Vox, Covid-19, and populist discourses in Spain – EUROPP – European Politics and Policy

The radical right party Vox has been a harsh critic of the Spanish governments handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Jos Javier Olivas Osuna and Jos Rama present findings from an analysis of the speeches made by the partys leader, Santiago Abascal, during the first wave of the crisis. They write that Abascals interventions became increasingly populist as the pandemic progressed. There is also evidence of a spillover effect, with the level of populism displayed by other parties also increasing.

The analysis of populist discourses during great events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, can help us to understand how populist leaders adapt their communicative style to take advantage of changing circumstances. Populist movements often appear within a crisis context. This was the case of some populist leaders in Latin America that emerged after the hyperinflationary crisis in the late 1980s, or the recent emergence of radical populist movements in Europe such as the Alternative for Germany, Brothers of Italy, and Vox after the Great Recession.

Populism finds in economic, social and political crisis a window of opportunity because crisis erodes trust in representative institutions, fuels grievances, and serves as justification for radical measures. Moreover, populists frequently cite social, political and economic problems as well as the failure to address them to propagate a sense of crisis and turn the people against a dangerous other. Unfortunately, the simplistic solutions and blame attributions of populist leaders often trigger similarly simplistic and confrontational responses from their political adversaries. These populist performances can become contagious and may further divide society and polarise the electorate.

Populism in Spain during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic

In Spain, the Covid-19 crisis has induced greater demands for techno-authoritarian decision-making, strong leadership, willingness to give up individual freedom, and support for the idea of recentralisation of devolved powers. All these ideas resonate with the discourse of Vox, which is also the party that Spaniards with anti-democratic views are more prone to support. Vox has also grown significantly and become the third largest party in Spain and it is, therefore, a party worth studying in the context of this health crisis.

One way to study populist discourses is to compare the density of populist features for each of the core dimensions of populism, namely: antagonism, morality, the idealisation of society, popular sovereignty and personalistic leadership. Table 1 below provides a definition for each of these dimensions.

Table 1: The core dimensions of populism

We have analysed the transcripts of the populist discourse of Vox during the debates for the approval and extension of the state of alarm to fight against Covid-19. Our analysis reveals that, in comparison with Voxs political manifestos, the idealised depiction of society lost relevance during these debates, whereas the moral and antagonistic dimensions largely increased their salience. Figure 1 shows the density of each of the populist features in these statements and in the partys manifestos.

Figure 1: Aggregate levels of populism in the discourse and party manifestos of Vox

Figure 2 shows that from 25 March to 3 June, the density of morality and antagonism references steadily increased during the different interventions in the case of Vox, and that anti-populist allusions i.e., referring to a pluralist or liberal conception of democracy were extremely rare and decreasing in the speeches of Abascal.

Figure 2: Evolution of populist and anti-populist statements by major Spanish political parties (25 March 3 June 2020)

It is worth noting that Abascals speeches paid very little attention to the specific aspects of the pandemic. They largely attempted to delegitimise the Spanish government and its allies by accusing them of disinformation and of having hidden motives, such as eroding the unity of Spain and trying to establish a communist authoritarian regime. While the number of populist references increased, the tone of his statements also became more hyperbolic and aggressive.

Mr Snchez, you cant disguise this: tens of thousands of dead Spaniards due to sectarianism and criminal negligence by this government and millions of Spaniards ruined

I believe that Mr Iglesias wishes a civil war, [], I believe that his vanity and fanatism is capable of provoking a tragedy in Spain, but we are not going to fall into his provocations.

Santiago Abascal, 3 June 2020

Our analysis also provides evidence of spillover effects in other parties communications. Pablo Casado, the leader of the Peoples Party (PP), drastically modified his discourse between the first and last Covid-19 debate.Anti-populist features were abandoned and replaced by abundant populist antagonism and morality features. Although the style of Casado was not as emotional and aggressive as that of Abascal, the density of populist references displayed was also very high and several of the critiques were similar to those made by the leader of Vox.

Meanwhile, the speakers of Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) and Unidas Podemos (UP), parties that are usually classified as populist, took advantage of the excessive claims by Abascal to caricature and demonise Vox as well as the other right-leaning parties, the PP and Ciudadanos (Cs). Only the speakers of Cs and Prime Minister Pedro Snchez, the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), maintained a discourse with fewer populist than anti-populist references.

Explaining the propagation of populist rhetoric

The Covid-19 pandemic was seized upon by Vox as an opportunity to fuel discontent and transform the health and economic crisis into a political crisis in which they could set the agenda and present themselves as the only strong opposition to the government.

Abascal and other leading figures in the party employed an aggressive performative style, distancing themselves from what is politically correct and emulating the bad manners of former US President Donald Trump and other prominent populist figures. Other parties reacted to these performances by also engaging in blame attribution and moral condemnation. Two different mechanisms seem to explain the propagation of populist discourses.

First, by adopting hyperbolic and confrontational rhetoric, populist parties can gain more media attention and differentiate themselves from other political forces. This is a sort of populist outbidding process. Other political parties on the same side of the left-right spectrum, such as the PP in this case, may choose to adopt a similar form of populist rhetoric to avoid losing voters to more radical parties, such as Vox.

The recent regional elections in Catalonia in February this year and Madrid in May help to illustrate this effect. In the former election, the PP adopted a moderate stance, but was largely beaten by Vox, while in the latter, the PP leader Isabel Daz Ayuso used a Manichean, confrontational communication strategy and managed to largely outperform Vox which obtained 9.1% of the vote as opposed to 18.5% in the November 2019 general election. This underlines that maintaining a pluralist discourse in the context of crisis and polarisation can be electorally damaging in the short-term.

Second, parties from the other side of the political spectrum may also enter into a populist confrontation dynamic with the party responsible for the initial escalation. Once a leader breaks implicit conventions on what is acceptable to say in parliament, other leaders may follow and thereby help normalise populist articulation, strengthening the sense of crisis.

Party speakers in Spain engaged in aggressive attacks on each other with hyperbolic accusations such as suggesting that some parties were euthanising part of the population, calling for a military coup dtat, wishing a civil war, or engaging in fascism. This crossing of dialectic red lines in parliament was later visible in a more aggressive tone and further polarisation in the public sphere, thus contributing to increased tensions and divisions in society.

For more information, see the authors accompanying paper at Frontiers in Political Science

Note: This article gives the views of theauthors, not the position of EUROPP European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Vox Espaa (Public Domain)

The rest is here:

Vox, Covid-19, and populist discourses in Spain - EUROPP - European Politics and Policy

Can Zelensky’s Turn to Populism to Save Him in the Next Ukrainian Election? – The National Interest

Populism has always been prominent in Ukrainian politics as a means to stem the declining popularity of presidents and governments. After the Orange Revolution populist firebrand Yulia Tymoshenko became synonymous with this populism. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskys new policy of de-oligarchization looks to return to Tymoshenkos discredited populism which was disastrous for Ukraines economy during her two governments.

With forty-two percentof Ukrainians disappointed in Volodymyr Zelenskys performance last year and sixty-seven percent believing the country is heading in the wrong direction, it is not surprising Ukraines president is turning to populism. Only twenty percentbelieved Zelenskys presidency was better than his predecessor Petro Poroshenko, thirty percentthought he was worse while forty-one percentwere of the opinion there was no difference between the two.

The traditional populist enemy in Ukraine has always been oligarchs. During election campaigns, all Ukraines political forces, ranging from left to right and irrespective of whether they are pro-Western or pro-Russian, promise to deal with oligarchs.

With one eye towards the next elections, Zelensky has launched a de-oligarchization campaign with two enemies in his sights. The first is the pro-Russian Opposition Platform For Life Party who he sees as the main competitor to his own Servant of the People Party among Russian speakers in southeast Ukraine. The second is Poroshenko against whom he has a personal grudge and seeks to dampen support for the center-right European Solidarity Party that the former president heads.

While the Ukrainian public traditionally blames oligarchs for all manner of sins they at the same time remain skeptical about Zelenskys motives, with only 31.5% believing he is striving for justice or that de-oligarchization will lead to improvements. Meanwhile over half of Ukrainians fifty-seven percentsee Zelenskyys de-oligarchization as either populism to increase his popularity ratings or an attempt to take over oligarch economic assets and media for the president's team.

Three political parties in parliament European Solidarity, Voice, and Tymoshenko's Fatherland who are not usually willing to cooperate with each other have drawn up their own alternative law on de-oligarchization which they submitted on June 15, thirteen days after Zelenskyys draft. Their draft with the long title of On De-oligarchization, Promotion of Competition, Removal of the Authorities from Corrupt Influences and Social Responsibility of Business seeks to deal with the many inconsistencies in the president's approach.

Zelenskys de-oligarchization is unclear about how oligarchs are to be defined and the names are restricted to a secret list of thirteenpeople who allegedly have inordinate influence in politics, the media, and over state officials. Zelensky seeks to remove the influence ofthese thirteen oligarchs over the media and political parties and deny them access to privatization of large facilities.

It is never explained how oligarchs would be forced to sell their media outlets. This would likely lead to protests in international organizations and human rights bodies about threats to media freedom in Ukraine. Similarly, with a huge shadow economy accounting for upwards of half of GDPand assets deposited overseas, Zelensky has not explained how the authorities intend to end the covert funding of political parties by big business. Big business after all provides financial donations to political parties in the US and Europe.

Indeed, it is perhaps not surprising Zelenskys de-oligarchization populism ignores Ukraines huge shadow economy as attempts to reduce its size would be unpopular among his base. Anti-establishment populists like Zelensky prefer to attack elites. The shadow economy contributes to widespread lower levels of corruption and widespread disrespect for the rule of law. Of the thirtymillion economically active Ukrainians only 37 percent(10.9million) pay taxes. 11.8 millionUkrainians who are able to work do not officially make any money; in other words, they work in the shadow economy where they earn unofficial salaries. Compounding this are high rates of tax avoidance in western Ukraine which does not see this as a contradiction in its claim to be the most patriotic region of the country. Tax avoidance is also high in the port city of Odesa and to a lesser degree in the capital city of Kyiv.

Ukraines largest industrial companies are too big and visible to hide in the shadow economy. Meanwhile de-oligarchization does nothing to improve Ukraines rule of law by, for example, reducing widespread corruption in the judiciary. As the conservative Heritage Foundation noted in its 2021 Index of Economic Freedom, [Kyiv] needs to boost investor confidence by continuing to upgrade the investment code and by undertaking deep and comprehensive reforms to strengthen rule-of-law institutions and improve the protection of property rights, judicial effectiveness, and government integrity.

Zelenskys populist de-oligarchization plans higher taxes on selective oligarchs who own Ukraines largest natural resources companies. These include a potential tripling of iron ore mining rent and as much as a three-fold increase in taxing the disposal of non-hazardous mining waste. The governments own official statistics show sixty percentof iron ore mined in Ukraine is exported while the Ukrainian metallurgical industry contributes twelve percentof the countrys GDP. 19 of Ukraines top 100 taxpayers are in the metallurgical sector. A recent survey estimated each job in Ukraines metallurgical industry has a knock-on effect in creating a further 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy, such as transportation or engineering.

As tax increases will lead to increases in production costs for Ukraines metallurgical sector and price increases for importers of Ukrainian metals, Zelenskyys populist higher taxes will create a window of opportunity for Russian competitors. Populist de-oligarchization would encourage importers and investors to seek sector stability elsewhere, particularly in the three quarters of the worlds metals market which uses a fixed rent rate rather than the progressive rate favored by Zelenskyy. Populist tax increases will encourage some of Ukraines trading partners to move their business to, for example, Russia, the EU, Australia, orBrazil.

There has been substantially increased demand from China for iron ore. But an increase in prices for Ukraines exports (due to populist higher taxes) would lead to Chinese importers looking for suppliers elsewhere. Should China turn to Russia to meet its iron ore needs, Zelenskys de-oligarchization would not only drive down demand for Ukraines commodities and make post-covid economic recovery difficult but would also drive market share to Russia.

Who stands to benefit from Zelenskyys election populism?

De-oligarchization will benefit oligarch Igor Kolomoysky who was instrumental in bringing Zelensky to power in 2019 and remains untouchable. Oligarchs close to Tymoshenko were also untouchable during her populist de-oligarchization. Zelensky has never once in his two years in power criticized Kolomoysky even though the oligarch has opposed all of his reforms. Kolomoysky controls a quarter of Zelenskyys Servant of the People parliamentary faction which has blocked government reforms. Kolomoysky directly interferes in Ukrainian politics through his For the Future political party which came fourth with twelve percentof the vote in last years local elections.

Kolomoysky faces numerous lawsuits abroad but none at home where the Zelenskyy controlled prosecutors office has initiated no criminal cases. In August 2020, the FBI raided companies owned by Kolomoysky in Cleveland and Miami and seized properties in Kentucky and Texas. On March 5, 2021, the U.S. sanctioned Kolomoysky due to his involvement in significant corruption.

To ingratiate himself with President Joe Biden, Zelensky could follow through with Ukrainian sanctions against Kolomoysky, although this is unlikely. Ukrainian gas oligarch Dmytro Firtash, who the U.S. has been seeking to extradite since 2014 from Vienna on corruption charges, was sanctioned by Zelenskylast week. President Biden told Zelensky after this months NATO summit that Ukraine has to clean up its corruption to be invited into a Membership Action Plan (MAP). Cleaning up President Zelenskys inner circle would be a very good place to start Ukraines drive to enter a MAP as a stepping stone to joining NATO.

Ukrainians' fear that de-oligarchization will benefit Zelenskys circle seems, therefore.to be true. Kolomoysky would certainly attempt to take over large companies which went bankrupt from populist high taxes and loss of markets. It is interesting to note the manganese ore sector, already controlled by Kolomoysky, faced a mere twenty-five percenttax rate since 2020 at which time iron ore taxes increased to fifty percent. Inexplicably, manganese ore escaped any tax increase in Zelenskyys populist tax hikes.

Zelenskyys populist de-oligarchization has four fundamental problems. Firstly, it is poorly thought out because it is more geared to increasing the presidents popularity than undertaking any real change of the type long demanded by the U.S. in return for its support. Secondly, selectively targeting one of the key sectors of Ukraines economic growth and exports will only incentivize more companies to join the already large shadow economy. Thirdly, allowing Russia to take over Ukraines export markets would be unwise when nearly three quarters of Ukrainians believe their country is at war with Russia. Fourthly, Zelenskys de-oligarchization will benefit Kolomoysky at a time when he is sanctioned by the U.S. Fifthly, de-oligarchization is impossible without reducing Ukraines huge shadow economy, reducing widespread tax avoidance among Ukrainian citizens and fighting deep levels of corruption in the judiciary.

If President Zelenskyy wants Ukrainians and Washington to treat his de-oligarchization seriously and not as another round of election populism he should start at home by following the U.S. in sanctioning Kolomoysky. De-oligarchization will not be treated as anything other than populism while Kolomoysky remains untouchable in Ukraine.

Go here to see the original:

Can Zelensky's Turn to Populism to Save Him in the Next Ukrainian Election? - The National Interest

Populism at what cost – The Shillong Times

Meghalaya is turning 50 next January. It would be interesting for any credible institution to do a performance grading of the State to analyze its development indices. The principle yardstick for any state is human development. This would include in the main the health and general wellness indicators. The mirror for this is provided annually by the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) which collaborates with local institutions to conduct these studies. The results have been dismal in the area of infant and maternal mortalities and nutrition. This would have aggravated during the pandemic as pregnant women and lactating mothers stay away from hospitals for fear of contracting Covid. A targeted study on this would reveal that Meghalayas health indicators as is the case with the education grading would have dipped very low. And these two are critical areas of human development.In 50 years, the Khasi-Jaintia region has suffered from transport bottlenecks for want of railways. Railways are the cheapest means of communication for ordinary people, particularly students and blue-collared workers who cannot afford flights. But railways have become a live issue for the Khasi Students Union (KSU) and their raison dtre. Their only argument against railways is that unwanted itinerants would add to the list of infiltrators. No government till date has had the spine to state upfront that the railways are a national asset and a boon for travellers and therefore they should and will be allowed to come to the state. The people of Garo Hills are more far-sighted on this score. Trains coming up to Mendipathar have been of great help to farmer-producers who wish to export their products beyond Garo Hills apart from connecting them to the rest of the country.Another sore point that should be a dampener to the Statehood celebration is the fact that barring Arunachal Pradesh which does not have an airport because of its difficult terrain, the only other State in the entire country that does not have a functioning airport is Meghalaya. The one at Umroi works in fits and starts. Indigo which operates the Kolkata-Shillong-Kolkata flight functions when it wishes to and pulls back at the first sign of low passenger intake. Development of Umroi airport has suffered from specious arguments about not cutting hillocks, thereby preventing the needed length for the runway which prevents landing of Boeings. When the Airports Authorities of India (AI) is willing to invest in the necessary infrastructure, the State has always been on the backfoot. Our dreams of seeing a Shillong-Delhi flight taking off is unlikely to materialize any time soon. So whats there to celebrate? Populism always wins the day in Meghalaya, not governance imperatives.

Continued here:

Populism at what cost - The Shillong Times

Without Trump, What Is the Future of Trumpism? – World Politics Review

Can there be Trumpism without Trump? In the wake of the Capitol riot, this is an urgent, but also surprisingly complicated question. After half a decade of debate, it is still far from obvious that we know what Trumpism actually is. Some have taken it as a local instance of a global phenomenon often described as the wave of populism, or as part of a worldwide revolt against neoliberalism. For example, as social scientists Jonathan Hopkin and Mark Blyth have put it, Trump is a data point. Global Trumpism is a structural shift.

But it is important to recognize that Trumpism is, in fact, a distinctively American product, combining three elements not so easily found in other parts of the world. The first, obviously, is Donald Trump the person, and his uncanny ability to exploit the weaknesses of the U.S. political and media systems. The second is a distinctively American far-right ideology that the Republican Party started mainstreaming long before Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his candidacy. The third is the promotion of a form of governance that at least initially promised a primacy of political will over economic considerationswhich, of everything about Trump, is the most obviously comparable to the official agendas of at least some populists elsewhere. ...

Read the rest here:

Without Trump, What Is the Future of Trumpism? - World Politics Review

Amid the babble of populist voices, we need to find the… – Daily Maverick

The South African political landscape is characterised by a radical, dangerous and essentially undemocratic populist and venal left epitomised by the EFF, which was spawned by a broadly nationalist, essentially socialist and kleptocratic ANC, a plethora of smaller parties that champion the rights of selective minorities, tribal and religious groupings, populist upstarts on the ostensible right of the spectrum and the official opposition (the DA, with more than 20% of the electorates votes) which is home to a collection of social democrats, liberals, conservatives, pragmatists and some who, lamentably, have more in common with the racial nationalism espoused by the ANC and EFF.

The burning question is how can the DA, as the opposition with the most heft, grow both its organic and adjacent vote, and fashion a coalition that will unseat the command-and-control kleptocrats and their fellow travellers, and deliver a polity that is more efficient, considerably less corrupt and that will deliver much-needed economic growth?

To answer this question, one has to examine both the offering and the composition of the voter environment. Values and principles apart, the average South African voter, at one level, is an amalgam that reflects a deep religious conservatism; an often aspirational desire for both flashy and fundamental wealth, and a clinging to the conflicting mythologies of both liberation and colonialism.

The classical divides of class are less evident with a labour aristocracy that has tied its fortunes to the ruling party and a communist party that has disproportionate historical leverage over the alliance consisting of organised labour, the ANC and itself.

The combination has found expression in a labour protectionist polity, underpinned by racial transformation of the economy and fed by the wholesale theft of national resources. All this, while unemployment has grown relentlessly and is now at record levels.

Certain elements of the white electorate have turned to the racially selective haven of the Freedom Front Plus. Indians are largely given to supporting the DA along with many coloured people who resent the short shrift they have received from the ANC. The mass of black voters continue to support the ANC, albeit in dwindling numbers with some votes collared by the DA, others by the EFF, the IFP and the likes of the AIC on a tribal ticket.

It is unfortunately plain that race and myth are the overarching determinants somewhat understandably given our fractured past and that any segmentation, predicated on an understanding of beliefs, context and desired voter action, would be dominated by these considerations.

Absent a perverse lever of the kind used by Narendra Modis BJP in India, and which the likes of Herman Mashaba hope to capitalise on (but thankfully has no or little base), which exploits ethnic divides and a form of populism in the hopes of securing a majority, the viable communication of an alternative to shift the allegiances of the bulk of voters remains elusive.

Voting is a habit and habits are hard to break, especially when governed by the self-interest of those complicit in a system of patronage and others who aspire to being part of it as the only way out of their unenviable situation. Add to this the trump card of race and an accompanying hand of myths and you have the makings of a flush for now.

The wild card is, of course, the significant chunk of young voters who remain alienated, disinterested and otherwise occupied. Their natural inclination is to cut across racial divides and they are more open to questioning the myths that are peddled.

A targeted focus in this regard given their levels of alienation, unemployment, general dissatisfaction and aspiration would pay significant voter dividends and the channel of mobile telephony and impactful social media interaction provides a handy tool.

The youth would be open to a message that ties their post-apartheid aspirations to an offering that prioritises jobs, prosperity and harmony in a qualitatively new mould free of the past and focused on the future, and this is where values and principles need to be directed.

It has historically been the youth of parties that has fired the imagination of a new cohort and changed the perceptions of the old. The challenge and opportunity is to ensure that they are onside with the essential values and principles. This requires both communication and engagement.

These need to be based unambiguously on liberty, freedom, prosperity, economic growth and opportunity. Voters need to be weaned off paltry handouts and be given sight of prospective hand-ups on to the ladder of opportunity. This is where policy around education and the fostering of an innovative environment for jobs becomes key.

This is where role models come into play across the board, across countries and across race who share, live and reap the offerings of an open opportunity society. This is where the DA comes into play, contrary to the pronouncements of the pundits.

This is where intellectual icons like Thomas Sowell, musicians and the fashionistas of ideas come into play. Its about the world, not just the limited locality thats how you capture the imagination of the youth.

Theres much thats sexy, liberal and sound out there its fluid and can be fashioned. Now is the time. The youth are open to ideas. They are not necessarily conventionally conservative; they are potentially radical, and radicalism is an often under-recognised element of liberalism and conservatism for that matter.

The failure of democratic liberalism to capture the imagination of the electorate in the 21st century has led to a populist conservatism that draws on the alt-right and that has brought Trump, Brexit, Le Pen in France and the AfD in Germany to the fore.

How wonderful would it be if the DA could buck this trend in the most challenging of environments that momentarily allows the left equivalent of the right on the extremes of the political horseshoe to hold sway?

That would be a tonic of note to counter the various challenges and assaults from both extremes a vaccine against the virus in the time of Covid when authoritarianism with a pernicious agenda is on the up. DM

Ghaleb Cachalia is an MP in the National Assembly and the DA spokesman on Public Enterprises and serves on the Ethics Committee in Parliament.

View post:

Amid the babble of populist voices, we need to find the... - Daily Maverick

The Congress Partys politics of populism – The New Indian Express

The debate around the farm laws and the agitation to scrap them serves a copybook case for those studying politics of populism. History repeats itself, but it shouldnt be allowed to in such a grotesque manner. Right since Independence, the Congress party has always chosen safe ways over hard and politically courageous decisions. As the ruling party, it played to the gallery to avoid political reverses. As the opposition, it has always fished in troubled waters, riding piggyback on popular sentiments. For Indias GOP, low-hanging fruits have always proved to be too tempting to remember its long-term vision for the future of India!

The Congress partys populist politics has proved to be extremely costly to the nation. The three important issues that are routinely referred to as core issues of the BJP are a testimony to this. Regardless of the expressed constitutional mandate, successive Congress governments refrained from nullifying Article 370, enacting a common civil code and preventing the silent invasion of Bangladeshi infiltrators into Assam. While the Congress used all these three issues as a protective shield around its vote bank, they were in fact laying red carpets to multiple threats to the very unity and integrity of India.

An important factor common to these three issues was Muslims in India. Sadly, Congress leaders have viewed Muslims only from the perspective of losses and gains in elections. For them, Jammu and Kashmir was more of a Muslim-majority province and hence a showcase item to be cited as a living example of Indias commitment to secularism. The party was always hell-bent on exhibiting secularism than being truly secular. At the cost of J&Ks progress on the human development front, the Congress allowed secessionist elements to thrive under Article 370.

It turned a Nelsons eye to many things, from repeated terrorist attacks to injustice in Ladakh and from mindless corruption to denial of constitutional safeguards to women and marginalised communities there. The Shah Bano case was the pinnacle of its politics of populism through minority appeasement. Rajiv Gandhis decision to amend the Constitution in order to undo the impact of the Supreme Court judgment further emboldened obscurantist elements in the Muslim community. In effect, justice to Muslim women facing acute vulnerability due to the retrograde practice of triple talaq continued to remain a chimera. To secure its own vote bank, the Congress committed the sin of making the lives of Muslim women even more insecure. Similarly, the IMDT act enacted during former PM Indira Gandhis second tenure gave the illegal migration of Bangladeshis more fillip instead of preventing it.

Again, the example of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, introduced by Rajiv Gandhi, is equally educative. Later, the TADA was used and abused but it continued as a law. During the investigations into the 1993 Mumbai blasts, this Act proved to be very effective. However, in the face of a campaign by certain sections in society, TADA came to be portrayed as an anti-minority law and hence the Narasimha Rao regime meekly gave in to the pressures and repealed the act. Later, when the Vajpayee government decided to bring the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002, the NDA government was compelled to call a joint sessionsomething that happened only very few times in Indias parliamentary historyof both the Houses to get the law passed.

All these examples show how the Congress lacked courage of conviction in abiding by the guiding principles of the Constitution. Now, while actively supporting forces of manufactured unrest on the farm bills, the GOP and other opposition parties are doing a great disservice to parliamentary democracy. How can a group of a few hundred stubborn agitators pressurise the government to undo what Parliament has passed? If we allow this to happen, it would amount to stifling the voices emanating from the very temple of democracy! The government has been engaging with the agitators patiently and peacefully. It is time that the Congress and opposition parties shun populism and instead prepare the agitators so that wiser counsel prevails.

While doing so, they may do well in recalling what Edmund Burke had said almost 250 years ago: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774)

VinaySahasrabuddhe(vinays57@gmail.com)President, ICCR, andBJP Rajya Sabha MP

Originally posted here:

The Congress Partys politics of populism - The New Indian Express

Why the GameStop affair is a perfect example of ‘platform populism’ – The Guardian

The GameStop saga, for all the havoc it has caused to the global markets, is not just a tale of idealistic individual investors humiliating a bunch of arrogant hedge funds even if the tides turned on Tuesday, with a plunge in GameStops shares. For one, it feels like an unannounced sequel to the 6 January riots on Capitol Hill: both have featured a horde of angry, foul-mouthed social media addicts laying siege to the most sacred institutions of the deeply despised establishment.

However, while the Washington rioters were universally condemned, those leading the virtual crusade on Wall Street have fared much better. Having defended the stocks of musty, struggling companies against greedy hedge funds, they have garnered some sympathy across the political aisle.

The main lesson of the two riots, for the digital counterculture at least, seems clear. Today, the true shamans of the anti-establishment rebellion ought to master the arts of trading stock options and derivatives, not those of climbing walls and waving Confederate flags. The revolution may be livestreamed, tweeted and televised but its probably still a good idea to back up that Excel spreadsheet.

That the GameStop crusade seems dignified is partly a function of the hedge fund industrys rather controversial to put it mildly reputation. There is, however, another, less obvious reason for its acclaim in the public sphere: many of us are enchanted by the rhetoric of democratisation that has accompanied the rise of cheap online brokerage platforms.

One such platform Robinhood has provided the crucial digital infrastructure behind the GameStop rebellion, allowing ordinary people to buy shares in companies for small amounts of cash on their phones. Its own mission, repeated by its founders almost ad nauseam over the past few years, has been to democratise finance.

At first, it may seem just a natural outgrowth of the lofty mission embraced by index funds like Vanguard in the early 1970s. Back then, the idea was to create safe financial instruments that would make it trivially easy and cheap for ordinary people to invest into the stock market without having to accumulate much insider knowledge or expertise.

Robinhood, however, doesnt fashion itself as just another boring and utterly forgettable brokerage firm from Wall Street. Rather, it wants to be seen as a revolutionary, disruptive force out of Silicon Valley. Being seen as just such a digital platform does wonders to ones valuation: the benchmark being Amazon, not some unknown mutual fund.

Robinhoods rhetoric of democratisation is thus to be seen in a somewhat different light. Its heritage points towards the likes of Uber, Airbnb, and WeWork rather than Vanguard or BlackRock. All these digital firms promised to democratise one thing or another transportation, accommodation, office space and to do it fast.

Soon, this nascent industry, with its sweet promise of democracy as a service, couldnt quite contain itself: the global quest for democratising dog walking, babysitting, juice making and laundry-folding was on. This was pursued with the help of venture capitalists and various institutional investors who, squeezed by the low-interest rate legacy of the global financial crisis, were increasingly out of ideas on where to park their money.

This, however, wasnt the whole story: the drive to democratise everything was also fuelled by such unflinching beacons of liberal democracy as the government of Saudi Arabia. By partnering with Japans SoftBank, it bankrolled this myth, pouring billions into the likes of Uber and WeWork.

This huge influx of money, combined with genuinely new business models that rendered certain previously chargeable services nominally free, created an illusion of progress and social mobility. Many digital platforms were either heavily subsidised by their deep-pocketed backers or charged nothing at all; the lost revenue was to be made up by monetising more advanced related services and user data.

The inevitable process of democratisation touted by all the platforms as evidence of their own socially progressive nature, was often the result of simple arithmetic. In cases like WeWork, the maths did not even add up. Whether Robinhood, which has now raised an extra $3.4bn, will be luckier remains to be seen.

For most of these companies, the sweet promises of democratisation have made such maths irrelevant, at least in the short term. This explains how the tech industry has emerged as the leading purveyor of populism around the globe.

This may seem an overstatement. While we tend to reserve the dreaded P word for the Bannons, the Orbns and the Erdoans of this world, can we think of Bezos or Zuckerberg and the stock-trading Robinhood army in those terms?

We can and we should. With everyones eyes fixed on Trump-style populism primitive, toxic, nativist we have completely missed the platforms role in the emergence of another, rather distinct type of populism: sophisticated, cosmopolitan, urbane. Originating in Silicon Valley, this platform populism has advanced by disrupting hidden, reactionary forces that stand in the way of progress and democratisation all by unleashing the powers of digital technologies.

Platform populism is propelled by the almost conspiratorial insistence that the world isnt what it seems. The incumbent firms taxis, hotels, hedge funds have changed the rules of the game in such a way as to favour their own interests. Only by disrupting them can one hope to harvest all the benefits made possible by digital technologies. To that end, the platforms promise to unleash the forces of capitalism in order to civilise these savage remnants of the earlier, pre-digital civilisation.

Much of the rigidity of the pre-digital incumbents is a result of the regulations imposed by democratic (even if capitalist) states. However, in the topsy-turvy universe of platform populism, resisting democratic regulations by subjecting them to the sustained economic pressure of capitalist competition is incontrovertible evidence of democratisation. Hence the resistance from some of them to legislation designed to get them to treat their gig economy workers as actual employees.

That much in the rhetoric of platform populism is fake and that its ultimate winners will be the likes of SoftBank and Saudi Arabia doesnt matter either. Platform populism, featuring no coherent political ideology of its own, is all about process, not outcomes. The goal is to prove that, for all the machinations of government bureaucrats with their pesky regulations, our individual agency is still alive and kicking. Its definitely not to deploy that agency to accomplish any particular long-term political agenda.

Thus, many of the angry crusaders taking on the hedge fund industry are certainly aware that their own gains are temporary and fleeting. But who could deny them the pleasure of reaffirming their own agency by sticking it to the man, all while knowing that the only long-term gains of this process would accrue to other hedge funds and asset managers, such as BlackRock, which is estimated to have made billions on the GamesStop rush? Far from deepening democracy, platform populism turns into a farcical yet highly profitable theatre performance.

Evgeny Morozov is the founder of the Syllabus, and the author of several books on technology and politics

Link:

Why the GameStop affair is a perfect example of 'platform populism' - The Guardian

Populism in the pandemic age – New Statesman

Since shortly after the outbreak of Covid-19, two theories about the pandemics likely impact have been circulating. One lets call it the bread thesis maintains that the crisis will reinstate respect for seriousness and competence. It will remind everyone that the nations of the world are interdependent and that the politics of expertise puts food on the table and keeps the diners alive.

The other lets call it the circuses thesis suggests that, with borders tightening, economic and social turmoil exacerbating old inequalities and anger over lockdowns rising and being directed at elites, the pandemic will benefit populists stirring culture wars.

The big political question this decade will be which thesis is more accurate. Enter Michael Burleigh, a British historian and recently the inaugural Engelsberg Chair in History and International Affairs at the London School of Economics. From his lectures in that post, Burleigh has composed Populism: Before and After the Pandemic. This slim book ranges across many of the subjects of his previous works 20th-century Germany, decolonisation and the Cold War, the decline of the West, the uses and abuses of history but concludes with reflections on Covid-19 and what comes next.

It sits at the juncture of three current publishing trends: globetrotting think-pieces on Covid-19 (Ivan Krastevs Is It Tomorrow Yet?, Fareed Zakarias Ten Lessons for a Post-Pandemic World, Slavoj ieks Pandemic!), populism explainers (Anne Applebaums Twilight of Democracy, Michael Sandels The Tyranny of Merit) and explorations of post-imperial identity (Sathnam Sangheras Empireland, Robert Tombss This Sovereign Isle). Readers looking to understand the transformations brought about by the virus should start with Krastevs effort, but Burleighs book is a spirited, readable and thought-provoking tour through the forces defining our age. Populism only gets to the pandemic in its pessimistic conclusion, a short epilogue that follows three discrete but interlocking essays.

[see also:The fall of the Roman republic is a warning about todays degenerate populists]

Burleigh begins with an account of the recent populist wave and how elite interests have ultimately become the progenitors and beneficiaries of movements purporting to rally the masses against the rich and powerful. The Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde has written that populism is a thin ideology which can bind itself on to other political traditions (nationalism, socialism, conservatism, even liberalism) and Burleigh examines its many different international forms in that spirit, neither demonising populist support nor wrapping it up in sentimental odes to real people.

The second essay compares the post-imperial experiences of Britain and Russia. While Burleigh does not labour the parallels, he notes an important similarity. In both countries the carapace of empire obscured the nation underneath the Russian Soviet republic had no formal capital nor a communist party of its own, as England today has no parliament of its own and the retreat of empire is prompting new reckonings with that underlying identity.

The third essay takes in Poland, Hungary, China, South Africa, Britain and the US to show how history is being politicised in order to unify populations, or to divide them into rooted patriots wedded to myths versus elite cosmopolitan subversives. All of which resonates in the wake of the statue wars in 2020 and the storming of the Capitol in Washington, DC where the Confederate flag was held aloft within its walls for the first time ever.

Populism displays Burleighs eye for enlivening and memorable aperus, anecdotes and factoids. He compares the similarities between different forms of populism to the Habsburg jaw in portraiture, and Norman Englands supranational, Francophone aristocrats to Davos man in armour. The Chinese Communist Party, he informs us, once produced a boxed DVD set for its cadres on what Mikhail Gorbachev did wrong in the last days of the Soviet Union. By 2007, 20 years after Ronald Reagan abolished balanced reporting rules for broadcasters, 91 per cent of US radio stations had a conservative bias. Emmanuel Macron based his listening tour following the yellow vests protests of 2019 on a similar exercise by Pierre Poujade, the original French populist.

This mastery of the past helps with predicting the future. Burleigh sees Vladimir Putin, who, after a referendum last summer, can now stay in office until 2036, adopting a form of back-seat power akin to that of Deng Xiaoping in 1980s China. In the shortening of global supply chains due to the pandemic he sees similarities to the breakdown of large-scale tile and glass production in the late Roman empire. And in Brexit and the quandaries about Englishness he sees a risk that Britain will follow Russia in resolving its post-imperial identity by forging a new one defined sharply and antagonistically in opposition to Europe. That a bureaucratic dispute over vaccines between the EU and a post-Brexit Britain has so quickly degenerated into a culture war and merged with emotive debates about the future of the union lends weight to that argument.

[see also:The Big Squeeze: How financial populism sent the stock market on a wild ride]

All of which brings him out at the pandemic-era epilogue. Burleigh gives the case for the bread thesis ample space, citing the chaotic scenes after Indias populist prime minister Narendra Modi announced a national curfew with four hours notice, forcing millions of Indians to travel back to their home villages in scenes that resembled the chaos of partition in 1947. Such misgovernment, he notes, naming instances in Italy, Brazil, Britain, Russia and elsewhere, shows the limits of populist rule Donald Trumps election defeat being a prime example.

Yet the books conclusion sides with the circuses thesis. Culture wars are bubbling even during lockdowns. Protracted economic downturns will come when emergency fiscal support is pulled and bankruptcies and unemployment soar. Unlike after the financial crisis of 2008, there will be no popular patience with further austerity, writes Burleigh. Any signs that economic inequalities are not being addressed this time will not be so passively received He cites France, where a combination of previous socio-economic grievances, the economic blow of the pandemic, waning patience with lockdowns and a search for scapegoats could put Marine Le Pen back on track to attack Macron as the incarnated representative of the global rich exploiting the couches populaires. Recent events support this. The storming of the Capitol spoke to the enduring disruptiveness of Trumpism. The vaccine nationalism rising in Europe hardly augurs a new age of enlightened international cooperation. In France, a recent poll put a Macron-Le Pen run-off in next years presidential election at 52 per cent to 48.

The message of Populism is not entirely pessimistic. Burleigh argues for a more robust defence of liberal democracy, a confrontation with the forces of inequality and division, and a scepticism about the notion that we are slaves to historical precedent. But, as his compelling book argues on its detours through time and space, there is also a case for realism about what the coming period of turmoil might bring. Bread does not always beat circuses.

Populism: Before and After the PandemicMichael BurleighHurst, 10.99, 152pp

Original post:

Populism in the pandemic age - New Statesman

How wealth inequality, populism have impacted stock market – Yahoo Finance

TipRanks

Weve got a full month of 2021 behind us now, and a few trends are coming clearer. The coronavirus crisis may still be with us, but as vaccination programs expand, the end is in sight. With President Trump out of the picture, and the Democrats holding both Houses of Congress and the White House, politics is looking more predictable. And both of those developments bode well for an economic recovery this year. Looking back, at the year that was, we can also see some trends that stayed firm despite the pandemic, the shutdowns, and the supercharged election season. One of the most important is the ongoing rollout of 5G networking technology. These new networks bring with them a fuller realization of the promises inherent in the digital world. Faster connections, lower latency, higher online capacity, clearer signals all will strongly enhance the capabilities of the networked world. And it wont just be mundane things like telecommuting or remote offices that will benefit 5G will allow Internet of Things and autonomous vehicles to further develop their potential. There is even talk of medical applications, of remotely located doctors performing surgery via digitally controlled microsurgical tools. And these are just the possibilities that we can see from now. Who know what the future will really bring? To this end, we pulled up TipRanks database to learn more about three exciting plays in the 5G space. According to the Street, we are likely to see further interesting developments in the next few years as this technology takes over. Skyworks Solutions (SWKS) The first 5G name were looking at, Skyworks, is a semiconductor chip manufacturer that brought in $3.4 billion in total revenues for FY2020. Skyworks, which is a prime supplier of chips for Apples iPhone series, saw a massive 68% year-over-year increase in 1QFY21 revenues the top line reached $1.51 billion, a company record, and also much higher than analysts had forecast. Much of Skyworks fiscal Q1 sales success came after Apple launched the 5G-capable iPhone 12 line. Strong sales in the popular handset device meant that profits trickled down the supply line and Skyworks channels a disproportionate share of its business to Apple. In fact, Apple orders accounted for 70% of Skyworks revenue in the recent quarter. iPhone wasnt the only 5G handset on the receiving end of Skyworks chips, however the company is also an important supplier to Koreas Samsung and Chinas Xiaomi, and has seen demand rise as these companies also launch 5G-capable smartphones. Finally, Skyworks supplies semiconductor chip components to the wireless infrastructure sector, specifically to the small cell transmission units which are important in the propagation network of wireless signals. As the wireless providers switch to 5G transmission, Skyworks has seen orders for its products increase. In his note on Skyworks for Benchmark, 5-star analyst Ruben Roy writes: SWKS significantly beat consensus estimates and provided March quarter guidance that is also well ahead of consensus estimates as 5G related mobile revenue and broad-based segment revenue continued to accelerate In addition to continued strength of design win momentum and customer activity, we are encouraged with SWKS confident tone relative to the overall demand environment and content increase opportunities. In line with his comments, Roy rates SWKS a Buy along with a $215 price target. At current levels, this implies an upside of 20% for the coming year. (To watch Roys track record, click here) Roy is broadly in line with the rest of Wall Street, which has assigned SWKS 13 Buy ratings and 7 Holds over the past three month -- and sees the stock growing about 15% over the next 12 months, to a target price of $205.69.(See SWKS stock analysis on TipRanks) Qorvo, Inc. (QRVO) Qorvos chief products are chipsets used in the construction of radio frequency transmission systems that power wifi and broadband communication networks. The connection of this niche to 5G is clear as network providers upgrade their RF hardware to 5G, they also upgrade the semiconductor chips that control the systems. This chip maker has a solid niche, but it is not resting on its laurels. Qorvo is actively developing a range of new products specifically for 5G systems and deployment. This 5G radio frequency product portfolio includes phase shifters, switches, and integrated modules, and contains both infrastructure and mobile products. Qorvo posted $3.24 billion in total revenues for fiscal 2020. That revenue represents a 4.8% year-over-year increase and the companys sales have been accelerating in fiscal 2021. The most recent quarterly report, for the second fiscal quarter, showed $1.06 billion in revenues, a 31% yoy increase. Rajvindra Gill, 5-star analyst with Needham, is bullish on Qorvos prospects, noting: Qorvo reported strong sales and gross margins as 5G momentum rolls into CY21 on atypical seasonality... The company is planning for 500M 5G handsets to be manufactured in 2021, with an incremental $5-7 of content/unit from 4G to 5G. Management believes that ultra-wideband adoption will be a key growth driver in for smartphones going forward..." To this end, Gill puts a $220 price target on QRVO shares, suggesting room for 31% upside in 2021. Accordingly, he rates the stock a Buy. (To watch Gills track record, click here) What do other analysts have to say? 13 Buys and and 6 Holds add up to a Moderate Buy analyst consensus. Given the $192.28 average price target, shares could climb ~15% from current levels. (See QRVO stock analysis on TipRanks) Telefonakiebolaget LM Ericsson (ERIC) From chipsets, well move on to handsets. Ericsson, the Swedish telecom giant has long been a leader in mobile tech, and is well known for its infrastructure and software that make possible IP networking, broadband, cable TV, and other telecom services. Ericsson is the largest European telecom company, and the largest 2G/3G/4G infrastructure provider outside of China. But that is all in the background. Ericsson is also a leader in the rollout of Europes growing 5G networks. Ericsson is involved in 5G rollout in 17 countries in Europe, the Americas, and Asia, and its product line includes infrastructure base units and handsets, giving the company an interest in all aspects of the new 5G networks. Ericssons revenue performance in 2020 was not notably distressed by the corona crisis. Yes, the top line dipped in Q1, but that was in line with the companys historical pattern of rising revenue from Q1 through Q4. While the companys 1H20 revenues showed small yoy declines, the 2H20 gains were higher. In Q3, the $6.48 billion top line was up 8.7% yoy, and Q4s $8.08 billion revenue was up 17% from the prior year. The companys shares have also performed well during the corona year, and show a 12 month gain of 64%. Raymond James 5-star analyst Simon Leopold bluntly assigns Ericssons recent gains to its participation in 5G rollouts. Japan's awaited 5G roll-out has started. Share gains continue as Ericsson benefits from challenges facing its biggest competitors and more operators embrace 5G it seems obvious that Ericsson should be gaining market share... Competitor Nokia shunned the Chinese 5G projects, citing profitability challenges, yet Ericsson appears to be profiting in the challenging region. Leopold rates this stock an Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his $15 price target implies an upside potential of ~14% for the year ahead. (To watch Leopolds track record, click here) The Raymond James analyst, while bullish on ERIC, is actually less so than the Wall Street consensus. The stock has a Strong Buy consensus rating, based on a unanimous 5 reviews, and the $16.50 average price target indicates 25% growth potential from the share price of $13.19. (See ERIC stock analysis on TipRanks) To find good ideas for 5G stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

Here is the original post:

How wealth inequality, populism have impacted stock market - Yahoo Finance

Bidens Policies Are Popular. What Does That Mean for Republicans? – The New York Times

The American public has given President Biden favorable reviews since he took office last month, and the policies that he is hurrying to put in place appear broadly popular, according to polls.

And notably, as he signs a wave of executive actions and pushes a major $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill, Mr. Biden is facing muted opposition from Republicans so far a reflection of the partys weakened position as it juggles two increasingly divided factions.

I think that Republicans have found Biden to be much more progressive than they thought he was going to be, but I think were too busy trying to kill each other to really focus on it, said Sarah Chamberlain, the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group of centrist Republicans that includes more than 60 members of the House and Senate.

This week, the Houses G.O.P. caucus met to discuss the fate of two lawmakers representing opposite ends of the partys identity: Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the chambers No. 3 Republican. Ms. Greene is one of the chambers most fervent loyalists to former President Donald J. Trump, while Ms. Cheney is pushing to unlink the party from his brand of populism.

The result of the meeting on Wednesday was a kind of stalemate, with the Republican leadership allowing Ms. Greene to keep her committee assignments despite a history of offensive and conspiracy-minded statements, and Ms. Cheney comfortably retaining her top position against a mutiny from Trump allies. On Thursday, the entire House voted to strip Ms. Greene of her committee positions over widespread G.O.P. opposition.

This intraparty division gives Mr. Biden the upper hand as he pushes his legislative agenda forward, said Doug Schwartz, the director of polling at Quinnipiac University, which released a nationwide poll on Wednesday. Hes advocating policies that have solid support in the public, so Republicans are in more of a defensive posture, as theyre opposing popular policies, Mr. Schwartz said.

The publics dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the United States remains high: Roughly seven in 10 said they were unhappy with the way things were going, according to the Quinnipiac poll. But optimism is on the rise, and many are attaching their hopes to the new president. When asked about the coming four years under Mr. Biden, 61 percent of Americans described themselves as optimistic.

In a Monmouth University poll released last week, 42 percent of Americans said the country was headed in the right direction considerably less than half, but still more than in any Monmouth poll going back to 2013.

The Quinnipiac survey found that more than two-thirds of Americans supported Mr. Bidens coronavirus relief package, with wide majorities also backing certain key elements including a permanent increase to a $15 minimum wage and a round of $1,400 stimulus checks to individuals. On the question of the stimulus payments, even 64 percent of Republicans supported them.

On a range of other Biden policies, the poll found widespread support: rejoining the Paris climate accord, opening a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and ending Mr. Trumps ban on travel from some predominantly Muslim countries.

The New Washington

Feb. 5, 2021, 9:20 p.m. ET

It bears mentioning that pollsters across the country undercounted support for Mr. Trump in November for the second straight time; until survey researchers complete a full post-mortem analysis of 2020 polling, it will be impossible to rule out the possibility that some polls may still be missing a share of his supporters.

Still, in general, the smart Republicans are trying to pick their battles, said Robert Cahaly, a Republican pollster in Georgia who has worked with candidates in both the partys populist wing and its establishment.

Mr. Biden, for his part, will be looking to capitalize on Republicans compromised position. In the end, America wanted a president that was more empathetic, but people do not want a president that looks weak, Mr. Cahaly said.

But he and other Republican strategists cautioned that if Mr. Biden moved too hastily on legislation that was seen as left-leaning, he could face a backlash from some of the disaffected Republicans who supported him in November. Ms. Chamberlain said that if Mr. Bidens environmental policies were perceived as harming the economy, he could find himself in a hole. I think you let them pass laws left and right, and then you expose them for what they are, Ms. Chamberlain said of her suggested strategy for Republicans.

Americans are not holding their breath for a new dawn of bipartisanship. Just 21 percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll said they were highly confident that Mr. Biden would be able to persuade lawmakers in Washington to work together more. Another 39 percent were somewhat confident.

While Mr. Biden receives favorable job reviews over all, 16 percent of Americans in both the Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls said they hadnt made up their minds. Many of these people are onetime G.O.P. voters who lost faith in the party under Mr. Trump and are waiting to see how Mr. Biden governs, said the longtime Republican pollster Whit Ayres.

Basically, the approval numbers on Biden are the disapproval on Trump, Mr. Ayres said. But the disapproval numbers on Biden are lower than the approval number on Trump which suggests there are some people who are hanging back to see what he does.

And there is evidence that those who are hanging back are giving him the benefit of the doubt. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released on Thursday, in which respondents were pushed to give an answer, his approval rose to 61 percent. Thirty-eight percent disapproved.

Opinions of the Republican Party, meanwhile, are much darker.

In the Quinnipiac poll, 64 percent of Americans said the G.O.P. was moving in the wrong direction, including an overwhelming 70 percent of independents and 30 percent of Republican partisans, according to the Quinnipiac poll.

The partys rank and file is now heavily tilted toward the Trump faithful. The Trump base is so big as a share of the party because so many of my type of Republicans have left the party, said Ms. Chamberlain, the head of the centrist group. But they want to come back to the party.

These staunch pro-Trump Republicans express deep frustration with their representation in Washington. Most G.O.P. voters continue to think the vote in November was rigged, echoing Mr. Trumps false claims, and many are irritated that legislators in Washington were not able to keep him in power.

Partly as a result, only 50 percent of Republicans said they were satisfied with G.O.P. lawmakers in Washington, according to the Quinnipiac poll. Thats down from 83 percent among Republican voters nationwide in a Quinnipiac survey a year ago.

Two people can both look at the same house and dislike it, but for different reasons, Mr. Cahaly said. Theres just an element of Republicans that want their old party back and hate the new populism. Then there are Republicans who like the idea of this being a working persons party and wish the old Republicans would just go be Democrats. This fight is going to take place in primaries, in town halls. This party is in a little bit of a civil war.

See original here:

Bidens Policies Are Popular. What Does That Mean for Republicans? - The New York Times

RPT-COLUMN-Populist crowd fails to breach the silver fortress for now: Andy Home – Reuters

(Repeats without change. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters)

* Fund positioning on CME silver contract: tmsnrt.rs/2LiXUNw

LONDON, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Robinhoods army of small retail investors may have failed to storm the silver market, but the online brokers devotees certainly gave it an almighty shake.

The spot silver price surged by 20% between last Thursday and Monday this week, briefly hitting an eight-year high of $30.03 an ounce.

An increase in the margin required to trade silver on the CME exchange has curbed animal spirits and the metal has fallen back to $27.12, though a collective stampede for physical metal continues to deplete retail supplies of bars and coins.

The crowd has found that squeezing a commodity market such as silver is a very different proposition from cornering a short-seller in an individual stock such as GameStop. Particularly when the targeted big short doesnt exist.

Theyll probably be back again, though, in silver or the next big thing.

Crowd surges organised through social media regularly rock Chinese commodity markets and the strategy is starting to catch on in the West, even if this particular silver squeeze seems to be fizzling out.

The rallying call for an attack on the silver market came on Thursday in the form of a post on the r/wallstreetbets Reddit message board, the same one used to spark frenzied buying of GameStop and other shares shorted by hedge funds.

The post urged investors to buy physical silver via exchange-traded fund (ETF) iShares Silver Trust SLV, the shares of which represent ounces of silver sitting in vaults.

Retail investors heeded the call and snapped up 37 million ounces worth of shares in the next 24 hours, with others rushing to their local bullion dealers.

But who is the biggest short?

Not the hedge funds that were targeted by Reddit traders in the stock market. The fund community has been net long of the CME silver contract since the middle of 2019.

Ironically, the silver squeeze may have benefited the very funds that have come in for vilification for shorting stocks.

That counterintuitive outcome seems to have sapped morale among the core Reddit crowd, with many questioning whom they are supposed to be squeezing.

Chasing the big silver short has sucked the Robinhood stocks army into a whole different world of precious metals conspiracy theory and radical populism.

This is a world populated by those who believe that Wall Street is in cahoots with the U.S. government to keep the price of gold and silver artificially suppressed to protect the existing economic order.

Big banks have made big fortunes by manipulating the silver market for decades, said the #SilverSqueeze Manifesto.

This is a movement to help level the playing field between everyday people and the billionaires who control the big financial institutions that control the money, and thus control us, it said, adding that the silver market is the Achilles heel of the old system, and its time has come.

This belief that the likes of JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are using futures short positions to suppress the price of physical metal has been around a long time.

It is based on a binary world view that paper transactions contradict physical reality.

Commodity markets operate more holistically than that, however, with transactions in the futures market often deriving from the need to hedge holdings of the physical commodity.

The Reddit crowd may have bought up 37 million ounces of silver in one day last week, but at the end of December there were another 33,608 tonnes of the stuff sitting in London vaults, according to the London Bullion Market Association.

Thats more than a billion ounces valued at $28.6 billion. That stockpile is continuously being borrowed, lent, bought and sold as banks interact with the industrial supply chain and the investment sector. Given its value, all of it will be hedged.

The biggest short on the CME silver contract is not the hedge fund community but the 52,750 contracts held in the producer/merchant/processor/user category.

The big paper short, in other words, is a big physical long. Squeeze it too hard and industrial quantities of silver may be coming your way.

While the Robinhood armys energies seem spent for now, the ability of the crowd to move prices, even in markets as globally deep as silver, has been amply demonstrated. And some early movers on the silver squeeze will have made large profits.

Chinese retail investors have been using the same mass effect for many years, coordinating surges in WeChat rooms.

The crowd moves from one hot market to the next, using its strength in numbers to generate a giant momentum machine. The target is often less important than the potential to catch a moving trend.

The Zhengzhou ferro-silicon contract was squeezed in 2019 simply because retail traders had been pushed out of the bigger steel market by exchange margin increases.

Shanghai copper has been crowd-shorted a couple of times in the past few years, in one instance in a collective battle of strength against a major fund long position.

Social media facilitates the same bewildering mix of mutual exhortation, snippets of genuine information and lots of wild rumour-mongering, as is evident in the #SilverSqueeze meme.

The phenomenon is spreading. In South Korea theyre called ants. In Thailand theyre called moths. Theres a lot of people in this world of low interest rates looking to make a fast buck in the markets.

Chinese regulators have been battling the problem for years. The first line of defence is to increase trading fees, the second is to issue increasingly strident government warnings and the third is to intervene directly, either by suspending some types of trade or mobilising a team of state-owned banks to crush the crowd.

CMEs margin hike and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellens pending meeting with regulators to discuss recent market volatility conform to the standard Chinese operating procedure of how to deal with speculative excess.

Western regulators will need to catch up fast with their Chinese counterparts because the retail army is likely to resurface with new tactics.

Reddits Wall Street Bets community (...) has set a shining example that other movements can follow, according to #SqueezeSilver Manifestos anonymous author.

A dedicated army of everyday people can leverage their collective skills and resources (...) to alter deeply entrenched power dynamics and level the playing field.

Small investors from Shanghai to Seattle may well agree.

Read the original post:

RPT-COLUMN-Populist crowd fails to breach the silver fortress for now: Andy Home - Reuters

Column: Populist crowd fails to breach the silver fortress for now – Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Robinhoods army of small retail investors may have failed to storm the silver market, but the online brokers devotees certainly gave it an almighty shake.

Freshly smelted silver bars at the KGHM Copper and Precious Metals smelter and processing plant in Glogow, Poland, May 10, 2013. REUTERS/Peter Andrews/File Photo

The spot silver price surged by 20% between last Thursday and Monday this week, briefly hitting an eight-year high of $30.03 an ounce.

An increase in the margin required to trade silver on the CME exchange has curbed animal spirits and the metal has fallen back to $27.12, though a collective stampede for physical metal continues to deplete retail supplies of bars and coins.

The crowd has found that squeezing a commodity market such as silver is a very different proposition from cornering a short-seller in an individual stock such as GameStop. Particularly when the targeted big short doesnt exist.

Theyll probably be back again, though, in silver or the next big thing.

Crowd surges organised through social media regularly rock Chinese commodity markets and the strategy is starting to catch on in the West, even if this particular silver squeeze seems to be fizzling out.

The rallying call for an attack on the silver market came on Thursday in the form of a post on the r/wallstreetbets Reddit message board, the same one used to spark frenzied buying of GameStop and other shares shorted by hedge funds.

The post urged investors to buy physical silver via exchange-traded fund (ETF) iShares Silver Trust SLV, the shares of which represent ounces of silver sitting in vaults.

Retail investors heeded the call and snapped up 37 million ounces worth of shares in the next 24 hours, with others rushing to their local bullion dealers.

But who is the biggest short?

Not the hedge funds that were targeted by Reddit traders in the stock market. The fund community has been net long of the CME silver contract since the middle of 2019.

Ironically, the silver squeeze may have benefited the very funds that have come in for vilification for shorting stocks.

That counterintuitive outcome seems to have sapped morale among the core Reddit crowd, with many questioning whom they are supposed to be squeezing.

Chasing the big silver short has sucked the Robinhood stocks army into a whole different world of precious metals conspiracy theory and radical populism.

This is a world populated by those who believe that Wall Street is in cahoots with the U.S. government to keep the price of gold and silver artificially suppressed to protect the existing economic order.

Big banks have made big fortunes by manipulating the silver market for decades, said the #SilverSqueeze Manifesto.

This is a movement to help level the playing field between everyday people and the billionaires who control the big financial institutions that control the money, and thus control us, it said, adding that the silver market is the Achilles heel of the old system, and its time has come.

This belief that the likes of JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are using futures short positions to suppress the price of physical metal has been around a long time.

It is based on a binary world view that paper transactions contradict physical reality.

Commodity markets operate more holistically than that, however, with transactions in the futures market often deriving from the need to hedge holdings of the physical commodity.

The Reddit crowd may have bought up 37 million ounces of silver in one day last week, but at the end of December there were another 33,608 tonnes of the stuff sitting in London vaults, according to the London Bullion Market Association.

Thats more than a billion ounces valued at $28.6 billion. That stockpile is continuously being borrowed, lent, bought and sold as banks interact with the industrial supply chain and the investment sector. Given its value, all of it will be hedged.

The biggest short on the CME silver contract is not the hedge fund community but the 52,750 contracts held in the producer/merchant/processor/user category.

The big paper short, in other words, is a big physical long. Squeeze it too hard and industrial quantities of silver may be coming your way.

While the Robinhood armys energies seem spent for now, the ability of the crowd to move prices, even in markets as globally deep as silver, has been amply demonstrated. And some early movers on the silver squeeze will have made large profits.

Chinese retail investors have been using the same mass effect for many years, coordinating surges in WeChat rooms.

The crowd moves from one hot market to the next, using its strength in numbers to generate a giant momentum machine. The target is often less important than the potential to catch a moving trend.

The Zhengzhou ferro-silicon contract was squeezed in 2019 simply because retail traders had been pushed out of the bigger steel market by exchange margin increases.

Shanghai copper has been crowd-shorted a couple of times in the past few years, in one instance in a collective battle of strength against a major fund long position.

Social media facilitates the same bewildering mix of mutual exhortation, snippets of genuine information and lots of wild rumour-mongering, as is evident in the #SilverSqueeze meme.

The phenomenon is spreading. In South Korea theyre called ants. In Thailand theyre called moths. Theres a lot of people in this world of low interest rates looking to make a fast buck in the markets.

Chinese regulators have been battling the problem for years. The first line of defence is to increase trading fees, the second is to issue increasingly strident government warnings and the third is to intervene directly, either by suspending some types of trade or mobilising a team of state-owned banks to crush the crowd.

CMEs margin hike and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellens pending meeting with regulators to discuss recent market volatility conform to the standard Chinese operating procedure of how to deal with speculative excess.

Western regulators will need to catch up fast with their Chinese counterparts because the retail army is likely to resurface with new tactics.

Reddits Wall Street Bets community (...) has set a shining example that other movements can follow, according to #SqueezeSilver Manifestos anonymous author.

A dedicated army of everyday people can leverage their collective skills and resources (...) to alter deeply entrenched power dynamics and level the playing field.

Small investors from Shanghai to Seattle may well agree.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.

Here is the original post:

Column: Populist crowd fails to breach the silver fortress for now - Reuters

No, conservatives shouldn’t quit the Republican Party – New York Post

After losing a national election, its natural that a political party goes through a period of soul-searching and internal turmoil.

The Republican Party, though, has taken it to another level.

President Donald Trump brought most of the GOP along for the ride during his outlandish, conspiracy-fueled attempt to overturn the election, ending in the Jan. 6 riot at the US Capitol.

His loyalists have since been scouring the landscape searching for Republicans to censure or primary for insufficient loyalty to Trump during this interlude or his resulting second impeachment.

The most famous Republican House freshman mused not too long ago about a space laser associated with the Rothschilds starting the 2018 California wildfires, forcing an embarrassing debate about whether to sanction her.

And Trump has maintained his hold on the party seemingly effortlessly. Hes been deplatformed by social-media companies and hasnt done TV interviews, and still, youd think he were running a highly polished 24/7 political operation, rather than relaxing at Mar-a-Lago.

This dismaying chapter has predictably led to declarations that the party is doomed and calls to split it up.

A former chair of the Washington state GOP wrote in an op-ed in TheSeattle Timesurging, as the headline put it,Lets form a new Republican Party.He argued that dissident Republicans could and should band together and partner with the substantial Never Trump community of Republicans who have already left to form a new political enterprise.

This prompted a Chris Cillizza item at CNN headlined Should Republicans disband the GOP?

Theres been a spate of articles by erstwhile Republicans announcing they are done. The former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards wrote one after Jan. 6 saying he was quitting the party because it has become the opposite of what it was.

Jonathan Last wrote a piece in TheNew RepublictitledThe Republican Party is dead. Its the Trump cult now.Washington Postcolumnist Kathleen Parker declared, The party isnt doomed; its dead.

This seems a mite premature about a party that represents roughly half the country and is on the cusp of a majority in the House, tied 50-50 in the Senate and in control of the governorships in 27 states and both the governorship and state legislature in 22 of those.

If we are going to consider this geographically diverse collection of officeholders whose careers in many instances predate Trump and will outlast him a mere personality cult, the word cult has lost its meaning.

The fortunes of our political parties ebb and flow and their iterations change over time, but they are robust, deeply embedded institutions of our public life that endure even after electoral disasters and self-sabotaging wrong turns.

As Dan McLaughlin, my colleague at National Review, points out, the Republican Party has since its inception been a fusion of a classical liberal wing with a more populist, elemental conservatism.

As McLaughlin writes, The partys ideals were universal, but its culture was Midwestern and Protestant. Early Republicans wanted an even-handed government, but one that reflected their values. Those values American nationalism, Christian moralism, economic self-reliance, law and order run throughout the partys history.

Whats different about Trump is that he represents the ascendance of the populist wing after it had long been in a subordinate position in the party.

Populism was part of the appeal of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, John McCain and even the patrician George H.W. Bush in his winning 1988 campaign, but it was easy to miss. Trumps populism was unmistakable, even as he retained key policy priorities of the traditional GOP, from tax cuts and judges, to religious liberty and abortion.

That said, the party does need to get beyond Trump, who has remained potent despite being a three-time loser now in the 2018 midterms, in his 2020 reelection campaign, and in the Georgia runoff elections. In electoral terms, all the winning stopped circa November 2016.

At this juncture, though, it does feel as though the advent of the post-Trump GOP is coming approximately never.

But American politics moves quickly. Richard Nixon won a landslide in 1972 and resigned in 1974, leaving the GOP in utter disarray and yet Reagan won a landslide in 1980. The Tea Party didnt exist when Barack Obama won an overwhelming victory in 2008, sprang to life almost immediately in 2009, and by 2016 had disappeared, subsumed into the Trump phenomenon.

There will inevitably be an overwhelming controversy in the Biden administration or a crisis that moves us beyond the politics of the Trump presidency and the immediate aftermath.

New issues will emerge, and so will new movements and players on the right. There are plenty of talented, ambitious Republican politicians who think they are better suited to win a presidential election in 2024 and to be president than Donald Trump 2.0. The incentives are for them to continue to keep their heads down and to slipstream behind Trump for now, but that wont always be true.

The temptation to splinter from the GOP might be alluring to elements of both the populists and the Republican traditionalists, but this a dead end. Its more realistic that the populists, with the passion and the numbers, could make a go of a new party, but theyd only be ensuring their own defeat and that of the GOP.

The Republican Party is the only plausible electoral vehicle for any sort of right-of-center politics in America. It is worth fighting over, and it will be. That struggle is sure to be toxic and unpredictable, except for the fact that at the end of the day the Grand Old Party will still be standing.

Read the original:

No, conservatives shouldn't quit the Republican Party - New York Post

Is the populist tide ebbing? Despite Donald Trumps impending departure, growing global populism is still po – The Times of India Blog

Donald Trumps departure from office on Wednesday, after his historic second impeachment, will be welcomed by many who decry the rise of global populism. Yet Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of populism whose rise may continue into the 2020s fuelled by the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis.

As of 2020, some 2 billion of the worlds population was governed by populist leaders, including the more than 300 million US populace, according to academic research from the Global Populism Database a comprehensive tracker of populist discourse. That data, from an international network of academics, analysed speeches through textual analysis of key leaders in 40 countries during the last two decades.

What the research found is that leaders from across different continents won power through common campaign tactics, including attacking multinational organisations, so-called fake media, and immigrants. And this electoral success is itself a microcosm of a wider upending of the tectonic plates of the global political landscape.

The research found that, some 20 years ago, only a handful of states with populations over 20 million including Italy, Argentina and Venezuela had leaders classified as populists through their speeches. This was an era that saw the controversial billionaire businessman Silvio Berlusconi as a right-of-centre maverick prime minister in Rome, presaging the rise of Trump; and Hugo Chvez as Venezuelan president.

This-then relatively small populist club expanded significantly during the aftermath of the 2007-08 international financial crisis. But it was not until the last half a dozen years that there has been the biggest rise in populism.

To be sure, there are still some limits on the rise of populism with a significant number of countries including Canada, France and Germany never having a governmental leader in the post-war era that has used populist rhetoric. However, even in these states, the share of the vote going to populist political parties has tripled since 1998.

The research highlights that this latest wave of populism is just one of several over the last several hundred years. Populism has been a recurrent phenomenon in the United States, for instance. Andrew Jackson, who served as US president from 1829 to 1837, won the moniker King Mob and some have drawn comparisons between him and Trump.

However, this latest wave of populism has cast a bigger footprint than perhaps ever before. The Global Populism Database indicates some 2 billion people are therefore today governed by a somewhat/ moderately populist, populist or very populist leader, an increase from 120 million at the turn of the millennium, with the research calling out leaders like Indias Narendra Modi as belonging in the populist camp.

Another key finding is how shades of populism differ across the world. In South America, populism leans towards socialism, albeit with Jair Bolsonaro as a key outlier, whereas current populists in Europe tend to be right of centre.

Looking to the future, one key question is whether this populist phenomenon will tail off in coming years. While that is possible, there is a plausible case that populism will grow. It should be remembered here that, while Trump lost in November, he won more votes than in 2016, and would most likely have been re-elected had the pandemic not struck.

Populism will likely remain at historically high levels for the foreseeable future for two reasons.

First, the coronavirus crisis has triggered a deeper, wider global recession than after the financial crisis of just over a decade ago. While the world is still in the midst of the corona crisis, it is already clear it will be the deepest recession since the World War II, with the largest fraction of economies experiencing declines in per capita output since at least 1870 according to the World Bank.

Yet, it is not just the absolute decline in economic output, but also rising economic inequality that is key. While some affluent cohorts have seen their wealth increase since the pandemic began, including through a booming stock market in many countries, poorer people have often seen their incomes stagnate or worse.

There is also an inter-generational impact too with young people disproportionately likely to lose their jobs. This puts countries at risk of long-term damage to earnings potential and job prospects, fuelling political discontent.

Second, there are some factors completely unrelated to the current economic slump that may also drive greater populism. This includes the disruptive and mobilising role of social media.

There remains debate about how instrumental social media has been in fomenting political populism in recent years. However, whether one sees this new technology as an essential component that translated discontent into concrete support for populism, or accentuated what was already inevitable, indisputably it has played an enabling role that may only grow.

Taken together, Trumps toppling is a setback for global populism, but it cannot be assumed that this political phenomenon has now peaked. The coronavirus crisis has increased the prospect of further political and economic instability in the 2020s which social media may help mobilise.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Read the rest here:

Is the populist tide ebbing? Despite Donald Trumps impending departure, growing global populism is still po - The Times of India Blog

That Old-Time Southern Populism – The American Prospect

On January 5th, Senate candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock won their critically important races as populists. Within 24 hours, the recently defeated president, whom mainstream scribblers had also carelessly once labeled a populist, was inciting his followers to storm Congress in a bid to hold onto power as an unelected ruler.

It was a stunning split screen. Less than a full day after Georgians elected only the second Black Southerner to the Senate since the Civil War, along with a young Jewish investigative journalist, Trump loyalists were smashing their way into the Capitol Building, draped in the flag of a vanquished slave empire. And though weve spent four years designating Trumpism as the epitome of a 21st-century populist movement, when you look at both of these events in tandemthe arguments made, the villains cast, and the vision laid out for the futureits clear who the torchbearers of populism are.

More from Eli Day

Take a look at Ossoff and Warnocks closing arguments. They werent ballads to restoring civility or returning to the chummy, backslapping days when Republicans and Democrats would come together to destroy welfare or pursue horrific wars of aggression. Want a $2,000 check? Vote Warnock was actual ad copy from the Warnock campaign, a raw appeal to peoples material concerns. It linked up nicely with Ossoffs jugular attacks, casting Republican incumbents Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue (both former CEOs) as a pair of self-serving elites, feasting lavishly at a time when millions face starvation. Were running against the Bonnie and Clyde of corruption in American politics, Ossoff hammered. Who, when they learned about the pandemic that was bearing down on our shores, their first call was to their stockbrokers.

One side of the screen shows us what can happen when a multiracial movement fights to widen political possibility and improve the lives of ordinary people, forming a new Southern Populism that echoes the original. The other has climaxed in a white supremacist explosion on behalf of a wealthy scam artist turned authoritarian who faithfully serves the rich and built his political fortunes on a very old divide-and-conquer blueprint that was first laid out by populisms enemies.

As Thomas Frank writes in The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism, Populism was the first of Americas great economic uprisings, a roar of outrage from people in the lower half of the countrys social order against an inequitable system [of] elite failure. This was Ossoff and Warnocks closing argument in a nutshell. More importantly, it describes the network of independent progressive groups that powered them to victory, and which show no signs of simply relying on the goodwill of powerful figures, even friendly ones, to deliver the progressive agenda theyve called for.

Even Joe Biden, who often mimicked the pointless rage of budget warriors as a senator and vice president, felt the populist currents coursing through Georgia. If you send Jon and the Reverend to Washington, he said at an election eve rally, those $2,000 checks will go out the door. History will show this to be important for more reasons than anyone can count. First and most critically, these victories and the populist currents that carried them have big implications for what Democrats can do, now that they control all three branches of government. Second and more subtly, it answers a question that has ricocheted across more than a century of Southern politics: whether a message that links racial unity with progressive economic policy can win in the South.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

To state the obvious, Democrats must now actually wield the power they have. Its true that the phrase Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a tune so sweet you have to play it back a few times. But if Democrats want it to last, they cant repeat the mistakes that got them wiped out in the 2010 midterm elections. Namely, they must implement measures that improve peoples lives. There is no excuse, including the very abolishable filibuster, for failing to do this. Democrats have the ability to enact an aggressive economic agenda as millions face mass poverty, starvation, and eviction; to address our rapidly frying planet; to protect and expand workers bargaining power; and to install a robust voting rights regime. If Congress wont budge, President Biden can accomplish at least some of these advances by his own authority. And blue states can take it even further.

But like any populism worth its salt, progressives cant depend on the goodwill of powerful people. It will likely take constant shoves from the partys left-wing grassroots to achieve anything of lasting significance. After all, their majority was secured on these expectations.

Organizing and populist messaging turned out liberal voters, despite the lack of a Trump bogeyman on the ticket.

IT WAS A POPULIST VISION of economic relief and a greater say in democracy that inspired organizers and everyday people to sweep across Georgia to rally the troops for the January 5th runoff elections. I hung out with a few of them while reporting there. Shauna Coco Swearington of Marietta, Georgia, for instance, knocked doors every day, six days a week, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., she tells me. She let me tag along one afternoon, in one of Atlantas working-class Black neighborhoods. Coco was one of nearly 1,000 UNITE HERE canvassers who barely rested between the general election and the Senate runoff races. She told me that when COVID-19 hit, she was displaced from her job of 25 years as a server at the Westin hotel in Atlanta. So now Im out of health insurance, she explained. Ive got diabetes and heart disease. I need my medications. So it was very important for me to get on this campaign.

By winning the Senate, Coco hoped to see worker-friendly policies that provide job security for those who have been laid off, increase the minimum wage, and make it easier for workplaces to unionize. She also recognized that working people are uniquely positioned to tag each other into the fight.

Were the common people, were the people out there in the trenches doing the work, she said. So who better to tell you, This is my story, and this is why you need to go out and vote because this could be your story too. Her point is simple: Working people are the most convincing messengers on working-class concerns. And its even better if theyre empowered by political campaigns to talk to people about bread-and-butter ideas like getting cold hard cash into working peoples hands. In Georgia, where 48 percent of people are reportedly poor or low-income, that turned out to be a winning message.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Bidens historic victory in the Peach State was different. He eked out a win in Georgia thanks to a one-two punch: Stacey Abramss strategy of increasing turnout by tapping into an army of unregistered young people and people of color, and more importantly, suburban nausea with Trump, which gave big margins in the metro Atlanta suburbs to the Biden-Harris ticket. Despite the suburban reversal, Trump still came within inches of victory, and improved his numbers with voters of color. As Jamelle Bouie writes in The New York Times, that likely had something to do with Republicans being in power when the government put a lot of money into the hands of a lot of people who didnt have it before, and, on the flip side, Democrats failure to put forward a compelling economic vision. Indeed, Biden promised during the campaign that nothing would fundamentally change.

With Trump on the sidelines, many pundits thought Georgia might be at the mercy of big money and Republican entreaties to stop socialism. What they largely missed was that an electorally powerful fusion dance had taken place. On one side, organizers did an extraordinary job keeping the states diverse electorate engaged. Turnout rates were almost at presidential levels, unheard of in these typically sleepy runoffs. And Black voters, Democrats most reliable and most neglected voting bloc, came out at even more impressive rates, decidedly fueling the runoff victories. This should humble anyone who thinks that no amount of organizing will change the reality that only the most obsessive voters show up to off-cycle elections.

On the other side, Ossoff and Warnock started arguing that the government has a duty to ensure everyones basic survival, calling for a $15 minimum wage, $2,000 emergency checks, and reopening closed hospitals, because health care is a human right, not just a privilege for those who can afford it or live in the right ZIP code. As Anat Shenker-Osorio, a leading researcher and voice on progressive messaging, puts it, In the waning days they did an incredible job of providing an affirmative narrative: This is what we stand for, this is what we believe in, this is the kind of Georgia and country that we can have [it was] obviously incredibly effective.

The combination of organizing and populist messaging turned out liberal voters, Black and white, despite the lack of a Trump bogeyman on the ticket. The Biden win is what can happen when you have a historically unpopular opponent riling up the base. The Ossoff and Warnock wins are more sustainable, less reliant on the opponent. And they signal a winning formula for a new Southern populism, one that braids together the regions rich diversity with a wildly popular economic message. Until now, Democrats had barely wrapped their hands around the first. But after years of unsuccessfully chasing white moderates across the South, the Georgia runoffs uncorked a model for competing.

Its one that has been there all along.

GEORGIAS POPULIST STORY, like the countrys, is nearly 150 years old, and unfolds across a vast ecosystem of independent, grassroots organizing. The message to working people has always been straightforward: The business and political class are concentrating greater and greater amounts of wealth and power. They are numerically tiny and see our unity as a threat to be eliminated. But by recognizing our shared fates, and pooling our enormous numbers, we can whip the money power and rearrange our institutions to satisfy the public good.

When Georgias first populist wave touched down in the late 1800s, King Cotton had only recently been dethroned. The Civil War had just liberated four million kidnapped humans from unpaid labor, representing an epic expropriation of private property paved with 750,000 dead soldiers. Almost immediately, some of these newly freed people pointed out that their wage labor looked an awful lot like forced labor.

In an 1883 speech, Frederick Douglass argued that The man who has it in his power to say to a man you must work the land for me, for such wages as I choose to give, has a power of slavery over him as real, if not as complete, as he who compels toil under the lash.

Douglass was teeing up his main argument. Since every worker was at the mercy of the boss, unity between Black and white workers was the key to overcoming the petty tyrants who ordered them around. Just as importantly, he warned, it is a great mistake for any class of laborers to isolate itself. Instead, there should be a strong bond of brotherhood between those who shoulder the hardships of labor. With unity comes strength, in other words, and if white workers could overcome the myth that they were members of a special skin aristocracy, then working people might finally be able to organize and combine for [their] own protection. Otherwise, there would be no end in sight to the sharp contrast of wealth and poverty in which the landowner is becoming richer and the laborer poorer. The Populist Party wouldnt have its launch party for another decade, but Douglass already had the battle lines clearly drawn.

For a brief and bright moment, there were signs that white laborers wanted in. When the Populist Party formed in 1892, Georgia was one of its most powerful outposts. Emerging from the ashes of the old Farmers Alliance, their assessment was simple: The countrys economic and political systems loyally served the rich at the expense of everyone else. Outraged by the Gilded Ages runaway inequality, the populists called for an egalitarian alternative, including aid for struggling farmers, expanded voting rights, and public ownership of key industries like railroads.

The connection to Douglasss argument was clear. And though we dont have any uplifting multiracial team chants to show for it, many white farmers saw the obvious strategic importance of linking arms with their Black peers in the fight for a fairer world. (Black farmers, who wanted to join the Alliance but were pushed into separate, second-string groups, did not need to be convinced of the importance of working-class unity.) But it would all be pitifully short-lived.

Just because attacks appealing to racial disunity are predictable does not make their success inevitable.

A monument to Tom Watson, a giant of Georgia populism, sits across the street from the state Capitol in Atlanta. In an 1892 essay titled The Negro Question in the South, Watson argued that a union of Black and white workers would have flung the money power into the dust years ago. The crushing burdens which now oppress both races in the South, he added, will force them to become political allies and on these broad lines of mutual interest the present will be made the stepping-stone to future peace and prosperity.

But like its counterparts across the country, Georgias populist vessel was partly devoured from the inside. Watson would eventually win a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1920, long after the Populist Partys official demise and only after swapping out pleas for interracial cooperation with brutal political and social repression of Black Americans, writes James Cobb, one of Georgias leading historians. Where he had once courted Black workers, Watson was now calling for their total disenfranchisement. Where he had once urged that lynching be made odious to whites, he now argued lynch law is a good sign that a sense of justice yet lives among the people.

Reading it now, its almost as if the 1892 essay was a warning letter to his future self. The earlier Watson saw clearly that all workers had a similarity of cause and a similarity of remedy, and that you are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of financial despotism which enslaves you both. Future Watson said to hell with all that. By his own standards, racist tirades obviously undermined the actual goals of populism. But they had narrow perks for an ambitious Georgian at the turn of the 20th century.

I want to be careful here. The Populist Party had many powerful archenemies, including the economic royalists Franklin Roosevelt would eventually battle. Theres plenty of blame to go around for its demise. That includes the Tom Watsons of the world, who sat on the inside of this promising vehicle for working-class power and started shooting out the tires before it could really take off.

Its important to note, however, that Watson betrayed populisms core principles. What made populism distinct was its diagnosis of what caused economic suffering in the country, and the target of its fury. Racism poisons every corner of American political life, and the populists were no exception. But, Frank writes, populists were not the great villains of the eras racist system. That dishonor went to the movements archenemies in the southern Democratic Party, leaders who were absolutely clear about their commitment to white supremacy. Populism, with its emphasis on broad working-class unity, was an attack on these doctrines and the elites who depended on them. If you undermined that unity, then you undermined the populist mission itself.

Watsons story is so bizarre. It plays out like a twisted Shakespearian plot twist, except Watson does the double-crossing himself. By his own assessment, he ended up strengthening the hand of the exact group of wealthy landowners the populists furiously opposed, who stood to gain enormously from driving white and Black workers apart. But Watsons ambition got in the way of his stated goals.

OTHERS WOULD FOLLOW. Episodes like the Savannah longshoremen strike of 1891 signaled the staying power of divide-and-conquer politics. That fall, nearly 2,500 Black workers walked off their jobs at the docks, demanding higher wages, overtime pay, and union recognition. According to Temple Universitys massive archival Black Worker series, a committee of the Savannah commercial leaders organized to break the strikers will. Since Black workers refused to cross the strike line, company officials decided to hire white replacements. What could have been a remarkable example of Black and white workers winning concrete gains only confirmed that race could be used to divide the working class.

Just because attacks appealing to racial disunity are predictable does not make their success inevitable. As Ns Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, one of the many organizing groups working to activate voters of color, says, There is a long history of radical resistance all across the state of Georgia. Popular movements like the abolitionist, womens, civil rights, and labor movements successfully dragged the United States to greater levels of human decency, and all have deep roots in the American South. Labor unions, for example, were arguably at their most dangerous when they teamed up with the civil rights movement, combining calls for racial and workplace justice based on the belief that economic security and anti-discrimination were joined at the hip, as Thomas Sugrue, professor of social and cultural analysis and history at New York University, says.

Georgias own Dr. King spoke frequently before labor unions and their federations. In a letter to the Amalgamated Laundry Workers in 1962, King wrote: The coalition that can have the greatest impact in the struggle for human dignity here in America is that of the Negro and the forces of labor, because their fortunes are so closely intertwined. Kings final mission before his death was in support of striking Black sanitation workers in Memphis.

King also constantly warned of the dangers of failing to directly address the deadly power of racism to wipe out working-class unity. In his 1965 remarks concluding the Selma-to-Montgomery march, King described a southern aristocracy shaken to its core by the threat of poor Black and white people coming together as equals. To prevent this, the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow, which he ate when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide. This, he said, perhaps with Tom Watson in mind, eventually destroyed the Populist Movement. As Thomas Frank writes, King was suggesting that the movement of the 1890s had an obvious modern counterpart. Working people of both races could come together once more to build a nation of justice and plenty.

But the opposition, determined to keep workers segregated by race, in proximity and in consciousness, had modern counterparts too. Before civil rights legislation and working-class solidarity could even get off the ground, they were dusting off the predictable playbook: Flood the zone with enough racist garbage to split the coalition.

You have likely heard of its most infamous update: the Republican Partys Southern strategy. Launched by Richard Nixon and echoed by fanatical champions across the country, including Georgians like Lester Maddox and Newt Gingrich, conservatives began serving up white resentment like hotcakes, gobbling up the Southern political map in the process. This came to be known as the cultural leg of the Republicans three-legged stool. The other two were nonstop fist-pumping for war and worship of free markets. But those either dont reliably move people to vote, in the case of endless war, or actually repulse them, in the case of wildly unpopular conservative ideas like cuts to the social safety net and tax breaks for the rich. The economic and military legs of the stool get you corporate campaign donations; they do not get you votes.

Long before Trump, conservative stars like Nixon, Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan would hammer elites for looking down their nose at everyday people. These seeds would eventually blossom into the Tea Party and the Trump campaign, long before being rebranded as right-wing populism. All the while, the GOPs actual agenda has remained slavishly devoted to the countrys increasingly powerful business class. Trumps signature legislation, remember, was a $1.9 trillion tax cut for the wealthy.

Until recently, the Southern strategy was treated as nearly irreversible. The best Democrats could do was hold onto a few seats and prevent the rest of the country from being swallowed by a sea of red. But the math is changing.

Before Bidens surprise victory, Democrats had not won a presidential race in Georgia since 1992. For years, they told themselves that winning statewide office required at least 30 percent of the white electorate. This meant becoming a bootleg Republican Party: worshiping markets, dedicating themselves to world domination, and repeating right-wing bullshit about the moral decline of Black and poor people. It was designed to cleave off enough of a slice of the white vote to earn a victory. The typical messenger was a nondescript white man: John Barrow, Roy Barnes, Max Cleland, Zell Miller, Jimmy Carters grandson Jason.

Georgia Democrats rarely pushed that boulder uphill. The last Democratic gubernatorial victory was in 1998. By 2006, just three DemocratsBlack officeholders Thurbert Baker (attorney general) and Mike Thurmond (labor commissioner), and 42-year agriculture commissioner Tommy Irvinmanaged to win statewide. By 2010, the entire suite of statewide officers were Republican, and it stayed that way for a decade.

Stacey Abrams offered an alternative to this losing scenario. After entering the Georgia House of Representatives in 2007, she proposed that the party instead focus on mobilizing young people and people of color, who voice their disgust with politics by finding better things to do with their time.

Though Abrams didnt win the governors seat in 2018, she came within 55,000 votes, closer than any Democrat in recent history. She only won 25 percent of the white vote, supposedly a disqualifying condition. But Abrams put up unparalleled numbers with Black, Latino, and Asian American voters, bringing her within a few disenfranchised votes of victory. As FiveThirtyEight reported, Georgias blue turn is unimaginable without Abramss years-long project to juice turnout among people of color, even if the greater factor in the Biden victory was genuine suburban horror at Trumps rotten personality.

With the victories by Ossoff and Warnock, Georgias political math has been recalculated. Neither candidate hit 30 percent of the white vote, though they came close. A new and more liberal electorate attracted to the fast-growing Atlanta metro area has made those numbers more reachable. And the runoffs spotlighted the overwhelming power of voters of color, including in Black rural areas, which saw presidential-level turnout. These Democratic voters came to the polls in enough numbers to win because Ossoff and Warnock actually offered them something; populist messaging and multiracial organizing went hand in hand. The old wisdom about what it takes to win in Georgia has been shaken like an Etch A Sketch.

The failed strategy of Kelly Loefflers loss reveals a conservative movement that has nothing to offer and knows it.

THE QUESTION NOW IS how to make sure it lasts. True to the populist tradition, every Georgia organizer I spoke with stressed the importance of building an independent progressive movement that haunts the dreams of politicians across the country to ensure they actually deliver for working people. Not a single organizer talked about how excited they were to go home and hope for the best, now that Democrats have a Senate majority. They see this as a time to apply relentless pressure to ensure a positive progressive agenda is carried out.

The issues that are paramount to Black womens lives just dont get the air they deserve. Black women dont get asked, Whats important to you? What do you need? says Malika Redmond, the co-founder and executive director of Women Engaged, an Atlanta-based organization that fights for social change through voter engagement and reproductive justice advocacy. Redmonds organization knows that they cannot rely on mainstream institutions or parties to seriously address their priorities without constant activism. Women Engaged works to generate something that we can hold the powerful accountable for, Redmond says.

Each organizer was clear about the difficult battles ahead. Elections are a snapshot of a moment in time, says Gwen Mills, the secretary-treasurer of UNITE HERE. They tell us how much organized power there is and who you can get elected at a particular time. After a short breather, Mills says, its back to organizing in the streets and workplaces. You have to keep the grassroots fire burning, Mills says, because the power and the money behind the corporate lobby is just staggering. In other words, elections may clarify where things stand or even modestly improve the battle terrain, but they have very limited firepower beyond that.

Building a strong working-class army requires addressing the weak spots that the opposition exploits and, as weve seen, has always exploited. People of color make up about half of Georgias population (though still 39 percent of the vote, even in the Senate runoffs). And since racism is also a weapon used to loot the countrys most vulnerablethink housing segregation, income and wealth inequalityworking-class issues are Black and brown issues.

One thing we know is that if were not talking to our members, somebody else is, says Marlene Patrick-Cooper, president of UNITE HERE Local 23, which covers a large swath of the South. All over the country, there has always been an employer goal to divide the workers. This is a lesson from the School of Hard Knocks. For decades, divide-and-conquer tactics have eroded unions, weakening their defenses against demolition efforts like right to work. As a result, union membership was pushed off a cliff in recent decades, falling from one-third of workers in the 1950s to barely 10 percent today. That fall tied weights to the ankles of wages, and they havent gone anywhere meaningful since.

Instead of running from the problem, UNITE HERE is tackling the racial history of right to work head-on, Patrick-Cooper says. The union has established a two-day training session, where members learn how racism created cracks wide enough to ram policies like right to work through countless statehouses. You cannot be successful as a union if you dont have solidarity on the shop floor, if workers dont all stand together, Mills adds.

This is the kind of key defensive tactic that makes an offense possible. If solidarity isnt built between elections, and if unions and other independent sources of power cannot secure concrete gains for working people between elections, then their coalitions will be repeatedly torn to pieces and forced to scramble frantically once election season rolls around. After all, it was the combination of long-term anti-racist work and Southern progressives positive vision for the future that made Georgia competitive in the first place.

Consider the split screen again. The conservative movement not only has a wildly unpopular agenda, but cultural resentment, warmongering, and free-market cultism just dont pack the same electoral punch they once did. As Brooklyn College professor and author of The Reactionary Mind Corey Robin puts it, the reason Republicans under Trump have been turning up the volume on white rage isnt because its powers are growing. They hope that the noise will compensate for the fact that conservatism is actually weaker than it has ever been. White identity pays out thinner and thinner dividends to an increasingly miserable base.

As Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton show, deaths of despair already had life expectancy for middle-aged white people declining before COVID-19. The same population who fueled the right-wing march that started 40 years ago is poorer than they were at the beginning, and they are arriving at deaths door ahead of schedule. During that time, the rights agenda has dominated everywhere: privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and destruction of the countrys already pitiful social welfare state, not to mention violent opposition to civil rights gains like desegregation. Everybody hates this agenda, with the possible exception of overthrowing the gains of the civil rights movement, a truly American pastime beloved by liberals and conservatives alike.

The point is, bigotry is all thats left for the right. Kelly Loeffler, for instance, spent the runoff election blowing 150-year-old dog whistles in a losing campaign as grotesquely racist as any fire-breathing segregationists. She routinely painted her opponent, a Black pastor who preaches where Dr. King once stood, as a radical liberal hell-bent on bringing socialism and Marxism upon these delicate shores. Loeffler and Perdue cant run as themselves. They cant run promising anything, Shenker-Osorio tells me. Because they dont stand for anything that most people want. So the only thing left to them, and the Republican Party more broadly, is to try to scare people about the other side and to try to trade on and kind of exacerbate peoples feelings of resentment.

Warnock counterprogrammed with campaign ads of him with puppies, offering a cuddly portrait. But more important, he countered with policy, populist progressive policy, meant to improve peoples lives and fortunes. Loefflers flailing race-based appeal fell short.

Her satisfying defeat, of course, does not mean that the right has been defanged. The last decade has provided explosive evidence for Robins warning that weak movements can be dangerous movements, leading right up to a clumsy but still highly organized insurrection. But the failed and tired strategy of her loss does reveal a movement that has nothing to offer and knows it.

They are now in survival mode. Everyone from Donald Trump to Mike Lee to Lindsey Graham admits that the Republican Party must either snuff out democracy itself or be snuffed out themselves. Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman has been carefully chronicling the entire landscape of modern-day poll taxes and booby traps theyve laid out to mutilate voting rights for Black and brown and poor people. So heres what we have: an agenda that deposits larger and larger shares of the nations wealth into the bank accounts of a tiny few while basically telling everyone else, Good luck and God bless, as they face avoidable crises like poverty, starvation, medical bankruptcy, and homelessness. And at the same time, they are working furiously to get the eligible voting pool back down to its 18th-century size because they cannot survive otherwise.

This is the phony populism of the right. The original populist uprising, of course, had its share of hideous blemishes. But in terms of actual principles, todays conservative movement is basically populisms evil twin. It may dress itself up in populist clothing sometimes, but when you compare their deeper worldviews and aspirations, they clash furiously.

On the other screen, progressive and left-wing grassroots organizations are trying to fling the doors of democracy open wider to enact a sweeping progressive agenda. Georgia is absolutely bursting with them. The immigrant rights organization Mijente apparently contacted every Latino voter in the state during the runoff election. According to a press release, the New Georgia Project reached out to Georgians through more than 10 million calls, texts and door knocks. Peoples Action, a network of state and local grassroots organizations, called 1.2 million low-propensity voters: students, Asian Americans, and voters in rural areas. They held over 23,000 in-depth deep canvass conversations and got well over half of those voters to turn out for Ossoff and Warnock. Black Voters Matter spent the runoff zigzagging through often-neglected Black corners of the state. And UNITE HERE also passed the one-million-door threshold.

For many observers, the runoffs were a referendum on whether Georgias multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, progressive majority, as Ns Ufot put it in a recent Intercept story, was sustainable. Could a genuine populist movement, one built on working-class solidarity across difficult fault lines, have enough punching power to whoop the far right in the Deep South? January 5th provided an answer, though the work goes on.

Read more here:

That Old-Time Southern Populism - The American Prospect

All Quiet on the Populist Front? by Jan-Werner Mueller – Project Syndicate

Because every country is different, the ignominious exit of a political figure like US President Donald Trump does not necessarily tell us anything about the fate of authoritarian populists elsewhere. Just as populists tend to learn from one another's successes, so will they heed others' mistakes.

BERLIN Liberals around the world are daring to hope that there is a silver lining to the violent denouement of Donald Trumps presidency: namely, that the inciter-in-chiefs ignominious exit from the political stage will chasten authoritarian populists elsewhere. Unfortunately, their optimism is naive.

Contrary to the clich about a populist wave sweeping the world in recent years, the rise and fall of populist leaders tends not to have significant transnational effects. Just as there is no honor among thieves, there was no solidarity among the supposed Populist International when it really mattered. Trump chums like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin ultimately acknowledged Joe Bidens electoral victory.

More important, while Trump has been omnipresent, he has never been a typical populist. Right-wing populists in government tend to be more careful when it comes to maintaining a faade of legality and avoiding direct association with street violence. Because the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 was clearly a sign of desperation, it does not necessarily foreshadow the fate of populist (and radical right-wing) movements elsewhere. The only real takeaway is that other populist kleptocrats might also resort to violent street mobilizations if they are ever truly cornered.

Liberals often claim to appreciate the world in all its complexity, whereas populists are great simplifiers. But it is liberals who have pushed the highly simplistic narrative of a global populist wave, as if one need not consider particular national contexts very carefully.

According to this domino theory which was enthusiastically embraced by populists themselves Trumps unexpected triumph in 2016 was supposed to trigger victories for right-wing populists in Austria, the Netherlands, and France. In fact, the opposite happened. In Austria, Norbert Hofer, the presidential candidate of the far-right Freedom Party, lost after adopting Trumpist antics that made him seem un-presidential. In the Netherlands, the far-right demagogue Geert Wilders had Trumps endorsement but ultimately underperformed. And in France, Marine Le Pens loss to Emmanuel Macron in the 2017 presidential election confirmed what had already become clear: Euro-Trumpism might not be such an effective strategy after all.

It should go without saying that what works in one political culture might not work in others. Much also depends on the decisions of actors who are not populists themselves: In the US case, Trump benefited from the collaboration of established conservative elites and the Republican Party. In fact, with the possible exception of Italy, no right-wing populist party has come to power in Western Europe or North America without conscious help from supposedly center-right actors (most of whom have never been held accountable for their role in mainstreaming the far right).

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more All for less than $9 a month.

Subscribe Now

Moreover, even if the parties and governance styles associated with right-wing populism end up resembling each other, it does not follow that the rise of populists has the same root causes everywhere. A much more likely explanation for the similarities is that populist leaders have selectively learned from one another.

For example, it is now standard populist practice to pressure pesky nongovernmental organizations through ostensibly neutral legal changes. In what some observers have called autocratic legalism, many right-wing populists in power studiously follow formal rules and practices to maintain a patina of neutrality and create plausible deniability for political acts. Unlike Trump, these leaders understand that street violence by an uncontrollable movement could trigger a backlash both within their own country and among international audiences.

Even where violence is de facto encouraged, as with the persecution of Muslims in India under the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, figures like Modi are careful not to go on record with statements that might be interpreted as direct incitement. Similarly, the Hungarian government relentlessly traffics in racist and anti-Semitic tropes, but Prime Minister Viktor Orbn is careful never to go beyond loud dog whistles, lest he endanger his crucial relationships with the German Christian Democrats and the German car industry.

To be sure, if cornered, any populist might resort to Trumps endgame methods: trying to coerce elites into committing fraud to prevent a transfer of power, or deploying right-wing extremists on the ground to intimidate lawmakers. These desperate acts signaled Trumps weakness. But it is important to note that most Republicans still did not disown Trump even when confronted with his blatant lawlessness on January 6.

Other right-wing populists may well take notice of this fact. The recent events in the United States have shown that elites who are prepared to collaborate with authoritarians will tolerate quite a lot in the end. This ignominious precedent is especially likely to hold true in other countries where crony capitalism has implicated the business community in illegal behavior.

Populists cleverer than Trump smother democracy slowly through legal and constitutional machinations. But right-wing populist kleptocracies based on a fusion of big business and bigotry, in the words of the Indian journalist Kapil Komireddi, might not go down quietly.

Link:

All Quiet on the Populist Front? by Jan-Werner Mueller - Project Syndicate

Inoculating the masses against demagogic populism – The Kathmandu Post

Prime Minister KP Sharma Olis political fate hangs in the balance. With Nepali Congress taking an oppositional stand, his status as the ethnonational chieftain stands challenged. Though nothing is ever certain in the game of politics, a vertical division in the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) appears to be a foregone conclusion. He is no longer the Supremo that once held sway over the polity and society of the country.

The decision of dissolving the Pratinidhi Sabha in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic is comparable to the declaration of promulgating a contested statute in the middle of Gorkha Earthquake aftershocks through the 16-point conspiracy. But five years after his phenomenal rise as the saviour of Khas-Arya pride, Oli has lost his charisma due to failures on all fronts.

The economy is in shambles. Allegations of corruption in high places are rife. Nepotism, favouritism and quid pro quo in political appointments have become the norm. The prime minister has fallen so low in public esteem that even nominations made upon the recommendations of the Constitutional Council have failed to escape scrutiny.

If details of court proceedings that have seeped into the public sphere are anything to go by, lawyers appear to have a very strong case for the restoration of the Pratinidhi Sabha. Such an eventuality may impel Oli to take even more desperate actions.

Among the three principal outside players in Nepali politics, it seems the Chinese were the first to lose confidence in the sincerity of the person they had helped become the chief of a fraternal communist party wedded to the Xi Jinping Thought. Oli consistently ratcheted up anti-India rhetoric to burnish his ultra-nationalist image. For some strange reasons, prominent interlocutors from the US seemed to admire the hilarity of a Third World strongman. But even they aren't too pleased with the absolute ineffectiveness of their favourite agent of political stability.

Perhaps Oli had anticipated that his bugbears in the South Block will help him come out of constitutional and political imbroglio due to the compulsions of the new Cold War simmering in South Asia. For now, all such hopes lie shattered. It seems Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali received nothing tangible in New Delhi except hackneyed promises of continued goodwill.

While New Delhi appears ready to give the prime minister a long rope, it doesn't seem to be too willing to pull him out of the bog. The goat-tailed map has closed many hospitable doors for several Nepali politicos including the jingoist-in-chief of Baluwatar.

Ignored signs

Political, diplomatic and propaganda weights are being stacked up one by one against the tottering chieftain. If it were a normal person in his position, they would humbly make way for the constitutional search of a more suitable claimant. But demagogic politicos are of a different breed altogether. They plan to remain in power forever and inflict huge damage to the polity if they are made to leave against their will. The triumph of Trumpism despite his fall from grace is an illustrative case in point.

The most effective way of fighting demagoguery is to read early warning signals and expose a putative populist before one manages to arouse the raw passions of the dominant community. Unfortunately for Nepal, Oli succeeded in taking an entire country for a ride with his seemingly comical outbursts against Madhesis and Janajatis that pandered to the prejudices of the Khas-Arya ethnonational.

The Supremo didn't even hide his duplicity of having no faith in federalism, inclusion and plurality but aspiring to become the prime minister ostensibly to protect and promote a constitution that enshrined such provisions, though in a limited way. His decision to remove the 'Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal' from the official name wasn't a bolt from the blue; he had expressed his intentions earlier in unmistakable manner by deriding republicanism as a journey to the US in an oxcart.

Demagoguery and authoritarianism are inseparable. Oli began to concentrate all political and administrative authority in the residential Secretariat of the prime minister from the day he took office. He seldom cared to attend his official chamber at Singha Durbar. Party meetings were invariably held at Baluwatar. His health condition didn't come in the way of supposedly working '18 hours a day' as long as everyone paid obeisance to his person at his residence.

Be it the challenger to his position inside the party or a competitor from the opposition benches, Oli took immense pleasure in belittling all political opponents. The 'with us or against us' mindset of authoritarian populists holds immense appeal for the masses yearning for a strong leader in the times of uncertainty. He valued political processes so little that not just the office of the president, even the lower house of the Parliament was reduced to the level of being merely formalising institutions of all whimsical decisions.

Even when he sold hopes of piped gas to every kitchen, trans-Himalayan railway to the Gangetic plains or Nepali ships sailing to the high seas, his tone used to be flippant. The only time he sounded serious was when he claimed that Hindu sages had discovered the theory of gravitation before Newton or the authentic Rama of Hindu mythology was born in Nepal. Demagogues peddle supposed glories of the past which a disempowered populace is always eager to embrace.

Predictable risks

Demagogues almost always harbour delusions of grandeur. Such a tendency invariably leads to misplaced priorities. Apart from being the only president in US history to be impeached twice, the only other thing President Trump will perhaps be remembered for is his slogan, 'Build That Wall!'.

Prime Minister Modi's enduring legacy will be the monumental folly of demonetisation and the colossal 'Statue of Unity' that was imported from China to be erected in Gujarat. The edifice complex of Oli expresses itself in the prioritisation of Dharahara over housing for the Gorkha Earthquake survivors and the erection of view towers on hilltops and in flatlands over building schools and hospitals.

Before he leaves, Prime Minister Oli is sure to squander scarce resources in order to leave what he probably believes will be his enduring legacy: a palace for the Prime Minister inside Baluwatar.

Demagogues have flexible moral values and decry or deploy political violence as it suits them. Whenever threatened, they are likely to unleash the fear and hatred of the dominant community against numerical as well as political minorities in an orgy of violence. Unlike Prime Minister Modi, Oli may not be capable of 'doing a Gujarat' on an entire country, but imitating Trump's Capitol incitement is a do-able option for a person completely unconcerned about the judgement of history.

Sooner rather than later, KP Sharma Oli will have to go. The challenge for Nepali society is to work for a relatively peaceful transition. It doesn't help that his main challengers aren't too well known for peaceful politics. Difficult as it may be to digest, violence is hardwired in the political proclivities of Nepalis.

The bigger challenge will be to create conditions where demagogic exhortations are countered with the appeal for peaceful politics and populist rhetoric is resisted with the promise of plurality and participation in public life. Vaccinating against the pandemic to ensure herd immunity is difficult enough, but to inoculate an entire society against demagogic populism is an impossible task that every generation has handled, with the media, academia and intelligentsia as front-liners.

Read the original post:

Inoculating the masses against demagogic populism - The Kathmandu Post

What populist means: Theres more to the label, associated with leaders like Donald Trump, than meets the eye – Firstpost

Perhaps one reason that the word populist becomes useless is because it describes a wide variety of political actors, spanning the ideological spectrum.

Donald Trump. Reuters/File Photo

Joining the Dotsis a fortnightly column by author and journalist Samrat in which he connects events to ideas, often through analysis, but occasionally through satire.

***

One of the most fractious electoral processes in the history of what is still the worlds most powerful country is scheduled to end in a few hours with the inauguration of Joe Biden as President and Kamala Harris as Vice President of the US. Donald Trump will, at long last, leave the White House after an incendiary campaign to overturn the election results that culminated in an insane attack by a mob of his followers on Americas parliament, the Capitol. His departure will hopefully mark the beginning of the end for others of his ilk ruling countries around the world, who are loosely called populists.

Populist, however, is a useless word. No one can say where exactly popular ends and populist begins. The distinction, such as it is, would probably be lost on practically the entire voting population. This is in contrast to other words such as communist, nationalist, liberal, and fascist that, even when reduced to labels, continue to carry some meaning in ordinary usage.

Perhaps one reason that the word populist becomes useless is because it describes a wide variety of political actors, spanning the ideological spectrum. Political scientists studying it, such as Matthijs Rooduijn of the University of Amsterdam, have found only four characteristics that populists share in common. Firstly, they emphasise the central position of the people. Secondly, they criticise the elite. Thirdly, they perceive the people as a homogenous entity. Lastly, they proclaim a serious crisis.

The trouble is, democracy also emphasises the central position of the people. Criticising the elite is also a characteristic of Leftists in general. Perceiving the people as a homogenous entity is something that the Chinese Communist Party, the Saudi, Iranian, Turkish and Pakistani regimes, and the Hindutva brigade in India, among others, all seem to do. And proclamation of some serious crisis is a staple of every election campaign in which the opposition wants to unseat the incumbent.

What we are up against, in the global rise of what is called populism, therefore, seems to be a deeper crisis in our fundamental ideas than most of us would like to admit. We do not want to see populism as the deepening of democracy or its homogenising impulse as a natural progression in the idea of the nation. Yet it could be argued that this is what it is. Arguably more people at the grassroots are more deeply engaged with politics now than ever before. They are expressing their political opinions loudly and angrily. If they want to drive out immigrants everywhere, or build walls in America and Ram temples in India, isnt that only an expression of the will of the masses?

The answer to this question cannot be found without grasping the nettle of elitism. The core feature of populism around the world is its hatred for old elites and all that smacks of elitism. This was channeled by authoritarian demagogues who rode ressentiment to power. The disdain for political correctness displayed by characters like Trump talking of grabbing women by the p**sy and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines cracking rape jokes in public speeches was them, as sons of the soil, breaking the rules of good behaviour established by elites. Their disgusting talk did absolutely nothing to dent their popularity with their followers.

Nor did their attacks on science, even in the midst of a global pandemic. If the masses in America and Brazil dont want to believe wearing masks does anything to prevent COVID, well then, they must be right. If Hindu masses are associated with a belief in the ability of cow urine to cure everything from cancer to COVID, then science be damned, cow urine will be celebrated as a cure. If evangelical Christians do not believe Darwins theory of evolution because it contradicts the Bible, Darwin must be wrong. If the populist demagogues could, they would probably put the Law of Gravitation to the vote to decide if its right.

This is because the issue is not truth or fact at all. The real issue is pride in ones beliefs. It is about who decides, and how, whats okay to say and whats not, whats respectable and whats laughable. What the populist demagogues discovered was that there existed a vast reservoir of people who did not understand why their beliefs should be considered inferior to any other. They did not want experts deciding the issue by arcane theory and incomprehensible evidence. It was a matter of standing up for the equality of ones beliefs, which are after all a part of identity. Why should the belief in the divine efficacy of cow urine or the theory that God created the world in seven days be inferior to any other? Most people have no way of really knowing; the science is beyond them, and therefore it is a matter of one persons word against anothers.

The modern world, and its institutions and norms, were invented in the 18th and 19th centuries through the diffusion of ideas that spread among new elites created by new systems of education in economies and societies that underwent radical change. Democracy was then not widespread globally. Within the relatively few democratic countries that existed, the franchise was initially restricted to certain sections of the population usually wealthy and predominantly male. Even in India, where electoral democracy started before independence, it was with a limited franchise and communal representation in the councils of British India. It opened up over time to include the entire adult population. On the whole, this has been an excellent thing, but there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of political leadership over the years.

Where once there was Mohandas Gandhi and Sardar Patel, Gujarats and Indias leaders today are Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. The Dalit leadership has travelled from Dr BR Ambedkar to Mayawati and Ramdas Athavale. Jawaharlal Nehrus Congress is led by Rahul Gandhi. Mamata Banerjee is Bengals leader. Her challenger from the Hindu Right, a position occupied once by Syama Prasad Mukherjee, is Dilip Ghosh. Several of the stalwarts of yore, like the ones now, displayed characteristics that might today be called populist, but they differed vastly from the current crop in education, personality and character.

What accounts for the changing profile of the popular leader?

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

More:

What populist means: Theres more to the label, associated with leaders like Donald Trump, than meets the eye - Firstpost