crisis, with links both to the liberal attacks on services and migration, reinforcing some of there main messages

I think that’s about correct.

On one hand the crisis feeds directly into populist ideas about migration, globalisation, science and most of all the central concern that ‘government’ is failing ordinary people.

On the other hand populisms scorn for experts and officials is falling on stony ground. You can’t fight a pandemic with tweets as Trump is learning. Plus, the mass of people are very definitely listening to and trusting in establishment narratives.

All of this is contingent of course.

 

[redsquirrel]

Saw a new book advertised in LRB Democracy Against Liberalism, not read it but the blurb sounds very much like more anti-democratic liberalism

It should not surprise anyone that democracies can become dangerously illiberal; indeed, it was one of the classical critiques of ancient democracies. Is the contemporary backlash against liberal democracy merely the same old story, or are we witnessing something unprecedented?

In this witty and engaging book, Aviezer Tucker argues that the contemporary revival of authoritarian populism combines the historically familiar with new technologies to produce a highly unstable and contagious new synthesis that threatens basic liberal norms, from freedom of the press to independent judiciaries. He examines how the economic crisis blocked social mobility and thereby awakened the dark, dormant political passions exploited by demagogues such as Orban and Trump. He argues that this slide towards ‘neo-illiberal democracy’ can be countered if we hard-headedly restore a ‘liberalism without nostalgia’ which institutes policies that can dampen down populist passions and strengthen liberal institutional barriers against them.

(my emphasis)
I know I've said it before but this is why the 'we're all one the same side' crap is both futile and dangerous. Liberalism is the enemy as much as the hard-right.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Saw a new book advertised in LRB Democracy Against Liberalism, not read it but the blurb sounds very much like more anti-democratic liberalism
(my emphasis)
I know I've said it before but this is why the 'we're all one the same side' crap is both futile and dangerous. Liberalism is the enemy as much as the hard-right.

“Dampen down populist passions” through the institutions and policies of social and economic liberalism. Wow. It’s like the last 45 years never happened.

 

[Hollis]

Don't think it's been mentioned on this thread - but currently reading 'The People: The Rise and Fall of the Working Class 1910 - 2010' by Selina Todd. The parallels between what happened post FWW and now are interesting - in terms of strategies employed by the Conservative/Liberal coalition - appeal to patriotism, and replace "foreigners/the EU" with "women".

 

[redsquirrel]

Don't think it's been mentioned on this thread - but currently reading 'The People: The Rise and Fall of the Working Class 1910 - 2010' by Selina Todd. The parallels between what happened post FWW and now are interesting - in terms of strategies employed by the Conservative/Liberal coalition - appeal to patriotism, and replace "foreigners/the EU" with "women".

Can you summarise the book a bit more?

Interesting that she starts in 1910, at the time when the working class was at (one of) it's most militant periods.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Is Revelli's book easy to read I wonder? This topic interests me.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Not a massive fan of the Todd book myself. Far too much emphasis on Labourism, her central idea is that the fortunes of the working class are inextricably linked to that of Labour.

Her account of the collapse of the post-war period and the reasons for the collapse is really badly conceived - and is limited to a discussion on the limits of Labour politics and the seemingly omnipotence of Thatcher.

There are some basic methodological flaws. For an oxbridge historian some of it is just badly used primary source material and an over reliance on secondary oral sources.

Be interested to hear more from Hollis on it though....

 

[redsquirrel]

Is Revelli's book easy to read I wonder? This topic interests me.

It's dense and there are a lot of ideas/themes covered but the prose is very engaging and well written. Chapter 2 is probably most 'theoretical' so if you are finding it hard going you could always try to move onto the chapters focused on countries and then go back. The link Lurdan provided here still works (for me anyway) so you can check it out for free.

Revelli's book is great, probably still the best book I've read on the topic, but if you want a relatively easy intro into the subject then I can recommend

• National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Matthew Goodwin and Roger Eatwell - Goodwin may be a prick but his writings are good. His book on UKIP is still excellent and needs to be read by anyone who is going to seriously engage with the topic, this Pelican primer is not as good as that and has its flaws (too much reliance on polling data to make arguments) but while longish it is a easy and pretty engaging read.
• The Populist Explosion by John Judis - Pretty compact (~300 pages) but giving some good background and history, has something of a US focus (there are chapters on Europe but they are not as in depth/good as the US ones).

HTH

 

[redsquirrel]

BTW if anyone is interested in trying to get another reading group going (either on another book about populism or something else) let me know, I'd be up for it will get me properly reading again.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

It's dense and there are a lot of ideas/themes covered but the prose is very engaging and well written. Chapter 2 is probably most 'theoretical' so if you are finding it hard going you could always try to move onto the chapters focused on countries and then go back. The link Lurdan provided here still works (for me anyway) so you can check it out for free.

Revelli's book is great, probably still the best book I've read on the topic, but if you want a relatively easy intro into the subject then I can recommend

• National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Matthew Goodwin and Roger Eatwell - Goodwin may be a prick but his writings are good. His book on UKIP is still excellent and needs to be read by anyone who is going to seriously engage with the topic, this Pelican primer is not as good as that and has its flaws (too much reliance on polling data to make arguments) but while longish it is a easy and pretty engaging read.
• The Populist Explosion by John Judis - Pretty compact (~300 pages) but giving some good background and history, has something of a US focus (there are chapters on Europe but they are not as in depth/good as the US ones).

HTH

Thankyou

 

[Flavour]

Revelli has another great book about the shift from industrial to post-industrial landscapes in various urban areas of Italy but I think its not been translated into English - though it doesn't cover populist politics explicitly its a very good description of the sorts of neighbourhoods in places like turin, padua, Florence etc that once upon a time voted communist and now vote 5 star or northern league

 

[butchersapron]

David Broder has just had First They Took Rome: How the Populist Right Conquered Italy published:

First They Took Rome

It is difficult for Italians to have much faith in the future. The last Labour Minister said it was a good thing if young people emigrated, to stop them ‘getting under our feet’; one recent Prime Minister said that young Italians should not invest their hopes in securing a stable job, for that...

www.versobooks.com

 

[redsquirrel]

Ta for the heads up both

 

[redsquirrel]

Just finished Cas Mudde's - The Far Right Today, on the good side I guess it is (very) short and it takes a very broad picture, but it is (incredibly) shallow and much of the analysis is based on his fundamental support for liberalism (so you have claims about fascist and anti-fascist activities sharing phone numbers, Britian leaving the EU is radical right politics).

The most worthwhile parts are where he outlines terminology - radical vs extreme right, populist - and the four waves of far right movements. Then Chapter 10 outlines 12 theses on the current far right, these sum up a lot of the book so I'll give them

1. The far right is extremely heterogeneous
2. The populist radical right is mainstrem(ed)
3. Populist radical right politics is no longer limited to populist radical right parties
4. The boundaries have become blurred
5. The populist radical right is increasingly normalised
6. The extreme right are a normal pathology, the populist radical right a pathological normalcy
7. The rise of the populist radical right is about dealignment rather than realignment (for now)
8. The far right is a gendered phenomenon
9. No country is immune to far-right politics
10. The far right is here to stay
11. There is no single best way to deal with the far right
12. The emphasis should be on strengthening liberal democracy

On (1) I'd agree. I'd also agree with (2) but add that this with populist radical right parties usually having a cap on their support levels, (3) is obviously true but has been for a long time (going back to Mudde's third wave at least). By (4) Mudde means the boundaries between populist radical right and traditional conservative right parties, i.e. are the Republicans (in the US) a populist or traditional party, in truth some of both, this I would also agree with Mudde on.
(5) is so underdeveloped that it's hard to say whether I agree with it or not, in some contexts yes in others no.

On (6) Mudde means that the extreme right are a very limited minority within liberal democracies that have long existed (and will exist). On the other hand the populist radical right represent a radicalising trend within the 'normal' framework of liberal democracies, that

the populist radical right does not stand for a fundamentally different world than the political mainstream; rather it takes mainstream ideas and values to an illiberal extreme

there's Mudde's own political bias showing here but I do have a certain agreement on this point and agree that it marks a distinction between the extreme and radical right.

(7) Mudde's point is that people are turning away from traditional parties rather than forming new bonds with populist radical right parties. There's a certain amount of truth here, the vote for lots of populist right parties is volatile but in many cases this vote is firming up and strengthening. I'd also note that Mudde's claim here is partially contradictory to his earlier discussion on whether it is opposition or support that drives radical right voters.

(8), (9) Well yes, also the sky is blue. There is slightly more to (10), Mudde makes the distinction between support for radical right ideas and support for radical right parties, he also posits a demographic cap to the support of populist radical right parties. (11) Mudde makes the this point on the basis of an alignment with liberalism and (12) obviously depends on one's support for liberal democracy.

 

[Hollis]

Can you summarise the book a bit more?

Interesting that she starts in 1910, at the time when the working class was at (one of) it's most militant periods.

I'm afraid I can't really yet as I'm still in the 1930s...! Though I like the way it looks at things like gender and generational differences within families, and geography - and how that is all playing out... also the various strategies of the political parties to basically try to contain.. Without being an expert on these things - she's using good sources - first person accounts/archives to support viewpoints - so good history..

 

[redsquirrel]

From the more popular (ho, ho) end of the literature new Thomas Frank's, The People, No, out

Understood in this way, Populism is not only a radical tradition, it is our radical tradition, a homegrown Left that spoke our American vernacular and worshipped at the shrines of Jefferson and Paine rather than Marx. We may have lost sight of the specific demands of the Populists’ Omaha Platform, but the populist instinct stays with us; it is close to who we are as a people. We may gag at political correctness, but populism endures; populism is what ensures that, even though we bridle against the latest crazy radical doings on campus, we also hate snobs and privilege with the core of our collective democratic being.

And so it is today. Liberalism as we know it now is a movement led by prosperous, highly educated professionals who see government by prosperous, highly educated professionals as the highest goal of protest and political action. Where once it was democratic, liberalism is today a politics of an elite.

What makes this particularly poignant is that we are living through a period of elite failure every bit as spectacular as that of the 1890s. I refer not merely to the opioid crisis, the bank bailouts, and the failure to prosecute any bankers after their last fraud-frenzy; but also to disastrous trade agreements, stupid wars, and deindustrialization . . . basically, to the whole grand policy vision of the last few decades, as it has been imagined by a tiny clique of norm-worshipping D.C. professionals and think-tankers.

In this moment of maximum populist possibility, our commentariat proceeds as though the true populist alternative is simply invisible or impossible. You can either have meritocracy or you can have Trumpism. Those are the choices, the punditburo proclaims: You must either be ruled by gracious, enlightened experts or by racist, authoritarian dunces. Between them there is no middle ground and no possible alternative.

 

[danny la rouge]

I started the first quote thinking it was a tenuous hot take, but the more I read on the more I liked it.

 

[redsquirrel]

I've not read any of Frank's books, only his columns, so I may be misinterpreting him but from what I have read I agree with much of his take down of liberalism. Where I'm a little more critical about that abstract is that Frank's seems to be heading in the direction of Mouffe-Laclau (though with a lot less academic language) that struggles should be orientated around 'people' rather than class. But that may be unfair, the above is only an extract.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I've not read any of Frank's books, only his columns, so I may be misinterpreting him but from what I have read I agree with much of his take down of liberalism. Where I'm a little more critical about that abstract is that Frank's seems to be heading in the direction of Mouffe-Laclau (though with a lot less academic language) that struggles should be orientated around 'people' rather than class. But that may be unfair, the above is only an extract.

I’m with Danny, the more I read that excerpt the more I liked it. His point about the (no) choice offered to citizens of late capitalist economies of either the authoritarian populist right and PMC technocratic liberalism is on the money.

However, you are spot on re Frank’s being in the Mouffe-Laclau tradition and positing a ‘People v The State’ dialectic, emptying class from the picture. As such when it comes to putting forward solutions or suggested alternatives to the current malaise he becomes more abstract and his arguments weaker

 

[Smokeandsteam]

More on Frank here....

“A grand alliance of the ordinary is not just the only way left to us; it’s the only way, period,”

We Must Learn to Embrace Populism

Thomas Frank’s brilliant new book The People, No focuses on the long elite tradition of anti-populism. But it is really an urgent plea to liberals and radicals alike to embrace a left populism and universalism — or keep on losing.

www.jacobinmag.com

 

[Shechemite]

In what way was Jeremy Corbyn/Corbyn’s leadership populist? (As per the quote in that jacobin article).

The problem with JC was that he has no idea how people think, not that he (cynically or otherwise) exploited political sentiment.

Corbynism was just another expression of anti-populism, albeit in this case containing both elite and marginal anti-populist politics

 

[Smokeandsteam]

In what way was Jeremy Corbyn/Corbyn’s leadership populist? (As per the quote in that jacobin article).

The problem with JC was that he has no idea how people think, not that he (cynically or otherwise) exploited political sentiment.

Corbynism was just another expression of anti-populism, albeit in this case containing both elite and marginal anti-populist politics

The article doesn’t suggest Corbynism was populist. It suggest it’s advocates could learn from Frank’s book.

 

[Shechemite]

Why is JC being listed here then?
“ President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, aka AMLO, is a “nationalist,” a “populist,” and “Mexico’s Trump.” Jeremy Corbyn was a rabid antisemite. Bernie Sanders was “left-wing Trump.” Populism is a smear.”

JC is neither a populist (not a good one at least), and he wasn’t smeared on his ‘populism’, but for being (allegedly) a weird hippy and mates with anti-western/British nutters and terrorists (some of whom also hate Jews).

 

[Shechemite]

‘For the many not the few’ isn’t by itself an expression of populism, especially if the ‘many’ in JC’s mind is an amalgamation of ‘oppressed’ and helpless marginalised minority groups.

 

[redsquirrel]

In what way was Jeremy Corbyn/Corbyn’s leadership populist? (As per the quote in that jacobin article).

The problem with JC was that he has no idea how people think, not that he (cynically or otherwise) exploited political sentiment.

Corbynism was just another expression of anti-populism, albeit in this case containing both elite and marginal anti-populist politics

Well I think the question of whether Corbyn's leadership was populist is kind of beside the point. Isn't the more relevant question whether the support for Corbyn and the LP he lead was (to a greater or lesser degree part of) a populist movement.

JC is neither a populist (not a good one at least), and he wasn’t smeared on his ‘populism’, but for being (allegedly) a weird hippy and mates with anti-western/British nutters and terrorists (some of whom also hate Jews).

Surely being called a "weird hippy", and extremist, etc is evidence of JC being smeared for his populism? That the politics advocated were outside the proper boundaries of discussion.

‘For the many not the few’ isn’t by itself an expression of populism, especially if the ‘many’ in JC’s mind is an amalgamation of ‘oppressed’ and helpless marginalised minority groups.

Again, I'd argue almost the opposite that this dyadism, the people vs the elite, is an argument in favour of the populism of "Corbynism".

I'd be wary of overly identifying "Corbynism" with populism but there are some elements there.

 

[Shechemite]

Fair points

 

[Shechemite]

Can support for this or that political movement be populist if it’s motivated by a cultural and geo-political suspicion of ‘the people’. JC yes had an economically populist appeal (both on platform and, to an extent, persona), but culturally and on ‘Britain’s place in the world’, his supporters were antagonist to popular concerns weren’t they?

 

[redsquirrel]

Can support for this or that political movement be populist if it’s motivated by a cultural and geo-political suspicion of ‘the people’. JC yes had an economically populist appeal (both on platform and, to an extent, persona), but culturally and on ‘Britain’s place in the world’, his supporters were antagonist to popular concerns weren’t they?

One thing that every book on the populist has stressed, and usually led off with, is how populism is even harder to define than other political ideologies, e.g. fascism, socialism. The discussion then becomes even harder in the case of "Corbynism" or "Sanderism" as you got (some sort of) populism within what are still very much establishment parties.

I'm not sure how much that address the questions you've raised beyond basically saying - er, maybe . Thinking off the top of my head - there might be some relevance to a discussion how populist Corbynism was in 2017 compared with 2019. What I would say is that populism is frequently not popular, the racism of populist radical right parties often alienates more people that it attracts.

Sorry that's probably a bit of a ramble. After a day of videoconferencing I think I'll have to come back to this discussion when I'm more on the ball.

 

[Shechemite]

No cheers it helps me formulate my thoughts

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I’ve just had an email re the Frank book which is being published in paperback on 10/9.

Reading Group?