Some follow-up thoughts on this video. I think populism is currently widespread, both on the left and right, and both domestically and abroad. Many (if not most) who I would consider populist probably do not label themselves as such, as it has become a somewhat derogatory term, and the term itself is probably not well understood. I would also guess that many or most of said people would not fully agree with my explanation of populism here. I think the place where they take issue the most would be my claim that populism is anti-pluralistic: that it dramatically flattens the political landscape in its presentation of that landscape, typically simplifying it down into a binary where one side is good and the other is bad. The bad side includes 'elites,' who hold power. If you're someone who disagrees with that, try to reflect for a moment how many different political persuasions there are, even just in America. How many different theories, groups, movements there are, with conflicting ideas about what's going on. Who's in power? How many different groups are in power even? How broadly power is shared? Is it 'hegemonic?' Or is there a spectrum of shared power? What kinds of problems are we facing? What should be done? And so on. Then ask yourself if that kind of landscape is captured in populism. I think many would see my point there, but then scratch their heads trying to figure out what thinkers, ideologies, or movements don't flatten politics. For one, liberals don't. At least not nearly to the extent that populists do. A major purpose of liberalism is to recognize, protect, and even foster pluralism. Realists also try to look at the various sides of issues as they exist in reality, without vilifying or glorifying any one given side. But there are many of other examples. All kinds of progressives, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, you name it, that recognize and respect pluralism. They don't lump 'the people' together as one identifiable bracket with one identifiable voice, and pit them against one other identifiable bracket, like 'elites.' You can find pluralist politicians on both sides of the aisle saying something like 'X policy represents this group (maybe coal miners), X policy represents that group (environmentalists perhaps), both have legitimate concerns that conflict with each other, and we need to find a compromise by doing X Y and Z.' Those politicians (or thinkers) may not be in the majority anymore, but they're out there. My point is that pluralism exists and is recognized by many types of thinkers. I would never tell anyone to only listen to what I have to say about any subjects I talk about. I encourage you to get out there and listen to other takes on populism (although I do not recommend UA-cam as a platform for it. IMO books and college lectures are much better). Maybe the best thing I can do here is articulate my process. I try to seek out the best sources, which means trying to find the most serious academics that have written on the subject, who also bring at least a tolerable amount of professional disinterestedness to their work. I throw out anything nakedly partisan (when it comes to this subject I'd give the example of Thomas Frank). Those kinds of partisan works have a strong point of view, skew their presentation in that point of view and it's nakedly apparent to anyone familiar with the subject. That may be fine if you want Thomas Frank's point of view, but that's not for me. So I looked for the best sources I could find (listed in the description), then tried to impartially convey the nuts and bolts of what they had to say, giving the audience a general take of our current understanding of the subject. That's it. If it turns out to be an unflattering portrayal of populism, I don't see that as my problem. I'd do the same for any other subject. That all being said, I don't claim to have done a perfect job here. If I could do it again, I'd probably delete the passage about how populists tend to dismiss you if you don't agree with them, especially if you conflict with them. I think that was unnecessary and skewed the tone without adding value. But I think the video, as a whole, is a decent enough presentation of my sources. If you reject my sources as being authoritative for the subject, then my video won't hold up either. - Ryan
If liberals aren’t populists then which group is saying that everyone except them is part of a racist system? I’ve tried for a few years to have reasonable discussions with liberals and I’m immediately labeled and not listened to even though I tell them I’m just asking how they address certain things.
@@OverOnTheWildSide the difference is that populists don't tend to emphasize any traditional political issue. Racism has a strong political history worldwide; populists disregard any political nuance across the board and pit ppl against each other.
@@OverOnTheWildSide populism is like a cancer that all political traditions have dormant in them. it is however true that liberalism stands the most against populism cause of its central idea of pluralism and rights to freedom and individuality.
@@yordideleon6627 thanks, maybe I’m still missing it but at the beginning of the video Ryan said that populism isn’t usually a stand-alone ideology but it’s attached to other ideologies. That’s how he then used it for the rest of the video and how I was referring to it in my comment. I’ll go back to the beginning of the video though and make sure I got that right.
@@yordideleon6627 whoops I didn’t see this comment, so yes you already considered what I was saying. I don’t see how you can say liberalism is the most against it when the way they behave is riddled with populism traits. Just saying you believe in pluralism doesn’t make a group pluralist. It takes actually valuing other ideas. They may have been that way in the 90’s but not these days. From my experience and observation.
Thank you for this. So populism isn't really a political philosophy. It's more of a rhetorical method. The methods described (people vs. elite, moral division, and supremacy of "the people's view") could be used to advocate for any position.
Yea tbh this describes pretty much every political philosophy. Proletarian vs Bourgeoisie, segregationist vs integrationist, democrat vs autocrat, etc.
^^^^ distinctions between schools of thought aren’t so concrete as people tend to assume. Any heuristic framework can theoretically be adapted to spear-head ANY political ideology.
It is absolutely biased. The way populism is defined here is a whole-cloth creation... completely made up. He gives a long list of examples, but knows everyone is looking at one politician at the top of the list. Yet the people supporting this politician are celebrating the LIMITING NATURE of the Constitution. They want more CONSTRAINTS on political power. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants FEWER LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL POWER. He hates the Constitution.
@@realryanchapman I second this, neo-liberalism would be great to cover if u found the time. Also wanted to say that your content is super informative and intellectually honest. Hoping you blow up soon
I love this educational content! If I could focus on our major failing as a culture, it is the lack of common language and definitions. We're so used to straw-manning each other that we just stumble from ignorance into greater ignorance.
A certain group back in the 60s actually pursued with a vengeance this as a goal. They went about it in a sneaky way. They actually mostly took existing words but gave them special ... shall we say 'synthetic' .... meanings that only made sense inside their own ideology. Words like democracy, race, experience, liberation, black, white, equality, tolerance, innocence, consciousness, critical and many many more ...
@@hrvad The fact that academics had to explore the fuller meanings and implications of things like democracy, race, etc., which were mostly taken for granted in a very surface-level way, doesn't mean they went about giving them "synthetic" meanings in "sneaky" ways. It only means they examined those words and how they're used, and many non-academics didn't like being made conscious of what was revealed about some of the uses of those words in our culture. Don't blame the scholars for revealing it if you don't like what was already there. Blame the structures and the incentives that made people act in those ways, and maybe consider changing if you don't like how things are.
Deep down, the fact that almost 50% of the world's wealth, is owned by around 1% of the world's population, also plays critically into the narrative of Populism. Populism is merely a symptom of the disease!
Excellently produced effort at a definitional introduction. The next definitional move is to distinguish between exclusionary populism and inclusive populism, and between populism that gives up on democratic ritual and counter majoritarian institutions, and one that doesn't. A quick note on PLURALISM. There is social pluralism, which is a fact, and then there is value pluralism, which is the idea that conflict in society is partly an expression of conflict between incommensurable values.
I just started watching your videos (which I randomly stumbled upon) yesterday. As with every talk about politics, I listen with skepticism (vigilant that you might have an agenda (either right or left). But the more of your videos I watch, the more impressed I am with your well-researched clear-mindedness, and the more calmly informed I am. It's refreshing in these times when outrage is driving narratives on both sides. And, yes, you're helping me calm my own outrage that sometimes pops its head up, tyvm.
I must admit, despite coming across the term "populist" in various writings and speeches for a long time now, it never compelled me to actually define it for some reason. I knew NOT knowing the specifics of the term would eventually have to be rectified. Honestly, even though it was a little bit like I assumed in a few ways, I give my thanks to Ryan Chapman for finally unglazing the nuances and giving me a definition for populism I can easily retain the essentials. You did a thorough and well-articulated job too, man.
My initial reaction to this is that, my entire life I’ve never heard any political theory from any side or any part of the world that did not think in this manner. I’ll have to chew on this for a while.
The fact that you put Bernie Sanders on your list of populists, acknowledged the disagreement around that choice and then asterisked it (but still kept him on the list!) shows why and how you keep putting out great content that's both on point and digestible by so many people, Ryan.
To me, Chavez is the greatest example of modern left-wing populists. The man was a charismatic authoritarian who kept being viewed as the anti-elite no matter how much power he concentrated.
Great explanation I happen to live in a country where populism has taken over in the past 20 years and your explanation is right on the spot, seems like there’s some sort of manual they follow, just yesterday in Argentina the president spoke about elites messing with the economy.
I was recently told by someone on UA-cam that my opinions were automatically "worthless" or "irrelevant" simply because they contradicted their own. I'm sure they thought that their views were inherently "right" because they were for "the people". This video explains such thinking perfectly. Thank you 🙂
@@fredneecher1746no, if you say the truth, like 2+2=4, you are popular but not populistic. Populism always needs a hidden lie, mostly in form of oversimplification.
Thank you for this Ryan! In Italy. Where I'm living now, they have two populist parties. Needless to say they perfectly fit your description of Populism.
I would love to see one on conservatism. I listened to a podcast interview with a former Australian PM who broke it into Classical Liberalism, Burkean Conservatism and Social Conservatism; the latter of which is almost unique (in the west) to the US. I feel like it’s often sloppily applied and maybe you can tease apart where things get lost in translation. Either way, A+ work as always. I hope you find this as rewarding as well all do
I see the main distinction as between traditional/burkean/cultural conservatism and classical liberal/neoliberal/economic libertarianism. These are two quite distinct movements but they drifted together out of shared hatred of communism and the advent of modern “progressive” style politics. To learn about traditional conservatism read “conservatism: an invitation to the great tradition” by Roger Scruton To learn about economic conservatism/classical liberalism I recommend anything by Thomas Sowell I’m curious how the Australian PM distinguished between burkean and social? I have a few guesses. But I imagine these are much more similar than either is to classical liberalism.
@@user-ii9kh4ux3o I'd have to go back and listen to the finer points, but her big takeaway is that to most Western conservatives (Burkean), stability is difficult to achieve and easy to lose. Things like maintaining social morays are important but there isn't a sense of morality to it. "The ship must stay righted so this wont do." In the US there is (again, recalling her argument) a moral panic that drives a lot. Abortion is murder, pornography is immoral, etc. it seems to center around hollowing out of the "soul of a nation." I would agree though that fundamentally they differ from anything classically liberal with the latter being "absorbed into the right" for lack of defense on the left. Though I do wonder, Conservatism will always on some level adapt with the time (no Conservative worth engaging in policies with defends the right to own slaves or beat his wife over property rights), so maybe as liberal movements fall out of fashion or become antiquated by progressive politics they necessarily are absorbed (on a left/right scale) into the "conservative tradition."
What was radical in 1900 is conservative today. For example, the idea of racial equality was considered “absurd.” Now, except for about 1/3 of the Republican base, it’s mainstream and even “old news” for many.
I always enjoy your offerings, Ryan, and I think you gave the idea of Populism a fairly good showing. This has been a term I have struggled with for a very long time, and still do. Just when I think I have it covered, some other idea or notion informs my thinking and I'm back to reconsidering what I thought I understood about it. That said, I have always considered Populism akin to the notion among the Founders and others that Populism usually - usually! - reflects the majority will of the people, usually. That is, it is expected that most of the people most of the time will avow that which is fundamentally right and proper. However, since human nature is of no sure foundation, the Founders also understood that it was certainly possible that the time might come when the majority actually avowed that which is wrong or at least very questionable. As for the Elites, I have always understood this term to mean those in power and beyond the effects of even their own egregious policies. I realize that any political term is subject to many variations in definition and while this is so, such a realization does not invalidate the reality of an absolute. If life were simply a line upon which to tread, dangerous deviation would be immediately recognizable, but we travel very often upon a broad highway with lots of room to wander and shuffle about and so the act of defining with precision becomes far more difficult. Thanks again for a very informative bit of thinking!
"The People, No" by Thomas Frank (What's the Matter With Kansas?", "Listen, Liberal") sources the term Populism in the 1880s Kansas or Oklahoma. It was a leftish agrarian revolt and was meant to be another political party. Indispensible, short and clear.
Ryan have you read “The People No” by Thomas Frank and “The New Class War” by Michael Lind? Both essential reading on populism in my opinion. Short books. Agreed populism isn’t always bad. When the elites lose their sense of noblesse oblige, and they go from serving the public to rent-seeking and corruption, populism becomes more popular and I would argue, more necessary. The question is how is this populism channeled, and how thick do we lay it on. Another way I look at it is this: “normal” politics is left vs right. Populism is up vs down. When elites are genuinely attempting to serve the people, we can stay within left vs right debate. But when they only serve themselves, you need up vs down. Appreciate your videos.
I would say in recent years we are seeing the left and right being conflated with the powers that be sometimes, so I am more concerned with what that will mean if it truly goes out of control.
The danger of populism is that a lot of times, politicians aren't corrupt, but get falsely accused of being corrupt anyway; simply because they're not doing what you want them to do.
@@senbassador corruption in politics is well documented throughout history from Cicero to the Gracchi brothers. From Pelosi and her insider options trading to McConnel and his wife with CCP ties. I welcome any disagreement among people with integrity.
@@user-ii9kh4ux3o I am not disagreeing that there is a lot of corruption. I am simply saying that even if you are a politician who isn't corrupt; you will still get falsely accused of being corrupt if you don't go along with that the populist want. It's the fact that not doing what "the people" want, or taking certain positions, is in of itself "proof" of corruption. Obviously, not all populists are this; but it is a trait many of them share. The biggest example of that you see if anytime a politician takes the position of supporting free trade. Their immediate go to is "well, obviously he got paid off by the Koch Brothers to take that globalist position. He's selling out American workers, etc etc". This is not to say that there aren't politicians who are paid off by the Koch Brothers to take certain positions on certain issues. It's just that to populists, just taking those positions means that you are corrupt.
This video really made me think and helped me to clear my understanding of the term and phenomenon of populism. One thing that I would have added to the video is to ask the question "is populism harmful" instead of just asking "is populism dangerous". The latter question in my mind is a more black-and-white approach to the matter, and may cause people to not notice more subtle and slow negative effects that populism may have into the society. I think one such effect is people's thinking becoming generally more black-and-white, simplistic and shallow. All people have a certain collection of tools of thinking that they apply to the problems and decisions they face. When people feel strongly and emotionally drawn to simplified thinking in one area of their life, I believe that that kind of thinking easily spreads to other areas of their lives too. As a consequence of that people become (by definition) more unrealistic, and that's never a good thing if the aim is to build a well working society, which requires a lot of problem-solving. Anyway, in my mind this is indeed very thought out explanation of populism, and at the same time a very good example of how to analyse and understand things.
Another beautifully crafted and explained video. I love how your videos and explanations have no fat! Concise and precise explanations! Love the bipartisan attitude to: “populism on the Right is often accompanied by Nationslism, those in the Left associated by Socialism!” Now That’s a straight shooter claim and not a some BS partisan narrative!
totally agreed. it seems that he has this capacity to brush off asymmetrical biases whereof more sensical truth being turned into by means of dispassionate research.
@@annisafebriyanti693 The words are impressive but don't get ahead of yourself. The fight against bias is neverending in everyone, or it's not being taken seriously. The voice is calm. That's a good thing. No screaming about politics. But seeking "the middle" every time just makes you easy to control by sociopaths who just put what they want between two made-up extremes. Problems don't just appear out of thin air. They are caused. An ideology video doesn't address this, and that's fine. Just be aware of that.
@@screwgoogle4993 The point of bias is not about two made up extremes by sociopaths. It's about understanding the underlying thoughts and motivations in each extreme and then devising a middle ground system of thoughts and actions that has as its basis sustainability and peace in the long run for a given society. If these two factors are not a major priority then any system of governance would do, something we know isn't so.
@@AANasseh you missed the point. The middle ground, centrism, etc. can still be undermined, manipulated, influenced by bias. Just because an idea is not extreme, does not mean it is free from biases. Human nature itself operates on biases. This is their point. Your so-called two factors for societal governance are completely irrelevant to their point.
What I love about your videos is that in a world of sensationalising everything, you don't overreach. And it must be SO tempting to do so. Really great. So happy to have discovered your work. KEEP GOING! (I know it gets tiring)
It's telling people what they already know and what they want to hear. You don't need much words, you don't need to convince anybody, people don't need to learn anything, you just need to confirm people, give them a secure feeling. It works cause its so effortless.
It works? I dunno, guess it depends in what context. In a culture where accountability is held in high regard, where government is run properly and responsibly, populism won't catch. Since Ryan used the "fire" metaphor to describe it, there needs to be some amount of dry tinder - voter disenfranchisement or apathy, a dysfunctional society that can be made to see elites as scapegoats, to give rise to populist movements.
@@mrD66M you talk like it's for everybody. No it's not, it's for a certain amount of uneducated people. You cannot blame the governement if not the entire population is highly intelligent. The biggest populism is Religion. You tell people simple things they like, but have nothing to do with the truth. Moth governements are little populistic, cause they have to attract stupid people. It would be better for all to pay more taxes, but this is an unpopular opinion, so nobody dears to tell the truth. Ask for smart people is ok, but blaming the governement for people beeing stupid is going too far. This would only work in dictatorships, cause in democracy you have the freedom to be stupid.
I have been quite randomly recommended your channel and from what I see, your goals and methods seem noble. I encourage you to continue this work if this is satisfying for you and profitable in your situation, because this sort of quality in topics which paradoxically seem both hotly debated yet practically rather niche in terms of mainstream interest, paired with what I can only deduce as the best intentions, seem way too rare and I can only hope you should skyrocket to the level of respect and acclaim people hold for the likes of not so many on this platform. Cheers from a new sub
Oh my gosh - “stress testing institutions”. Thank you for putting words to the bizarre social and governmental happenings recently. It seems like boundaries are being tested to see how far things can go uncontested and unquestioned.
Stress testing institution aren’t limited to just Populists. An argument can be made that this has become common practice amongst everyone holding political power in the US.
Oh. So for this little stress test experiment billions have been terrorised, kept in unheated homes, denied basic services, lied to, and, basically, sacrificed. BILLIONS. I would very much like to know whose idea this was. Who have been the sub- human ones who farted this criminal plan?
Great video. Electricity might be a better analogy than fire. Properly channeled electricity can do a lot of good, but can also be directly dangerous or used to power dangerous systems.
Some fire is good. Fire that we use to keep ourselves warm during the Winter and fire that we use to cook our food. We used fire to light candles to keep our houses lit back before electricity, but basically electricity is fire. Fire just needs to be kept in check for it to be beneficial.
Forest fires are often good for certain plants and trees. Whether something is 'good' depends on what kind of stake we have in its progress. The same is true for 'dangerous'.
You should mention that the technique of labeling groups divisively is not necessarily populism and also that some populist "them" groups are legitimately criticized even outside the populist movement in question.
I have enjoyed your videos. I don't know how true or accepted your interpretations are but they make sense to a "not formally educated in political science" citizen. Perhaps this is PolySci dogma that is known in those circles and this is he watered down view for us regular people or is it original academic papers with research, or both. I also realize that this discipline is incredibly fluid. I first found your video about "Fascism" which I never understood and had an "AHA" moment. Populism also was a mysterious term. I am a retired Pulmonologist and spent a career diagnosing odd ailments. I likened the process as in the image of a detective looking at a Cake dropped from the third floor and trying to figure out what it was before the drop. Political Science these days is pretty similar. Your videos at least increase the perspective to look at the crumbs and box the cake came in on the third floor. Thanks
Ryan, you are one of my two main go-to's for the subjects you cover. Every time I see a new post of yours, my list and your reach to others multiplies because I share and promote it. For history and an understanding of the workings of society, you are second only to Heather Cox Richardson, IMHO. If you do not know her, you should. You are both addressing the greatest issue we face in our efforts to change: CLARITY of understanding. Thank you!
hes a good starting point- but if youve read enough you know hes not exactly correct- for eg he biast against socialism and marxism so not neutral- im constantly correcting him in comments on those subjects including above - he seems ok on liberalism and fascism thou hes left out some other traditional tenets - he seems to focus on certain elements - so take with grain of salt -
@@karwashblark7499 not so obvious in this video but more in others like his one on socialism -ive answered it in separate comment a few comments below - but hes a reformist - he calls that socialism when its not - so hes biased to the "middle of the road do nothing prolong the problem politics" as good
As I was thinking, populism is not a political direction per se, but rather a method, a subversive approach to a political direction / goal. Quite neatly presented, all Ryan's lessons I mean, not just this one. I reccomend the one on `Intellectual bases of wokism" or so.
In my opinion, 'skepticize' would be a more dispassionate intransitive verb over 'conspiracy theorizing' if the goal is to remain neutral. Ignoring politically charged connotations of terms seems to enable those connotations to serve as an unconscious influence in how certain lexical items in political science are perceived, i.e. with an intentional or unintentional political slant. This phenomenon is analogous to referring to a social group's activities by a common slur rather than a more neutral identifier; e.g. referring to a person native to the Yucatan consuming sustenance by saying "bean eating" instead of "having lunch." This word choice may even be true if black turtle beans were a portion of the meal, yet that doesn't appear to acknowledge the unfortunate connotation of the phrase: the social implications from the unconscious example of how that social group member is being treated in consideration. Others may likely be influenced by each of our tacit behaviors in this way as a part of our natural socialization as a culture. I believe this phenomenon underlies disparities resulting in the consequence of certain social groups being caused to feel either intrinsically valuable or not as defined by social influences exhibited by society at random. Theoretically, this has decided effects on the sense of confidence and the subsequent motivation to behave in ways that make accessing the full range of opportunities around them likely. In other words, unconscious connotations appear to be the grassroots social mechanism of 'oppression' in action. This is my only critique of an otherwise impressive ability to define emotionally charged political concepts without seeming to have bias.
As always, thank you so much for a great video, Ryan! I really appreciate the way that you carefully the nuances of a subject. This video was helpful for me to deal with my internal conflicts toward populism. In many ways I am drawn toward some populist movements, but I have to check myself because I also see how they can be dangerous.
Ryan, I love watching your videos. I find them educational and informative. Keep making more. I’m interested in your unbiased finds. They are intelligent observations. Based on personal experience and strong morals and ethics and research.
Interesting analogy with fires because even forest fires are not always bad. In certain ecosystems, forest fires play a regenerative role. Getting rid of the old dead wood and making room for new plants to grow.
06:45 In Socialism this is literally "the false consciousness of the Bourgeoisie", Feminism has a similar mentality framing men as unknowing about women but women about all-knowing about men. I often hear "Populism can only ever be right-wing" but it surprises me how Populism is essentially mainstream on the Left and only has been rising recently on the Right (largely since 2001).
I think class makes it easy. There is one class who literally owns and another class who works for them. It gets weirder when someone tries to make an underpaid librarian into the elite and billionaires into the people.
So well thought out and explained. Especially love that you added that last part about cases where it can be dangerous or not... Thank you so much for making these!
FIRE. Great analogy, Just discovered this chap. He's very good, and well worth listening too. Pity that the ones who need to listen the most are all watching sport at the moment.🤨
Great video, a simple but effective strategy that has seen explosive success in the states in the past 40 years. I’d argue Newt Gingrich belongs on that list
Very helpful! Reading Wikipedia pages on political topics can be so confusing, so I’m glad someone can make unbiased videos explaining the concepts in an easy to understand way! And this saves me from having to buy more books 😂
It can also be understood simply as a focus on the people in general or the people as a whole, as opposed to giving of a certain small subset of powerful individuals ("elites") a disproportionate voice based on their status. This is largely a good thing, and ideally how democracies should work. Similar, if someone if focusing on their constituents instead of the will of a party, that is a good thing. It seems to me the the idea of populism has been demonized so as use the it as a kind of boggy-man, largely by conflating populism with demagoguery -- now just calling a movement, leader, or even a party or general faction "populist" is a way to signal your own follower to view it/them as dangerous, morally evil, and to be opposed. What should be positive has been turned into an attack.
Because those who attack populist movements are often elitists themselves, just not necessarily political/wealth elites. They usually think of themselves as intellectually more capable.
agree populism is usually only "dangerous "for the so called elites-the centralized power and wealth -unless we are talking about a fringe minority and we could find better words for such groups most populists just find that there is too much corruption in power and power is more and more centralized not just in Governments but more international -and there are monopolies In Italy the left and right populist came together for a while won the election and formed a government, but when the right wing Salvini grew a lot in popularity and could form his own government after an election-he tried to force an election and the left forced him out and formed a government with the same people they claimed to oppose -Bolsenaro, Orban, Trump, Salvini, Modi none of those are dangerous ,Sanders himself is not either but a lot of the Bernie bros are communists sorry to say -I'm Dansih Sanders claim he would like the US to be more like Denmark, a lot of the things he and his supporters are saying is something we have on the far far left in Denmark -the socialist party that party used to be 2 communist parties and 1 socialist who melted into one- I would not recommend such a system, I see a lot of the Bernie bros using communist symbols and language-some even write they are Marxists - that said Bernie also have a lot of god points and it is good to have different views -a man like him can help keeping the balance
Interesting. I have in the past used "elites" as a blanket term for anyone who has power or influence over certain political issues. I've been called a populist in the past as well, usually in a negative way.
Though, as this video stressed, a large group of people necessarily means that many different ideas are represented therein. Ergo if a politician talks about a certain policy being what the people want in reality they can only say that that policy is what a majority wants (and that majority could be a slim majority or an overwhelming majority or in between) but almost certainly they cannot say that that is what all of the people (in a diverse society) want. For example, even as popular as Franklin Roosevelt was in his lifetime there were plenty of people around then who didn't support his ideas. As this video mentioned there may be instances in populism is beneficial, especially if a movement focuses on necessary reforms, rather than on individual leaders, in most instances populist movements have been tied to specific populist political leaders, and in such a context the dangers are significant.
It seems like you're saying something pretty similar to what I did. Focusing on the people 'as a whole,' which is in opposition to focusing on 'elites.' Even going with this binary you presented, elites should also get a voice in democracy in practice (the point is that everyone gets a voice). If you're saying things should be more balanced, but elites still get a voice, then I don't think you're describing populism. Populism gets a bad rap because it is behind a lot of the worst movements since the 20th century (fascism, Marxism-Leninism, all kinds of authoritarian movements that are seen as historical blemishes). There's no conflation being done there. The movements were straightforwardly populist, even going by a strict definition. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with your second part there.
As I’ve said to your previous videos - Thank you the educational content is helpful. Thank you. Is populism dangerous? The answer must be Yes - and yes in every context, or else what’s the point of populism? Where populism occurs where there are weak institutions and it threatens to take over the Government, then it is dangerous for certain sections of that society namely those who control the institutions and are in positions of power and control. And whilst there may be benefits to the general population, the ‘bourgeoisie’ as the dominant class, is eviscerated. e.g. Venezuela and Hugo Chavez.
Good video. It seems like this idea is a good tool to explain many current movements and groups and while it often gets pointed at right-wingers, it certainly spans both sides, and sometimes even leaves both sides making surprisingly similar claims. Very interesting.
@@leslovesliberty1776 You think so? It looks like Trump is the leading GOP candidate again. A corrupt millionaire who cut taxes to the top earners. Doesn't seem like it.
I disagree with the emphasis on authoritarianism and cult behaviour. It coincides with populism, but then I'd say it's dictators using populism to achieve those things. I think you're spot on when it comes to the layfolk vs elites distinction as a core part of populism. With that said, I don't consider populism to be anti-pluralism. Indeed, it can be argued it's pro-pluralism, since it aims to destroy the hegemony of the establishment (Moldbug would say "the cathedral" here). This makes sense, since populism isn't inherently hegemonic - it's very thin, as you mentioned. That means it can be paired with liberalism and pluralistic ideas of free speech and public dialogue just as much as it can be weaponized to achieve tyranny. Towards the end, it seems to me that you are talking about some sort of elitism or fanatic in-group preference masquerading as populism. This becomes especially apparent when you put up the image with the people elevated, and the elites down under, like an underclass. What do you think? At any rate, thanks for the video. I do always enjoy video essays!
The pluralism part comes from the conflation I'd say. Populism itself is pluralistic in nature, since it removes a narrow establishment. But populists very often have their own agendas, and often get hijacked by demagogues, which are even more narrow-minded than the old establishment. As you say, it often coincides with populism, but it's not an inherent ingredient.
Populism is part of collection of political/rhetorical techniques which are very useful for gaining power. It gets associated with authoritarianism because authoritarian leaders/movements which appeal to populism tend to be relatively successful. Which is why conmen and demagogues so often sound populist... It works This is somewhat related to the 'playbook' or 14 characteristics approaches to "fascist style". Doesn't really matter much what they believe deep down, the methods of gaining support and power tend work anyway.
It also misses when populism becomes "The Establishment" with far reaching affects, with another "populist" movement to counteract the status quo. The obvious example would be the Women's Christian Temperance Movement (with now over a century of reach) laying the groundwork for Suffragettes, drug policy, and the only time I'm aware of the Constitution was amended and back again. And in light of the on-going affects, would the current state of affairs be described as "authoritarian" (nevermind the prison population), or is it simply authoritarian when I disagree?
@@defenstrator4660Yes, populism is popular *amoung one group*. It is catering to the concerns/interests of that one group without regard (and most often at the expense of) other groups. Populism is pretty much an empty term expect in contrast to pluralism. If you just mean popular, you say "popular". Populist is different.
I believe that I am a right wing populist but my position is vastly different than you have framed so these are my opinions. The populist objective is to identify good policies for society, you have that correct. Of course, the contrary is that Populists disagree with policies that the perceive as hurting the people. Your framing on immigration is wrong. Immigration is not an all or none situation. There can be no immigration, there can be some immigration and there can be a lot of immigration. So populism is not against immigrants at all. It is against a policy that hurts the society we inhibit, so a balanced immigration policy is good for society. You have correctly identified "them" as Elites. Immigrants are never "them" from my perspective. Elites are the ones I perceive are in power, but that alone does not make them a "them". They are people that are also unaccountable and are setting the rules under which we live in a manner that benefits them over the people. So the lack of accountability is a huge piece of the puzzle. If the "Elites" were in fact being held accountable, then populism would disappear and we would return to the previous right - left political paradigm. IMO, the lack of accountability is the reason for the rise in populism. So that is my position on populism.
I really like your last thoughts. My populism is not dangerous because I am from the west and I want to restore balance to the system. Once achieved, it is no longer required and we return to right-left politics.
100% agree. Its also very important to distinguish legal immigration versus illegal immigration. I have seen people against illegal immigration and elite corruption get called populists and it boils my blood. Its often just a way to dismiss them without listening to them.
@@Apostate_ofmind I mean, opposing elite corruption is kinda the heart of populism. It's why you would feel it necessary for the populus to stand against the aristocrats ;). As for the other: opposing illegal acts isn't that special, and many elites do also oppose it. There is a link though, in that the establishment often wilfully turns a blind eye to those illegal acts - which they perceive as beneficial to them or their donors. Standard form of institutional corruption.
I agree with you. This video is made by someone who clearly has an anti populism stance. The fact he says that 'elites' only SOMETIMES engage in conspiracy theories is what completely lost me
I think the populist will never acknowledge they are an elite, no matter how much power they concentrate. Our guy is still not an elite no matter how high their office is.
Populism is the opposite of elitism, it is as simple as that. In a well functioning democracy the political parties represent the population, but in a totalitarian system this is no longer the case, the politicians only represent their own personal interests. When that happens people will start new groups of representation. In some cases it is an one-cause interest group, but over time it may become broader and thus become a new political party. If it happens the established political parties will try to eliminate the new competitor, since they know it is more in accordance with the population that they themselves are. One way to try to take the competitor down is to use the derogative "populist" in the meaning "not serious", but no one will fail to see the lie, and the new party can and will be elected. Should that happen, the corrupt parties will try other, sometimes unconstitutional, ways to eliminate the popular party: voter fraud, trying to get it banned by court or its leaders put in jail, claiming that is policy is "hate speech" or what ever stupidity they may be able to invent. The only thing that they will not do, is to represent the population themselves, because they are already so rotten, that they despise true democracy.
"Pushing together two positively charged magnets" I think you mean 'two like magnetic poles' or 'two like charges'. Either one would work acceptably but combining them together seems strange. Magnets have north and south rather than positive and negative. Also, there are no magnetic monopoles (only dipoles) so you need to prevent rotation in the case of magnets but there are monocharges such as two positive ions which would experience repulsive forces.
Great narrative! Would I be wrong to think that this way of explaining populism is in part a metamodern viewpoint? It seems to take both progressiveness and critique into consideration, but also “human nature” as to how society may fail and succeed through the same means, simultaneously. A nice dialectic, maybe? The strength in this model of understanding is just that; it’s not “wrong” with either political viewpoint, but does reveal the societal weaknesses of populist power, while there’s oppositional opportunities as well. However, the lack of pluralism, therefore the dignity of “them”, is dangerous in my view. Thanks, I’m a fresh subber now… 🇳🇴
That one was disappointing. Taking your criteria: a) Morally superiour: I challenge you to name me one single political movement NOT thinking of themselves as "morally superiour" in that they hold themselves to a moral standard, and this moral standard is better than those of other movements; that "movement" would not materialise, but integrate itself into another movement. b) "The people have superiour insight compared to élites": That is a legitimate position, but has nothing to do with populism per se. Policies trying to include the experiences of the broad masses (populus) of course have a broader insight: a macroeconomy élite has insight into macroeconomics and how policies can optimese certain metrics. The populace sees their policis in practice and will have a broader insight in sum whether these metrics really embetter their lives. 2 examples: 1) Stagflation: Inflation in original Keynesian thought is good for the economy, as it means more capital is put into the economic flow, thus creating growth. Enter Stagflation, which modern Keynesianism just included today into their models. In the 1970s, it was convenient to "forget" to pay back the deficit spending during the boom phases, ballooning debt. Inflation was on a high level, so many economic politicians just wanted to lean back and wait for the growth to come - which it didn't. The populace saw that this metric being optimised had de-coupled from raising their living standards; so they voted for Reagan, Thatcher or Kohl, market radicals which had a distinct populist touch, felt "morally superiour" to deregulate against "bureaucracy" and let "the invisible hand of the markets" regulate everything. 1a) "Occupy Wall Street" is EXACTLY the same: The populace sees the profits and economic growth, both metrics that are being seen as metrics of economic well-being; but inequality, declining adjusted wages, and medical and educational debt in fact lower their median income while mean income "grows" (which is why it has now been largely superseded by median income as a metric), putting their living standards in peril and denying them to be "the smith of their own happiness". BTW, that's why Bernie Sanders is NOT a populist, because your definition falls short and you put inconvenient parts of the normative definition into "tendencies". 2) In Wales, a majority voted for BREXIT; this regardless of the sizable funds the EU provided for projects in Wales. However, when interviewing citicens of some of those communities, they stated that they liked EU-funded statues and community halls; but the underlying problems for the brain drain out of the region and poverty wasn't lack of statues or community halls, but the crash of heavy industries without introducing new structures in future industries; this is exacerbated by the "race to the bottom" of wages drawing those future industries into Eastern Europe. A campaign manager of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were not taken on when they suggested Clinton did rallies in the coal areas and rust belt, and implemented projects to fund industries for renewable energy generation into those areas whose industries were endangered. Those areas overwhelmingly voted for Trump. As with your "Fascism" definition (capitalised b/c it is a headline), you exclude the vast majority of data (fascist governments other than Germany and Italy, especially the longest-lived fascism, Spanish Falangism) so the sample fits your "definition". This in itself is "populist", as you discard the "plurality" of the movements you brand as "populist". You should reflect on your methodology. Differentiating between "Populism" and "populist methods", you may see the populist methods used by Reagan, Thatcher, Sanders and Occupy Wall Street as necessary to challenge anti-pluralist petrifications (i.e. "a high inflation leads to growth eventually", "high profits mean a healthy economy"); while "populism" uses the "court of public opinion" as a reason against the *factual arguments* presented. Not Populism: Reagan: "There is high inflation and deficit spending, but still recession". Not Populsim: Sanders: "High profits and growing BIP doesn't transfer into a growing adjusted median income and healthy inequality." Populism: "Growing perceived criminality corresponds to schools without prayer." (Fact: shrinking criminality) Populism: "Underground pizza parlour deals are the reason of the economic decline of middle-class families."
Not quite a valid example. Populism is generally the people typically in the bottom or middle vs the oligarchy. In populism by definition the oligarchy is those with power who use it to the detriment of the economic, political, social well being of the masses or to empower themselves at the expense of the individual liberties of the masses, for the benefit of the oligarchy.
Racialized populism appeals to, and to some extent delivers on, kinship among members of the same race at all levels of society. Jim Crow did little to improve the material lot of a white sharecropper, but it did mean a black doctor or lawyer had to show deference to him on pain of death, and humans care a _lot_ about status.
Thanks for sharing! All these videos are so well created and goes deep into the subject. Incredible great job. May I sugest/ask/beg for videos explaining where to go from here ? I'd love to learn more but don't know where to look.. Thanks again !
5:11 Damn right, moral division! A society is an organised system FOR humans. Do you want to enjoy the rights derived from living in a society? Fine. Behave like a human, not like an animal. Animals are to be kept in Zoos, not allowed to run rampant amongst people ruining even the little that has been achieved. What is a human? A moral animal. Don’t forfeit your potential. Yes, I do believe in the potential of every individual. I always will.
I have a question for you, Ryan. Are (modern) politicians actually powerful? I'm usually not at all into the subject but you got me hooked recently, and this something that has bugged me for many many years. Everyone I know thinks that the politicians are the decision-makers, while I believe that they are just the charismatic face in front of the decision-makers in most if not all cases, very much like in the movie The Campaign.
You are the only political commentator I have ever seen that is totally objective. After watching nearly all of your videos I can't tell where you fall on the political spectrum. Even those that strive to be neutral often give subtle clues. You don't. That's very impressive. Kudos, my friend.
When you were defining populism at the beginning, Bernie Sanders is who came to mind for me. The fact that people dispute his populism seems silly to me.
In my opinion, the only reason he is not viewed as populist by some is because he is not utilizing populism as effectively as other socialist leaders. In other words he is a "mild" populist if there is such thing, but populist nonetheless.
Great video. I've been reading 'The Revenge of Power' by Moises Naim (which I'd really recommend by the way) and this video is a great supplement to reading about populism more widely.
good points made. I think it's interesting to form the idea with precise descriptions, though I still believe populism is a neutral term to describe this political trend
Ryan, in response to your question “Is populism dangerous” and your answer to it, I ask this question: In a political system that has become demonstrably and irredeemably corrupt, is it more dangerous for the unrepresented to continue accepting that system? Or for a “dangerous” populist movement to rise up and take back control? Just how far back in the corner do you think they can push the people before things turn desperate?
They they... Them .. who is your supposed enemy?? Populism constructs these corrupt and irreversible system. Dangerous populism takes back control.. From whom? ? The chinese? The socialists? The communists? The nationalists?? Populism is nothing but going with the majority openion rather than The correct openion. Its puting someone famous an actor or a telivision hoast in the seat of the president rather than someone who is talented enough to do that ..
@@steephanroy8461 you got a good set of questions down there but you are misled by your own assumption that populism will always be a negative. This is what I usually call word salads. If gou want a proper answer to yourbown question. You must always consider the context and specifics of the "populists movement" in question.
I have enjoyed your previous videos. They seemed well researched and very much on point. This one, however, contained too many generalities. Your analysis is very tilted towards defining populism as "bad" thus leaving open the conclusion that pluralism is both "good" and PREFERRED. I think that if our schools actually taught correct US History correctly, we would have BOTH. For example: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." Sounds both populist and pluralistic; your thoughts?
In the end, populism is not an ideology, or a type of ideologies, but a political *style* . That's both why it can accommodate, even mix, ideas from both sides of the aisle and why populist elements are identifiable in so much political literature (speeches, manifestos, flyers, declarations...) even from movements you wouldn't usually identify as "populist". It also explains why populisms so often lose track of reality: the rhetoric is more important to it than the actual content. Plus, it's closely linked to all populisms' tendency towards charismatic leadership.
From your argument the lesson that I've learnt is that some people yell "Fire!!! - fire!!! - fire!!!" when there's a fire without any danger and that these people are "Fire-ists" which, without a political context is absurd given that there is no political value in being Chicken Little. However, there's certainly political value in labelling groups. Personally, I don't shout fire unless there's danger nor do I tell people that the sky is falling but I sense that there are many people labelling the people that they disagree with as Fire-ists.
I've been putting this video of for months though it keeps appearing in my suggestion box, simply because pretty much everybody, even usually smart people uses the word population wrong and that's what I expected. Well I was wrong, you actually use the word within the constraints of it's current sociological and political sciences application and even highlight the most important factors. Thx a lot, I was totally prepared to dunk on this video and now I won't have. Three thumbs up
I love your videos. However, I think there are a few problems with your analysis of Populism. 1) In your videos on Fascism, Liberalism, Marxism etc, you refer to political actors who actually self-identify as Fascist, Liberal, Marxist etc. Are there any political actors who self-identify as Populist? It feels to me that the “Populist” label was invented by these people’s opponents as a slur. Their opponents wanted to call them “Fascists”, but felt they couldn’t quite get away with it, so came up with the “P” word to mean something like “Fascist-adjacent”. This probably explains why the anti-Populists resist describing Bernie Sanders as a Populist. For many of them he’s their preferred candidate. 2) “Us and Them” is almost universal in politics. It’s the friend/enemy distinction described by Carl Schmitt. It feels too general to make it a USP of Populism. 3) Conspiracy theories are found just as frequently among the opponents of Populism as among so-called Populists. Think of the Trump/Russia collusion theory, for instance. So again, it's too general to make it a USP of Populism.
To be clear, this is mostly reiterating professional analysis of populism, based on the sources listed. The term populism came from the Populist party in America around the turn of the 20th century. It was more widely used as a label of self-identification until enough time had passed and enough populist movement were widely seen through a negative lens, historically. Fascism, by the way, is a version of populism, as is Marxism (although that one is more controversial). Populism is just the general label for mass politics where it's people vs. elites, and someone gives voice to what 'the people' think and feel. People do still self-identify as populist, but it's more rare. The people over on Breaking Points are an example. 'Us vs. them' has become very popular as mass politics has increasingly dominated politics over the last 120 years or so. That, to a large extent, corresponds with the rise of populism (as voting rights spread). Pointing at the widespread use of something, even if much of it goes outside of populism, doesn't disqualify it from being a component of populism. The same goes for conspiracy theories. I just listed that last part as a notable tendency. So it's not a requirement, but something you shouldn't be surprised to see. Again, it doesn't matter if other types of thinkers engage to some extent in conspiracy theories. Unless you're trying to say that all ism's are equally prone to conspiracy theories, which would make it meaningless. But I don't think that's right.
@@realryanchapman I agree. Though it is indeed interesting, that populism in modern times is never a self-identification, always a pejorative label from the outside. That said, I consider myself a strong supporter of my "populist" government here in Hungary, but I couldn't find anything offensive about the things you listed. To some extent I can recognize some of all four symptoms you named, but it has an overwhelming electoral support, and the outcome is generally good, so it's good fire. 🇭🇺🔥 Drives "them" mad though 😃
Could not disagree more with the assertion that conspiracy theories are found just as much on the "anti populist" side as on the "populist" side. Baffling assertion to me.
@@bob3ironfist The main reason anti-populists are prone to conspiracy theories is this. They usually win, so they expect to win; so when they don’t win there has to be some explanation involving dark forces. The Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is a classic case of this kind of thinking. Consider the recent French Presidential election. Marine Le Pen lost, and since then I haven’t heard her supporters attribute her loss to any conspiracies. But if she’d won, I feel certain there would be all manner of conspiracy theories claiming Vladimir Putin did it using snapchat, or something. Here in the UK the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU Referendum is considered Populist, and since its victory its opponents have come up with various conspiracy theories to delegitimise the result. One theory claims a cabal of vulture investors managing hedge funds somehow engineered the Referendum result in order to profit from the market turbulence it would likely cause (Remain-supporting economist Chris Dillow has explained in detail why the theory makes no sense, but it persists). Another theory claims a cabal of tax avoiding businessmen engineered it to prevent the UK applying the EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive 2016/1164 (that directive was adopted by the EU Commission three days AFTER the Referendum, the UK incorporated it into domestic law while it was negotiating withdrawal, and it’s still in force in the UK today). There are also various theories claiming that Putin did it, of course. What all of these theories miss is, the UK’s membership of the EEC/EU has always been controversial, and even though the pro-EU side won every single battle between 1972 and 2016, it often did so by the tiniest of margins. The Parliamentary vote to approve the Maastricht Treaty (which transformed the EEC into the EU) was won by just three votes; and that with the Prime Minister threatening his party he’d call a kamikaze election and deliberately set out to lose it if they didn’t pass the Treaty. Opinion polls showed that the UK population has been majority Eurosceptic since 1995, so a Leave victory was always a reasonable possibility.
@@matehavlik4559 The label “Populist” really means “we want to call you Fascist but we probably can’t get away with it”. You could argue that the Swiss political system, in which every major issue is decided by a popular referendum, is the most Populist system it’s possible to have, since it makes unpopular policies almost impossible to enact. But I’ve never heard the term used that way. I have a similar problem with the label “Neoliberalism”. No one self-identifies as a Neoliberal, and the term gets applied to a whole range of different policy positions. Just about the only policy position which isn’t Neoliberal is one of total opposition to Capitalism and markets. So technically, the first Neoliberal was Lenin, when he moved from War Communism to the New Economic Policy.
While much of this is a good description of most populist movements, it is an awful description of populism. It mostly gets lost in conflation, and thus in abstraction. Because most of the video discusses trends common in the many forms of populist movements, rather than populism itself. Power corrupts. Those in power, tend to abuse power to stay in power (evolutionary reasons apply). This forms an established elite. That causes problems. They may spend all their time getting re-elected, or have only skills for that. They may abuse office to enrich themselves. Or they may just grow out of touch. Either way, the lower classes start suffering. Populism rises up against such a corrupted elite. At heart, it seeks to cut out that corruption. That is populism itself. Populism often has specific grievances, and may not be united. In our society, Bernie and Trump both led populist movements... but with very different ideas on what to do beyond that. And even within those, the socialists and cultural marxists are severely at odds; and likewise the Trumpian faction ranges from conservatives to libertarians to liberals. They will offer different solutions to the problems. They merely agree on populism: that the elites are corrupt, and that this corruption has to be either cured, or amputated. In closing we should also note that populist leaders may not be populists. Usually they are themselves elites, and they may have genuine sympathies, or merely seek to exploit the faction to gain power. The latter would be called demagogues. Populists may also be misinformed, and they may be (in our view) outright evil, for instance black/white nationalists, or even nazis or communists. But the term itself only has meaning in its opposition to an established order. The rest is conflation. ================= On this, a specific criticism: "marxism" does still require the word where appropriate. The USSR started as populist-marxism, but it quickly created its own establishment. In mere decades, it was itself the elite that populists opposed. When populists take over a government and end its establishment (which takes some major uprooting), they cease being populists. Their job is done. From that point they may still seek to remedy past wrongs, but they'll likely be something else... socialists, liberals, conservatives or the like. Also, I would fully say Bernie and Trump acted as populist leaders (whether or not they are genuine). Erdogan however cannot be reasonaby considered a populist, even if he once was one, because he now firmly leads the Turkish establishment. What elites is he supposed to be opposing on behalf of the people? Finally, it's worth noting the word's root in latin. Populares vs Optimates. A civil conflict that lasted for about a century, and ended up with the Roman Republic collapsing into dictatorships and ultimately, the Caesars.
The posed question is simple: yes, populism is inherently dangerous and destructive. Just as surgery is inherently dangerous and destructive to the body... and how much more, if the cancer was consciously trying to prevent the surgery at all costs? We tend to view "danger" as a negative word. But danger is necessary to protect. Soldiers are dangerous. So are police officers. If they weren't, how are they supposed to oppose an army or a drug cartel? It's likewise necessary to build. Every house starts with chainsaws, bulldozers and wrecking balls. Taking your given counter-example: that'd still be dangerous, because those politicians can't be assumed to just give up because you ask nicely. Any populism that has a chance of winning, is and must be dangerous. And usually the most dangerous are the least dangerous. Because that corrupt leader is far more likely to peacefully concede, if he knows his entire family is about to be lynched by an angry mob.
The word "diversity" should be scrubbed from common usage. At this point it is poisoned and overloaded to the point where no rational discussion can be had using the word. While the Us vs. Them of populism can be correctly defined as "the people" vs. "the elites" this isn't a matter of either of those groups having a unified view point, it's a matter of classifying those groups based on relative power density, which is objectively determinable, and which has a fairly sharp divide. While there might be edge cases, the vast majority of people can be objectively separated this way. There is inevitably some group on "the people" side that have "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" syndrome (or an equivalent sentiment), that align with and support the elites. These tend to be the bulk of the "everyone else". On point number two, I think you're overplaying your hand. While elites may be morally castigated in a number of different ways, I don't think it is equally necessary for "the people" to be upheld as uniformly virtuous, but simply not evil in the particular ways that elites are. Your point number three doesn't seem to be at all distinct from your point number two. I would descriptively consider myself a populist, but I vehemently disagree with your net description of what that entails. Bernie Sanders was a populist, but has pretty much abandoned that.
@@rixille I don't think those words are equivalent. Prior to sociology getting their hands on it, I most often heard diversity preceded by genetic, usually in context of population or ecological health. In more olden times, diverse or divers would have meant approximately the same as various.
This video is a great example that if you package baseless assertions in a dry, unemotional presentation, too many will lap it up as the undeniable truth.
Some follow-up thoughts on this video. I think populism is currently widespread, both on the left and right, and both domestically and abroad. Many (if not most) who I would consider populist probably do not label themselves as such, as it has become a somewhat derogatory term, and the term itself is probably not well understood. I would also guess that many or most of said people would not fully agree with my explanation of populism here. I think the place where they take issue the most would be my claim that populism is anti-pluralistic: that it dramatically flattens the political landscape in its presentation of that landscape, typically simplifying it down into a binary where one side is good and the other is bad. The bad side includes 'elites,' who hold power.
If you're someone who disagrees with that, try to reflect for a moment how many different political persuasions there are, even just in America. How many different theories, groups, movements there are, with conflicting ideas about what's going on. Who's in power? How many different groups are in power even? How broadly power is shared? Is it 'hegemonic?' Or is there a spectrum of shared power? What kinds of problems are we facing? What should be done? And so on. Then ask yourself if that kind of landscape is captured in populism.
I think many would see my point there, but then scratch their heads trying to figure out what thinkers, ideologies, or movements don't flatten politics. For one, liberals don't. At least not nearly to the extent that populists do. A major purpose of liberalism is to recognize, protect, and even foster pluralism. Realists also try to look at the various sides of issues as they exist in reality, without vilifying or glorifying any one given side. But there are many of other examples. All kinds of progressives, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, you name it, that recognize and respect pluralism. They don't lump 'the people' together as one identifiable bracket with one identifiable voice, and pit them against one other identifiable bracket, like 'elites.' You can find pluralist politicians on both sides of the aisle saying something like 'X policy represents this group (maybe coal miners), X policy represents that group (environmentalists perhaps), both have legitimate concerns that conflict with each other, and we need to find a compromise by doing X Y and Z.' Those politicians (or thinkers) may not be in the majority anymore, but they're out there. My point is that pluralism exists and is recognized by many types of thinkers.
I would never tell anyone to only listen to what I have to say about any subjects I talk about. I encourage you to get out there and listen to other takes on populism (although I do not recommend UA-cam as a platform for it. IMO books and college lectures are much better). Maybe the best thing I can do here is articulate my process. I try to seek out the best sources, which means trying to find the most serious academics that have written on the subject, who also bring at least a tolerable amount of professional disinterestedness to their work. I throw out anything nakedly partisan (when it comes to this subject I'd give the example of Thomas Frank). Those kinds of partisan works have a strong point of view, skew their presentation in that point of view and it's nakedly apparent to anyone familiar with the subject. That may be fine if you want Thomas Frank's point of view, but that's not for me. So I looked for the best sources I could find (listed in the description), then tried to impartially convey the nuts and bolts of what they had to say, giving the audience a general take of our current understanding of the subject. That's it. If it turns out to be an unflattering portrayal of populism, I don't see that as my problem. I'd do the same for any other subject. That all being said, I don't claim to have done a perfect job here. If I could do it again, I'd probably delete the passage about how populists tend to dismiss you if you don't agree with them, especially if you conflict with them. I think that was unnecessary and skewed the tone without adding value. But I think the video, as a whole, is a decent enough presentation of my sources. If you reject my sources as being authoritative for the subject, then my video won't hold up either.
- Ryan
If liberals aren’t populists then which group is saying that everyone except them is part of a racist system? I’ve tried for a few years to have reasonable discussions with liberals and I’m immediately labeled and not listened to even though I tell them I’m just asking how they address certain things.
@@OverOnTheWildSide the difference is that populists don't tend to emphasize any traditional political issue. Racism has a strong political history worldwide; populists disregard any political nuance across the board and pit ppl against each other.
@@OverOnTheWildSide populism is like a cancer that all political traditions have dormant in them. it is however true that liberalism stands the most against populism cause of its central idea of pluralism and rights to freedom and individuality.
@@yordideleon6627 thanks, maybe I’m still missing it but at the beginning of the video Ryan said that populism isn’t usually a stand-alone ideology but it’s attached to other ideologies. That’s how he then used it for the rest of the video and how I was referring to it in my comment.
I’ll go back to the beginning of the video though and make sure I got that right.
@@yordideleon6627 whoops I didn’t see this comment, so yes you already considered what I was saying.
I don’t see how you can say liberalism is the most against it when the way they behave is riddled with populism traits. Just saying you believe in pluralism doesn’t make a group pluralist. It takes actually valuing other ideas. They may have been that way in the 90’s but not these days. From my experience and observation.
Thank you for this. So populism isn't really a political philosophy. It's more of a rhetorical method. The methods described (people vs. elite, moral division, and supremacy of "the people's view") could be used to advocate for any position.
TRUMPISM IS POPULISM!!!!
Yea tbh this describes pretty much every political philosophy. Proletarian vs Bourgeoisie, segregationist vs integrationist, democrat vs autocrat, etc.
^^^^ distinctions between schools of thought aren’t so concrete as people tend to assume. Any heuristic framework can theoretically be adapted to spear-head ANY political ideology.
@jstnrgrs, you are talking like ryan. you are using short sentences. each sentence no more than 10 words.
Populism is a VALUE JUDGMENT.
Political Science grad, I’m so happy this channel exists. Our country would be vastly improved if everyone watched your channel.
that fact that you seemingly make these videos in a really informative way and still somehow manage to seem unbiased is such a breath of fresh air
no its biased, try again
It is absolutely biased. The way populism is defined here is a whole-cloth creation... completely made up. He gives a long list of examples, but knows everyone is looking at one politician at the top of the list. Yet the people supporting this politician are celebrating the LIMITING NATURE of the Constitution. They want more CONSTRAINTS on political power. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants FEWER LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL POWER. He hates the Constitution.
Could you make a video on Neoliberalism? I would appreciate your take on that, thanks!
I almost made one awhile ago on it but other topics seemed more important at the time. I'll get around to it
Isn’t it just post modernism?
@@cameron3525 I'm more curious about the socio-economics of it. Post-modernism seems to be cultural byproduct of it?
No they are in different fields. Postmodernism is philosophy and neo-liberalism is politics and political economy.
@@realryanchapman I second this, neo-liberalism would be great to cover if u found the time. Also wanted to say that your content is super informative and intellectually honest. Hoping you blow up soon
Thanks! I always wondered how populism could be defined as it seems to be a term used quite loosely, this really helped!
I love this educational content!
If I could focus on our major failing as a culture, it is the lack of common language and definitions. We're so used to straw-manning each other that we just stumble from ignorance into greater ignorance.
A certain group back in the 60s actually pursued with a vengeance this as a goal. They went about it in a sneaky way. They actually mostly took existing words but gave them special ... shall we say 'synthetic' .... meanings that only made sense inside their own ideology.
Words like democracy, race, experience, liberation, black, white, equality, tolerance, innocence, consciousness, critical and many many more ...
This would imply that if we understood one another, we could find a middle ground, as if that has ever been a goal.
@@hrvad The fact that academics had to explore the fuller meanings and implications of things like democracy, race, etc., which were mostly taken for granted in a very surface-level way, doesn't mean they went about giving them "synthetic" meanings in "sneaky" ways. It only means they examined those words and how they're used, and many non-academics didn't like being made conscious of what was revealed about some of the uses of those words in our culture.
Don't blame the scholars for revealing it if you don't like what was already there. Blame the structures and the incentives that made people act in those ways, and maybe consider changing if you don't like how things are.
Deep down, the fact that almost 50% of the world's wealth, is owned by around 1% of the world's population, also plays critically into the narrative of Populism. Populism is merely a symptom of the disease!
@@hrvad What about Jim Crow
Excellently produced effort at a definitional introduction. The next definitional move is to distinguish between exclusionary populism and inclusive populism, and between populism that gives up on democratic ritual and counter majoritarian institutions, and one that doesn't. A quick note on PLURALISM. There is social pluralism, which is a fact, and then there is value pluralism, which is the idea that conflict in society is partly an expression of conflict between incommensurable values.
Why don’t you make a video?
I just started watching your videos (which I randomly stumbled upon) yesterday. As with every talk about politics, I listen with skepticism (vigilant that you might have an agenda (either right or left). But the more of your videos I watch, the more impressed I am with your well-researched clear-mindedness, and the more calmly informed I am. It's refreshing in these times when outrage is driving narratives on both sides. And, yes, you're helping me calm my own outrage that sometimes pops its head up, tyvm.
I must admit, despite coming across the term "populist" in various writings and speeches for a long time now, it never compelled me to actually define it for some reason. I knew NOT knowing the specifics of the term would eventually have to be rectified. Honestly, even though it was a little bit like I assumed in a few ways, I give my thanks to Ryan Chapman for finally unglazing the nuances and giving me a definition for populism I can easily retain the essentials. You did a thorough and well-articulated job too, man.
My initial reaction to this is that, my entire life I’ve never heard any political theory from any side or any part of the world that did not think in this manner. I’ll have to chew on this for a while.
Sad to imagine such extreme tribal environments around people.
@@fionafiona1146
Yep. Tribalism is like fire:
A little warms, a lot burns.
The fact that you put Bernie Sanders on your list of populists, acknowledged the disagreement around that choice and then asterisked it (but still kept him on the list!) shows why and how you keep putting out great content that's both on point and digestible by so many people, Ryan.
To me, Chavez is the greatest example of modern left-wing populists. The man was a charismatic authoritarian who kept being viewed as the anti-elite no matter how much power he concentrated.
Great explanation I happen to live in a country where populism has taken over in the past 20 years and your explanation is right on the spot, seems like there’s some sort of manual they follow, just yesterday in Argentina the president spoke about elites messing with the economy.
Jfc. How did I live without this guy. Listening to this is like reading a really well written book while I'm playing videogames
I was recently told by someone on UA-cam that my opinions were automatically "worthless" or "irrelevant" simply because they contradicted their own. I'm sure they thought that their views were inherently "right" because they were for "the people". This video explains such thinking perfectly. Thank you 🙂
Yet your ideas might also be described as worthless because they are "populist".
@@fredneecher1746 Well, that would be a case of the populist calling the kettle black
@@fredneecher1746no, if you say the truth, like 2+2=4, you are popular but not populistic.
Populism always needs a hidden lie, mostly in form of oversimplification.
Thank you for this Ryan!
In Italy. Where I'm living now, they have two populist parties. Needless to say they perfectly fit your description of Populism.
I would love to see one on conservatism. I listened to a podcast interview with a former Australian PM who broke it into Classical Liberalism, Burkean Conservatism and Social Conservatism; the latter of which is almost unique (in the west) to the US. I feel like it’s often sloppily applied and maybe you can tease apart where things get lost in translation. Either way, A+ work as always. I hope you find this as rewarding as well all do
I see the main distinction as between traditional/burkean/cultural conservatism and classical liberal/neoliberal/economic libertarianism. These are two quite distinct movements but they drifted together out of shared hatred of communism and the advent of modern “progressive” style politics.
To learn about traditional conservatism read “conservatism: an invitation to the great tradition” by Roger Scruton
To learn about economic conservatism/classical liberalism I recommend anything by Thomas Sowell
I’m curious how the Australian PM distinguished between burkean and social? I have a few guesses. But I imagine these are much more similar than either is to classical liberalism.
Social Conservatism aka Actual Conservatism
@@user-ii9kh4ux3o I'd have to go back and listen to the finer points, but her big takeaway is that to most Western conservatives (Burkean), stability is difficult to achieve and easy to lose. Things like maintaining social morays are important but there isn't a sense of morality to it. "The ship must stay righted so this wont do." In the US there is (again, recalling her argument) a moral panic that drives a lot. Abortion is murder, pornography is immoral, etc. it seems to center around hollowing out of the "soul of a nation." I would agree though that fundamentally they differ from anything classically liberal with the latter being "absorbed into the right" for lack of defense on the left.
Though I do wonder, Conservatism will always on some level adapt with the time (no Conservative worth engaging in policies with defends the right to own slaves or beat his wife over property rights), so maybe as liberal movements fall out of fashion or become antiquated by progressive politics they necessarily are absorbed (on a left/right scale) into the "conservative tradition."
@@anjeloambi6425 I think it depends on how you define Social Conservative.
What was radical in 1900 is conservative today. For example, the idea of racial equality was considered “absurd.” Now, except for about 1/3 of the Republican base, it’s mainstream and even “old news” for many.
I always enjoy your offerings, Ryan, and I think you gave the idea of Populism a fairly good showing. This has been a term I have struggled with for a very long time, and still do. Just when I think I have it covered, some other idea or notion informs my thinking and I'm back to reconsidering what I thought I understood about it. That said, I have always considered Populism akin to the notion among the Founders and others that Populism usually - usually! - reflects the majority will of the people, usually. That is, it is expected that most of the people most of the time will avow that which is fundamentally right and proper. However, since human nature is of no sure foundation, the Founders also understood that it was certainly possible that the time might come when the majority actually avowed that which is wrong or at least very questionable. As for the Elites, I have always understood this term to mean those in power and beyond the effects of even their own egregious policies. I realize that any political term is subject to many variations in definition and while this is so, such a realization does not invalidate the reality of an absolute. If life were simply a line upon which to tread, dangerous deviation would be immediately recognizable, but we travel very often upon a broad highway with lots of room to wander and shuffle about and so the act of defining with precision becomes far more difficult.
Thanks again for a very informative bit of thinking!
"The People, No" by Thomas Frank (What's the Matter With Kansas?", "Listen, Liberal") sources the term Populism in the 1880s Kansas or Oklahoma. It was a leftish agrarian revolt and was meant to be another political party. Indispensible, short and clear.
Ryan have you read “The People No” by Thomas Frank and “The New Class War” by Michael Lind? Both essential reading on populism in my opinion. Short books.
Agreed populism isn’t always bad. When the elites lose their sense of noblesse oblige, and they go from serving the public to rent-seeking and corruption, populism becomes more popular and I would argue, more necessary. The question is how is this populism channeled, and how thick do we lay it on.
Another way I look at it is this: “normal” politics is left vs right. Populism is up vs down. When elites are genuinely attempting to serve the people, we can stay within left vs right debate. But when they only serve themselves, you need up vs down.
Appreciate your videos.
I would say in recent years we are seeing the left and right being conflated with the powers that be sometimes, so I am more concerned with what that will mean if it truly goes out of control.
Lind is just a second rate Sam Francis
The danger of populism is that a lot of times, politicians aren't corrupt, but get falsely accused of being corrupt anyway; simply because they're not doing what you want them to do.
@@senbassador corruption in politics is well documented throughout history from Cicero to the Gracchi brothers. From Pelosi and her insider options trading to McConnel and his wife with CCP ties. I welcome any disagreement among people with integrity.
@@user-ii9kh4ux3o I am not disagreeing that there is a lot of corruption. I am simply saying that even if you are a politician who isn't corrupt; you will still get falsely accused of being corrupt if you don't go along with that the populist want.
It's the fact that not doing what "the people" want, or taking certain positions, is in of itself "proof" of corruption. Obviously, not all populists are this; but it is a trait many of them share.
The biggest example of that you see if anytime a politician takes the position of supporting free trade. Their immediate go to is "well, obviously he got paid off by the Koch Brothers to take that globalist position. He's selling out American workers, etc etc".
This is not to say that there aren't politicians who are paid off by the Koch Brothers to take certain positions on certain issues. It's just that to populists, just taking those positions means that you are corrupt.
This video really made me think and helped me to clear my understanding of the term and phenomenon of populism. One thing that I would have added to the video is to ask the question "is populism harmful" instead of just asking "is populism dangerous". The latter question in my mind is a more black-and-white approach to the matter, and may cause people to not notice more subtle and slow negative effects that populism may have into the society. I think one such effect is people's thinking becoming generally more black-and-white, simplistic and shallow. All people have a certain collection of tools of thinking that they apply to the problems and decisions they face. When people feel strongly and emotionally drawn to simplified thinking in one area of their life, I believe that that kind of thinking easily spreads to other areas of their lives too. As a consequence of that people become (by definition) more unrealistic, and that's never a good thing if the aim is to build a well working society, which requires a lot of problem-solving. Anyway, in my mind this is indeed very thought out explanation of populism, and at the same time a very good example of how to analyse and understand things.
Another beautifully crafted and explained video. I love how your videos and explanations have no fat! Concise and precise explanations! Love the bipartisan attitude to: “populism on the Right is often accompanied by Nationslism, those in the Left associated by Socialism!” Now That’s a straight shooter claim and not a some BS partisan narrative!
totally agreed. it seems that he has this capacity to brush off asymmetrical biases whereof more sensical truth being turned into by means of dispassionate research.
@@annisafebriyanti693 The words are impressive but don't get ahead of yourself. The fight against bias is neverending in everyone, or it's not being taken seriously. The voice is calm. That's a good thing. No screaming about politics. But seeking "the middle" every time just makes you easy to control by sociopaths who just put what they want between two made-up extremes. Problems don't just appear out of thin air. They are caused. An ideology video doesn't address this, and that's fine. Just be aware of that.
@@screwgoogle4993 The point of bias is not about two made up extremes by sociopaths. It's about understanding the underlying thoughts and motivations in each extreme and then devising a middle ground system of thoughts and actions that has as its basis sustainability and peace in the long run for a given society. If these two factors are not a major priority then any system of governance would do, something we know isn't so.
@@AANasseh you missed the point. The middle ground, centrism, etc. can still be undermined, manipulated, influenced by bias. Just because an idea is not extreme, does not mean it is free from biases. Human nature itself operates on biases. This is their point.
Your so-called two factors for societal governance are completely irrelevant to their point.
Nationalism isn't exclusive to right populism, you see this in Catalonia, Ireland and Scotland
While I was noting down the points, my first example was Mr Modi and seeing the same in your list makes it valid
What I love about your videos is that in a world of sensationalising everything, you don't overreach. And it must be SO tempting to do so. Really great. So happy to have discovered your work. KEEP GOING! (I know it gets tiring)
It's telling people what they already know and what they want to hear.
You don't need much words, you don't need to convince anybody, people don't need to learn anything, you just need to confirm people, give them a secure feeling.
It works cause its so effortless.
It works? I dunno, guess it depends in what context. In a culture where accountability is held in high regard, where government is run properly and responsibly, populism won't catch. Since Ryan used the "fire" metaphor to describe it, there needs to be some amount of dry tinder - voter disenfranchisement or apathy, a dysfunctional society that can be made to see elites as scapegoats, to give rise to populist movements.
@@mrD66M you talk like it's for everybody. No it's not, it's for a certain amount of uneducated people. You cannot blame the governement if not the entire population is highly intelligent.
The biggest populism is Religion.
You tell people simple things they like, but have nothing to do with the truth.
Moth governements are little populistic, cause they have to attract stupid people.
It would be better for all to pay more taxes, but this is an unpopular opinion, so nobody dears to tell the truth.
Ask for smart people is ok, but blaming the governement for people beeing stupid is going too far.
This would only work in dictatorships, cause in democracy you have the freedom to be stupid.
I have been quite randomly recommended your channel and from what I see, your goals and methods seem noble. I encourage you to continue this work if this is satisfying for you and profitable in your situation, because this sort of quality in topics which paradoxically seem both hotly debated yet practically rather niche in terms of mainstream interest, paired with what I can only deduce as the best intentions, seem way too rare and I can only hope you should skyrocket to the level of respect and acclaim people hold for the likes of not so many on this platform. Cheers from a new sub
Ryan, you are a very talented teacher! Thanks for the content.
Oh my gosh - “stress testing institutions”. Thank you for putting words to the bizarre social and governmental happenings recently. It seems like boundaries are being tested to see how far things can go uncontested and unquestioned.
Stress testing institution aren’t limited to just Populists. An argument can be made that this has become common practice amongst everyone holding political power in the US.
Oh. So for this little stress test experiment billions have been terrorised, kept in unheated homes, denied basic services, lied to, and, basically, sacrificed. BILLIONS. I would very much like to know whose idea this was. Who have been the sub- human ones who farted this criminal plan?
Love your way of explaining! whenever I want to know about an unknown political concept I come to your channel
Great video. Electricity might be a better analogy than fire. Properly channeled electricity can do a lot of good, but can also be directly dangerous or used to power dangerous systems.
Well said
PLEASE make a video about Anarchism!!!! Love your videos. You do such a great job exploring and explaining these "ism"s
Some fire is good. Fire that we use to keep ourselves warm during the Winter and fire that we use to cook our food. We used fire to light candles to keep our houses lit back before electricity, but basically electricity is fire. Fire just needs to be kept in check for it to be beneficial.
Forest fires are often good for certain plants and trees. Whether something is 'good' depends on what kind of stake we have in its progress. The same is true for 'dangerous'.
Populism wonderfully explained!
I’d love to hear your arguments on why you think Sanders is a populist.
You should mention that the technique of labeling groups divisively is not necessarily populism and also that some populist "them" groups are legitimately criticized even outside the populist movement in question.
I have enjoyed your videos. I don't know how true or accepted your interpretations are but they make sense to a "not formally educated in political science" citizen. Perhaps this is PolySci dogma that is known in those circles and this is he watered down view for us regular people or is it original academic papers with research, or both. I also realize that this discipline is incredibly fluid. I first found your video about "Fascism" which I never understood and had an "AHA" moment. Populism also was a mysterious term. I am a retired Pulmonologist and spent a career diagnosing odd ailments. I likened the process as in the image of a detective looking at a Cake dropped from the third floor and trying to figure out what it was before the drop. Political Science these days is pretty similar. Your videos at least increase the perspective to look at the crumbs and box the cake came in on the third floor. Thanks
Ryan, you are one of my two main go-to's for the subjects you cover. Every time I see a new post of yours, my list and your reach to others multiplies because I share and promote it. For history and an understanding of the workings of society, you are second only to Heather Cox Richardson, IMHO. If you do not know her, you should. You are both addressing the greatest issue we face in our efforts to change: CLARITY of understanding. Thank you!
hes a good starting point- but if youve read enough you know hes not exactly correct-
for eg he biast against socialism and marxism so not neutral- im constantly correcting him in comments on those subjects including above - he seems ok on liberalism and fascism thou hes left out some other traditional tenets - he seems to focus on certain elements - so take with grain of salt -
@@malcolmfreeman7802 Whatever.
@@malcolmfreeman7802 How exactly does he blast against socialism or marxism in this video? Seems pretty neutral and even-handed to me.
@@karwashblark7499 not so obvious in this video but more in others like his one on socialism -ive answered it in separate comment a few comments below - but hes a reformist - he calls that socialism when its not - so hes biased to the "middle of the road do nothing prolong the problem politics" as good
Thank you. Looking at your line-up, I think you'll easily be the first youtuber whose videos I've watched all of.
Very transparent and concise video, quality content.
This is so well done... I know so many people who need to see this
This was an excellent and balanced overview of the subject.
As I was thinking, populism is not a political direction per se, but rather a method, a subversive approach to a political direction / goal. Quite neatly presented, all Ryan's lessons I mean, not just this one. I reccomend the one on `Intellectual bases of wokism" or so.
Man, You're the best. I appreciate your videos, especially when they educate me in defining topics I haven't researched otherwise
too bad he is wrong
Well done as usual! I love how concise you made this topic and yet you managed to ferret out some nuance. Thank you!
In my opinion, 'skepticize' would be a more dispassionate intransitive verb over 'conspiracy theorizing' if the goal is to remain neutral. Ignoring politically charged connotations of terms seems to enable those connotations to serve as an unconscious influence in how certain lexical items in political science are perceived, i.e. with an intentional or unintentional political slant.
This phenomenon is analogous to referring to a social group's activities by a common slur rather than a more neutral identifier; e.g. referring to a person native to the Yucatan consuming sustenance by saying "bean eating" instead of "having lunch." This word choice may even be true if black turtle beans were a portion of the meal, yet that doesn't appear to acknowledge the unfortunate connotation of the phrase: the social implications from the unconscious example of how that social group member is being treated in consideration.
Others may likely be influenced by each of our tacit behaviors in this way as a part of our natural socialization as a culture. I believe this phenomenon underlies disparities resulting in the consequence of certain social groups being caused to feel either intrinsically valuable or not as defined by social influences exhibited by society at random. Theoretically, this has decided effects on the sense of confidence and the subsequent motivation to behave in ways that make accessing the full range of opportunities around them likely. In other words, unconscious connotations appear to be the grassroots social mechanism of 'oppression' in action. This is my only critique of an otherwise impressive ability to define emotionally charged political concepts without seeming to have bias.
Your tutorials are fabulous refreshers key to understanding what is going on in a time of what feels like crisis to many around the world.
As always, thank you so much for a great video, Ryan! I really appreciate the way that you carefully the nuances of a subject. This video was helpful for me to deal with my internal conflicts toward populism. In many ways I am drawn toward some populist movements, but I have to check myself because I also see how they can be dangerous.
Ryan, I love watching your videos. I find them educational and informative. Keep making more. I’m interested in your unbiased finds. They are intelligent observations. Based on personal experience and strong morals and ethics and research.
Thanks again for the great content Ryan! Keep them coming!
Interesting analogy with fires because even forest fires are not always bad. In certain ecosystems, forest fires play a regenerative role. Getting rid of the old dead wood and making room for new plants to grow.
06:45 In Socialism this is literally "the false consciousness of the Bourgeoisie", Feminism has a similar mentality framing men as unknowing about women but women about all-knowing about men.
I often hear "Populism can only ever be right-wing" but it surprises me how Populism is essentially mainstream on the Left and only has been rising recently on the Right (largely since 2001).
Try since 2015 and continuing through at least 2022 : the Obscenities known as MAGA and Donald Trump !
I think class makes it easy. There is one class who literally owns and another class who works for them.
It gets weirder when someone tries to make an underpaid librarian into the elite and billionaires into the people.
Your stuff is good man, probably the most unbiased definition of political ideologies on UA-cam.
So well thought out and explained. Especially love that you added that last part about cases where it can be dangerous or not... Thank you so much for making these!
FIRE. Great analogy, Just discovered this chap. He's very good, and well worth listening too. Pity that the ones who need to listen the most are all watching sport at the moment.🤨
This is not just a page of Donald Trump's book, this is his whole manual.
Great video, a simple but effective strategy that has seen explosive success in the states in the past 40 years. I’d argue Newt Gingrich belongs on that list
Very helpful! Reading Wikipedia pages on political topics can be so confusing, so I’m glad someone can make unbiased videos explaining the concepts in an easy to understand way! And this saves me from having to buy more books 😂
I would definitely not consider Wikipedia a reliable source.😂
@@leslovesliberty1776 for something I'm only mildly interested in, it does its job
It's rhetoric or Psychologie, in no way politics. Politics is just an application.
I would love to hear your take on the impact of corruption on a society.
It can also be understood simply as a focus on the people in general or the people as a whole, as opposed to giving of a certain small subset of powerful individuals ("elites") a disproportionate voice based on their status. This is largely a good thing, and ideally how democracies should work. Similar, if someone if focusing on their constituents instead of the will of a party, that is a good thing. It seems to me the the idea of populism has been demonized so as use the it as a kind of boggy-man, largely by conflating populism with demagoguery -- now just calling a movement, leader, or even a party or general faction "populist" is a way to signal your own follower to view it/them as dangerous, morally evil, and to be opposed. What should be positive has been turned into an attack.
Because those who attack populist movements are often elitists themselves, just not necessarily political/wealth elites. They usually think of themselves as intellectually more capable.
agree populism is usually only "dangerous "for the so called elites-the centralized power and wealth -unless we are talking about a fringe minority and we could find better words for such groups most populists just find that there is too much corruption in power and power is more and more centralized not just in Governments but more international -and there are monopolies
In Italy the left and right populist came together for a while won the election and formed a government, but when the right wing Salvini grew a lot in popularity and could form his own government after an election-he tried to force an election and the left forced him out and formed a government with the same people they claimed to oppose -Bolsenaro, Orban, Trump, Salvini, Modi none of those are dangerous ,Sanders himself is not either but a lot of the Bernie bros are communists sorry to say -I'm Dansih Sanders claim he would like the US to be more like Denmark, a lot of the things he and his supporters are saying is something we have on the far far left in Denmark -the socialist party that party used to be 2 communist parties and 1 socialist who melted into one- I would not recommend such a system, I see a lot of the Bernie bros using communist symbols and language-some even write they are Marxists - that said Bernie also have a lot of god points and it is good to have different views -a man like him can help keeping the balance
Interesting. I have in the past used "elites" as a blanket term for anyone who has power or influence over certain political issues. I've been called a populist in the past as well, usually in a negative way.
Though, as this video stressed, a large group of people necessarily means that many different ideas are represented therein. Ergo if a politician talks about a certain policy being what the people want in reality they can only say that that policy is what a majority wants (and that majority could be a slim majority or an overwhelming majority or in between) but almost certainly they cannot say that that is what all of the people (in a diverse society) want. For example, even as popular as Franklin Roosevelt was in his lifetime there were plenty of people around then who didn't support his ideas. As this video mentioned there may be instances in populism is beneficial, especially if a movement focuses on necessary reforms, rather than on individual leaders, in most instances populist movements have been tied to specific populist political leaders, and in such a context the dangers are significant.
It seems like you're saying something pretty similar to what I did. Focusing on the people 'as a whole,' which is in opposition to focusing on 'elites.' Even going with this binary you presented, elites should also get a voice in democracy in practice (the point is that everyone gets a voice). If you're saying things should be more balanced, but elites still get a voice, then I don't think you're describing populism. Populism gets a bad rap because it is behind a lot of the worst movements since the 20th century (fascism, Marxism-Leninism, all kinds of authoritarian movements that are seen as historical blemishes). There's no conflation being done there. The movements were straightforwardly populist, even going by a strict definition. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with your second part there.
As I’ve said to your previous videos - Thank you the educational content is helpful. Thank you.
Is populism dangerous?
The answer must be Yes - and yes in every context, or else what’s the point of populism?
Where populism occurs where there are weak institutions and it threatens to take over the Government, then it is dangerous for certain sections of that society namely those who control the institutions and are in positions of power and control. And whilst there may be benefits to the general population, the ‘bourgeoisie’ as the dominant class, is eviscerated.
e.g. Venezuela and Hugo Chavez.
Good video. It seems like this idea is a good tool to explain many current movements and groups and while it often gets pointed at right-wingers, it certainly spans both sides, and sometimes even leaves both sides making surprisingly similar claims. Very interesting.
Yes, because regular people of both right & left persuasions are sick of the uniparty elites!
@@leslovesliberty1776 You think so? It looks like Trump is the leading GOP candidate again. A corrupt millionaire who cut taxes to the top earners. Doesn't seem like it.
I notice that your videos are very critical of their subject matter, apart from the one on american liberalism. Keep up the good work.
I disagree with the emphasis on authoritarianism and cult behaviour. It coincides with populism, but then I'd say it's dictators using populism to achieve those things. I think you're spot on when it comes to the layfolk vs elites distinction as a core part of populism. With that said, I don't consider populism to be anti-pluralism. Indeed, it can be argued it's pro-pluralism, since it aims to destroy the hegemony of the establishment (Moldbug would say "the cathedral" here).
This makes sense, since populism isn't inherently hegemonic - it's very thin, as you mentioned. That means it can be paired with liberalism and pluralistic ideas of free speech and public dialogue just as much as it can be weaponized to achieve tyranny.
Towards the end, it seems to me that you are talking about some sort of elitism or fanatic in-group preference masquerading as populism. This becomes especially apparent when you put up the image with the people elevated, and the elites down under, like an underclass.
What do you think? At any rate, thanks for the video. I do always enjoy video essays!
The pluralism part comes from the conflation I'd say. Populism itself is pluralistic in nature, since it removes a narrow establishment.
But populists very often have their own agendas, and often get hijacked by demagogues, which are even more narrow-minded than the old establishment. As you say, it often coincides with populism, but it's not an inherent ingredient.
Populism is part of collection of political/rhetorical techniques which are very useful for gaining power. It gets associated with authoritarianism because authoritarian leaders/movements which appeal to populism tend to be relatively successful. Which is why conmen and demagogues so often sound populist... It works
This is somewhat related to the 'playbook' or 14 characteristics approaches to "fascist style". Doesn't really matter much what they believe deep down, the methods of gaining support and power tend work anyway.
It also misses when populism becomes "The Establishment" with far reaching affects, with another "populist" movement to counteract the status quo.
The obvious example would be the Women's Christian Temperance Movement (with now over a century of reach) laying the groundwork for Suffragettes, drug policy, and the only time I'm aware of the Constitution was amended and back again.
And in light of the on-going affects, would the current state of affairs be described as "authoritarian" (nevermind the prison population), or is it simply authoritarian when I disagree?
This echoes my feelings as well. Populist movements are often simply popular movements.
@@defenstrator4660Yes, populism is popular *amoung one group*. It is catering to the concerns/interests of that one group without regard (and most often at the expense of) other groups.
Populism is pretty much an empty term expect in contrast to pluralism. If you just mean popular, you say "popular". Populist is different.
Useful overview that isn't trying to be what it isn't
I believe that I am a right wing populist but my position is vastly different than you have framed so these are my opinions.
The populist objective is to identify good policies for society, you have that correct. Of course, the contrary is that Populists disagree with policies that the perceive as hurting the people.
Your framing on immigration is wrong. Immigration is not an all or none situation. There can be no immigration, there can be some immigration and there can be a lot of immigration. So populism is not against immigrants at all. It is against a policy that hurts the society we inhibit, so a balanced immigration policy is good for society.
You have correctly identified "them" as Elites. Immigrants are never "them" from my perspective.
Elites are the ones I perceive are in power, but that alone does not make them a "them". They are people that are also unaccountable and are setting the rules under which we live in a manner that benefits them over the people. So the lack of accountability is a huge piece of the puzzle. If the "Elites" were in fact being held accountable, then populism would disappear and we would return to the previous right - left political paradigm. IMO, the lack of accountability is the reason for the rise in populism.
So that is my position on populism.
I really like your last thoughts. My populism is not dangerous because I am from the west and I want to restore balance to the system. Once achieved, it is no longer required and we return to right-left politics.
100% agree. Its also very important to distinguish legal immigration versus illegal immigration. I have seen people against illegal immigration and elite corruption get called populists and it boils my blood. Its often just a way to dismiss them without listening to them.
@@Apostate_ofmind
I mean, opposing elite corruption is kinda the heart of populism. It's why you would feel it necessary for the populus to stand against the aristocrats ;).
As for the other: opposing illegal acts isn't that special, and many elites do also oppose it. There is a link though, in that the establishment often wilfully turns a blind eye to those illegal acts - which they perceive as beneficial to them or their donors. Standard form of institutional corruption.
I agree with you. This video is made by someone who clearly has an anti populism stance. The fact he says that 'elites' only SOMETIMES engage in conspiracy theories is what completely lost me
I think the populist will never acknowledge they are an elite, no matter how much power they concentrate. Our guy is still not an elite no matter how high their office is.
Populism is the opposite of elitism, it is as simple as that. In a well functioning democracy the political parties represent the population, but in a totalitarian system this is no longer the case, the politicians only represent their own personal interests. When that happens people will start new groups of representation. In some cases it is an one-cause interest group, but over time it may become broader and thus become a new political party. If it happens the established political parties will try to eliminate the new competitor, since they know it is more in accordance with the population that they themselves are. One way to try to take the competitor down is to use the derogative "populist" in the meaning "not serious", but no one will fail to see the lie, and the new party can and will be elected. Should that happen, the corrupt parties will try other, sometimes unconstitutional, ways to eliminate the popular party: voter fraud, trying to get it banned by court or its leaders put in jail, claiming that is policy is "hate speech" or what ever stupidity they may be able to invent. The only thing that they will not do, is to represent the population themselves, because they are already so rotten, that they despise true democracy.
"Pushing together two positively charged magnets"
I think you mean 'two like magnetic poles' or 'two like charges'.
Either one would work acceptably but combining them together seems strange. Magnets have north and south rather than positive and negative. Also, there are no magnetic monopoles (only dipoles) so you need to prevent rotation in the case of magnets but there are monocharges such as two positive ions which would experience repulsive forces.
Great narrative! Would I be wrong to think that this way of explaining populism is in part a metamodern viewpoint? It seems to take both progressiveness and critique into consideration, but also “human nature” as to how society may fail and succeed through the same means, simultaneously. A nice dialectic, maybe? The strength in this model of understanding is just that; it’s not “wrong” with either political viewpoint, but does reveal the societal weaknesses of populist power, while there’s oppositional opportunities as well. However, the lack of pluralism, therefore the dignity of “them”, is dangerous in my view. Thanks, I’m a fresh subber now… 🇳🇴
Just about everything you use to define populism is a hallmark of all politics as we know it....
This is an absolutely brilliant video. Well done
That one was disappointing.
Taking your criteria:
a) Morally superiour: I challenge you to name me one single political movement NOT thinking of themselves as "morally superiour" in that they hold themselves to a moral standard, and this moral standard is better than those of other movements; that "movement" would not materialise, but integrate itself into another movement.
b) "The people have superiour insight compared to élites": That is a legitimate position, but has nothing to do with populism per se. Policies trying to include the experiences of the broad masses (populus) of course have a broader insight: a macroeconomy élite has insight into macroeconomics and how policies can optimese certain metrics. The populace sees their policis in practice and will have a broader insight in sum whether these metrics really embetter their lives. 2 examples:
1) Stagflation: Inflation in original Keynesian thought is good for the economy, as it means more capital is put into the economic flow, thus creating growth. Enter Stagflation, which modern Keynesianism just included today into their models. In the 1970s, it was convenient to "forget" to pay back the deficit spending during the boom phases, ballooning debt. Inflation was on a high level, so many economic politicians just wanted to lean back and wait for the growth to come - which it didn't.
The populace saw that this metric being optimised had de-coupled from raising their living standards; so they voted for Reagan, Thatcher or Kohl, market radicals which had a distinct populist touch, felt "morally superiour" to deregulate against "bureaucracy" and let "the invisible hand of the markets" regulate everything.
1a) "Occupy Wall Street" is EXACTLY the same: The populace sees the profits and economic growth, both metrics that are being seen as metrics of economic well-being; but inequality, declining adjusted wages, and medical and educational debt in fact lower their median income while mean income "grows" (which is why it has now been largely superseded by median income as a metric), putting their living standards in peril and denying them to be "the smith of their own happiness". BTW, that's why Bernie Sanders is NOT a populist, because your definition falls short and you put inconvenient parts of the normative definition into "tendencies".
2) In Wales, a majority voted for BREXIT; this regardless of the sizable funds the EU provided for projects in Wales. However, when interviewing citicens of some of those communities, they stated that they liked EU-funded statues and community halls; but the underlying problems for the brain drain out of the region and poverty wasn't lack of statues or community halls, but the crash of heavy industries without introducing new structures in future industries; this is exacerbated by the "race to the bottom" of wages drawing those future industries into Eastern Europe.
A campaign manager of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were not taken on when they suggested Clinton did rallies in the coal areas and rust belt, and implemented projects to fund industries for renewable energy generation into those areas whose industries were endangered. Those areas overwhelmingly voted for Trump.
As with your "Fascism" definition (capitalised b/c it is a headline), you exclude the vast majority of data (fascist governments other than Germany and Italy, especially the longest-lived fascism, Spanish Falangism) so the sample fits your "definition". This in itself is "populist", as you discard the "plurality" of the movements you brand as "populist". You should reflect on your methodology.
Differentiating between "Populism" and "populist methods", you may see the populist methods used by Reagan, Thatcher, Sanders and Occupy Wall Street as necessary to challenge anti-pluralist petrifications (i.e. "a high inflation leads to growth eventually", "high profits mean a healthy economy"); while "populism" uses the "court of public opinion" as a reason against the *factual arguments* presented.
Not Populism: Reagan: "There is high inflation and deficit spending, but still recession".
Not Populsim: Sanders: "High profits and growing BIP doesn't transfer into a growing adjusted median income and healthy inequality."
Populism: "Growing perceived criminality corresponds to schools without prayer." (Fact: shrinking criminality)
Populism: "Underground pizza parlour deals are the reason of the economic decline of middle-class families."
All things in moderation, including populism and pluralism.
Not quite a valid example.
Populism is generally the people typically in the bottom or middle vs the oligarchy.
In populism by definition the oligarchy is those with power who use it to the detriment of the economic, political, social well being of the masses or to empower themselves at the expense of the individual liberties of the masses, for the benefit of the oligarchy.
Racialized populism appeals to, and to some extent delivers on, kinship among members of the same race at all levels of society. Jim Crow did little to improve the material lot of a white sharecropper, but it did mean a black doctor or lawyer had to show deference to him on pain of death, and humans care a _lot_ about status.
as always, well thought out and educational
great video!! thank you!
Thanks for sharing! All these videos are so well created and goes deep into the subject. Incredible great job. May I sugest/ask/beg for videos explaining where to go from here ? I'd love to learn more but don't know where to look.. Thanks again !
YOU'RE STUDYING ALL THE THINGS I AM AND I LOVE IT.
5:11 Damn right, moral division! A society is an organised system FOR humans. Do you want to enjoy the rights derived from living in a society? Fine. Behave like a human, not like an animal. Animals are to be kept in Zoos, not allowed to run rampant amongst people ruining even the little that has been achieved.
What is a human? A moral animal. Don’t forfeit your potential. Yes, I do believe in the potential of every individual. I always will.
In my opinion, populism represents the political, economic, national interests of the majority of the voting citizenry.
I just discovered your channel and I think your videos are informative and excellent, thank you.
I have a question for you, Ryan. Are (modern) politicians actually powerful? I'm usually not at all into the subject but you got me hooked recently, and this something that has bugged me for many many years. Everyone I know thinks that the politicians are the decision-makers, while I believe that they are just the charismatic face in front of the decision-makers in most if not all cases, very much like in the movie The Campaign.
You are the only political commentator I have ever seen that is totally objective. After watching nearly all of your videos I can't tell where you fall on the political spectrum. Even those that strive to be neutral often give subtle clues. You don't. That's very impressive. Kudos, my friend.
Great video! I think you hit the nail on the head 100%
When you were defining populism at the beginning, Bernie Sanders is who came to mind for me. The fact that people dispute his populism seems silly to me.
In my opinion, the only reason he is not viewed as populist by some is because he is not utilizing populism as effectively as other socialist leaders. In other words he is a "mild" populist if there is such thing, but populist nonetheless.
I'd say the same for AOC and the rest of the "The Squad"
Great video. I've been reading 'The Revenge of Power' by Moises Naim (which I'd really recommend by the way) and this video is a great supplement to reading about populism more widely.
Sweet
good points made. I think it's interesting to form the idea with precise descriptions, though I still believe populism is a neutral term to describe this political trend
Ryan, in response to your question “Is populism dangerous” and your answer to it, I ask this question:
In a political system that has become demonstrably and irredeemably corrupt, is it more dangerous for the unrepresented to continue accepting that system? Or for a “dangerous” populist movement to rise up and take back control? Just how far back in the corner do you think they can push the people before things turn desperate?
They they... Them .. who is your supposed enemy??
Populism constructs these corrupt and irreversible system. Dangerous populism takes back control..
From whom? ? The chinese?
The socialists?
The communists?
The nationalists??
Populism is nothing but going with the majority openion rather than The correct openion.
Its puting someone famous an actor or a telivision hoast in the seat of the president rather than someone who is talented enough to do that ..
@@steephanroy8461 you got a good set of questions down there but you are misled by your own assumption that populism will always be a negative. This is what I usually call word salads. If gou want a proper answer to yourbown question. You must always consider the context and specifics of the "populists movement" in question.
That fire analogy is genius
I have enjoyed your previous videos. They seemed well researched and very much on point. This one, however, contained too many generalities. Your analysis is very tilted towards defining populism as "bad" thus leaving open the conclusion that pluralism is both "good" and PREFERRED. I think that if our schools actually taught correct US History correctly, we would have BOTH. For example: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." Sounds both populist and pluralistic; your thoughts?
In the end, populism is not an ideology, or a type of ideologies, but a political *style* . That's both why it can accommodate, even mix, ideas from both sides of the aisle and why populist elements are identifiable in so much political literature (speeches, manifestos, flyers, declarations...) even from movements you wouldn't usually identify as "populist".
It also explains why populisms so often lose track of reality: the rhetoric is more important to it than the actual content. Plus, it's closely linked to all populisms' tendency towards charismatic leadership.
Oh yessssss
From your argument the lesson that I've learnt is that some people yell "Fire!!! - fire!!! - fire!!!" when there's a fire without any danger and that these people are "Fire-ists" which, without a political context is absurd given that there is no political value in being Chicken Little. However, there's certainly political value in labelling groups. Personally, I don't shout fire unless there's danger nor do I tell people that the sky is falling but I sense that there are many people labelling the people that they disagree with as Fire-ists.
I'm brazilian and I can assure you that you just described Bolsonaro perfectly.
i thought he was describing lula and dilma
@@enzomelgarejo6766 Both are populists with an unwavering cult of personality around them.
I've been putting this video of for months though it keeps appearing in my suggestion box, simply because pretty much everybody, even usually smart people uses the word population wrong and that's what I expected. Well I was wrong, you actually use the word within the constraints of it's current sociological and political sciences application and even highlight the most important factors. Thx a lot, I was totally prepared to dunk on this video and now I won't have. Three thumbs up
I love your videos. However, I think there are a few problems with your analysis of Populism.
1) In your videos on Fascism, Liberalism, Marxism etc, you refer to political actors who actually self-identify as Fascist, Liberal, Marxist etc. Are there any political actors who self-identify as Populist? It feels to me that the “Populist” label was invented by these people’s opponents as a slur. Their opponents wanted to call them “Fascists”, but felt they couldn’t quite get away with it, so came up with the “P” word to mean something like “Fascist-adjacent”. This probably explains why the anti-Populists resist describing Bernie Sanders as a Populist. For many of them he’s their preferred candidate.
2) “Us and Them” is almost universal in politics. It’s the friend/enemy distinction described by Carl Schmitt. It feels too general to make it a USP of Populism.
3) Conspiracy theories are found just as frequently among the opponents of Populism as among so-called Populists. Think of the Trump/Russia collusion theory, for instance. So again, it's too general to make it a USP of Populism.
To be clear, this is mostly reiterating professional analysis of populism, based on the sources listed. The term populism came from the Populist party in America around the turn of the 20th century. It was more widely used as a label of self-identification until enough time had passed and enough populist movement were widely seen through a negative lens, historically. Fascism, by the way, is a version of populism, as is Marxism (although that one is more controversial). Populism is just the general label for mass politics where it's people vs. elites, and someone gives voice to what 'the people' think and feel. People do still self-identify as populist, but it's more rare. The people over on Breaking Points are an example.
'Us vs. them' has become very popular as mass politics has increasingly dominated politics over the last 120 years or so. That, to a large extent, corresponds with the rise of populism (as voting rights spread). Pointing at the widespread use of something, even if much of it goes outside of populism, doesn't disqualify it from being a component of populism.
The same goes for conspiracy theories. I just listed that last part as a notable tendency. So it's not a requirement, but something you shouldn't be surprised to see. Again, it doesn't matter if other types of thinkers engage to some extent in conspiracy theories. Unless you're trying to say that all ism's are equally prone to conspiracy theories, which would make it meaningless. But I don't think that's right.
@@realryanchapman I agree. Though it is indeed interesting, that populism in modern times is never a self-identification, always a pejorative label from the outside. That said, I consider myself a strong supporter of my "populist" government here in Hungary, but I couldn't find anything offensive about the things you listed. To some extent I can recognize some of all four symptoms you named, but it has an overwhelming electoral support, and the outcome is generally good, so it's good fire. 🇭🇺🔥
Drives "them" mad though 😃
Could not disagree more with the assertion that conspiracy theories are found just as much on the "anti populist" side as on the "populist" side. Baffling assertion to me.
@@bob3ironfist The main reason anti-populists are prone to conspiracy theories is this. They usually win, so they expect to win; so when they don’t win there has to be some explanation involving dark forces. The Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is a classic case of this kind of thinking.
Consider the recent French Presidential election. Marine Le Pen lost, and since then I haven’t heard her supporters attribute her loss to any conspiracies. But if she’d won, I feel certain there would be all manner of conspiracy theories claiming Vladimir Putin did it using snapchat, or something.
Here in the UK the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU Referendum is considered Populist, and since its victory its opponents have come up with various conspiracy theories to delegitimise the result. One theory claims a cabal of vulture investors managing hedge funds somehow engineered the Referendum result in order to profit from the market turbulence it would likely cause (Remain-supporting economist Chris Dillow has explained in detail why the theory makes no sense, but it persists). Another theory claims a cabal of tax avoiding businessmen engineered it to prevent the UK applying the EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive 2016/1164 (that directive was adopted by the EU Commission three days AFTER the Referendum, the UK incorporated it into domestic law while it was negotiating withdrawal, and it’s still in force in the UK today). There are also various theories claiming that Putin did it, of course.
What all of these theories miss is, the UK’s membership of the EEC/EU has always been controversial, and even though the pro-EU side won every single battle between 1972 and 2016, it often did so by the tiniest of margins. The Parliamentary vote to approve the Maastricht Treaty (which transformed the EEC into the EU) was won by just three votes; and that with the Prime Minister threatening his party he’d call a kamikaze election and deliberately set out to lose it if they didn’t pass the Treaty. Opinion polls showed that the UK population has been majority Eurosceptic since 1995, so a Leave victory was always a reasonable possibility.
@@matehavlik4559 The label “Populist” really means “we want to call you Fascist but we probably can’t get away with it”. You could argue that the Swiss political system, in which every major issue is decided by a popular referendum, is the most Populist system it’s possible to have, since it makes unpopular policies almost impossible to enact. But I’ve never heard the term used that way.
I have a similar problem with the label “Neoliberalism”. No one self-identifies as a Neoliberal, and the term gets applied to a whole range of different policy positions. Just about the only policy position which isn’t Neoliberal is one of total opposition to Capitalism and markets. So technically, the first Neoliberal was Lenin, when he moved from War Communism to the New Economic Policy.
I always thought that "the people" implies a majority, not unanimous consensus.
While much of this is a good description of most populist movements, it is an awful description of populism. It mostly gets lost in conflation, and thus in abstraction. Because most of the video discusses trends common in the many forms of populist movements, rather than populism itself.
Power corrupts. Those in power, tend to abuse power to stay in power (evolutionary reasons apply). This forms an established elite.
That causes problems. They may spend all their time getting re-elected, or have only skills for that. They may abuse office to enrich themselves. Or they may just grow out of touch. Either way, the lower classes start suffering.
Populism rises up against such a corrupted elite. At heart, it seeks to cut out that corruption. That is populism itself.
Populism often has specific grievances, and may not be united. In our society, Bernie and Trump both led populist movements... but with very different ideas on what to do beyond that. And even within those, the socialists and cultural marxists are severely at odds; and likewise the Trumpian faction ranges from conservatives to libertarians to liberals. They will offer different solutions to the problems. They merely agree on populism: that the elites are corrupt, and that this corruption has to be either cured, or amputated.
In closing we should also note that populist leaders may not be populists. Usually they are themselves elites, and they may have genuine sympathies, or merely seek to exploit the faction to gain power. The latter would be called demagogues. Populists may also be misinformed, and they may be (in our view) outright evil, for instance black/white nationalists, or even nazis or communists.
But the term itself only has meaning in its opposition to an established order. The rest is conflation.
=================
On this, a specific criticism: "marxism" does still require the word where appropriate. The USSR started as populist-marxism, but it quickly created its own establishment. In mere decades, it was itself the elite that populists opposed.
When populists take over a government and end its establishment (which takes some major uprooting), they cease being populists. Their job is done. From that point they may still seek to remedy past wrongs, but they'll likely be something else... socialists, liberals, conservatives or the like.
Also, I would fully say Bernie and Trump acted as populist leaders (whether or not they are genuine). Erdogan however cannot be reasonaby considered a populist, even if he once was one, because he now firmly leads the Turkish establishment. What elites is he supposed to be opposing on behalf of the people?
Finally, it's worth noting the word's root in latin. Populares vs Optimates. A civil conflict that lasted for about a century, and ended up with the Roman Republic collapsing into dictatorships and ultimately, the Caesars.
The posed question is simple: yes, populism is inherently dangerous and destructive. Just as surgery is inherently dangerous and destructive to the body... and how much more, if the cancer was consciously trying to prevent the surgery at all costs?
We tend to view "danger" as a negative word. But danger is necessary to protect. Soldiers are dangerous. So are police officers. If they weren't, how are they supposed to oppose an army or a drug cartel?
It's likewise necessary to build. Every house starts with chainsaws, bulldozers and wrecking balls.
Taking your given counter-example: that'd still be dangerous, because those politicians can't be assumed to just give up because you ask nicely. Any populism that has a chance of winning, is and must be dangerous. And usually the most dangerous are the least dangerous.
Because that corrupt leader is far more likely to peacefully concede, if he knows his entire family is about to be lynched by an angry mob.
@@sorsocksfake Most intelligent comment I've seen today,
Very informative and a nice summary.
The word "diversity" should be scrubbed from common usage. At this point it is poisoned and overloaded to the point where no rational discussion can be had using the word.
While the Us vs. Them of populism can be correctly defined as "the people" vs. "the elites" this isn't a matter of either of those groups having a unified view point, it's a matter of classifying those groups based on relative power density, which is objectively determinable, and which has a fairly sharp divide. While there might be edge cases, the vast majority of people can be objectively separated this way. There is inevitably some group on "the people" side that have "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" syndrome (or an equivalent sentiment), that align with and support the elites. These tend to be the bulk of the "everyone else".
On point number two, I think you're overplaying your hand. While elites may be morally castigated in a number of different ways, I don't think it is equally necessary for "the people" to be upheld as uniformly virtuous, but simply not evil in the particular ways that elites are. Your point number three doesn't seem to be at all distinct from your point number two.
I would descriptively consider myself a populist, but I vehemently disagree with your net description of what that entails. Bernie Sanders was a populist, but has pretty much abandoned that.
Diversity is often used when words like "variety" can do the same thing and not make people sound like they just got out of a sociology class.
@@rixille I don't think those words are equivalent. Prior to sociology getting their hands on it, I most often heard diversity preceded by genetic, usually in context of population or ecological health. In more olden times, diverse or divers would have meant approximately the same as various.
A well worded and thought proviking piece. Will share.
This video is a great example that if you package baseless assertions in a dry, unemotional presentation, too many will lap it up as the undeniable truth.
What do you think he gets the most wrong?
It may be worth making a separate episode clarifying conspiracy theories vs claims of conspiracies vs actual conspiracies