Category Archives: Populism

In 1958, businessman Robert Welch founded a right-wing political advocacy group The John Birch Society based on conspiracy theories.

He believed that elements in the American government including the president were part of a secret apparatus that were in line with the Soviets and there would be a one world government," Ted Miller, professor at Northeastern University, says.

Welch found ways to influence American society, and politics. Among other tactics, he set up ad hoc committees to advocate for conservative causes.

The ad hoc committee called TRIM supported lower taxes, and it became crucial to the anti-tax proposals that Reagan pursued," Miller says. "But the people that joined these ad hoc committees didnt really know they were getting involved with the John Birch Society."

Today, On Point: The origins of right wing conspiracy theories from the John Birch Society to Trumpism.

Edward Miller, associate teaching professor at Northeastern University. Author of A Conspiratorial Life: Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the Revolution of American Conservatism. (@eh_miller)

Jack Beatty, On Pointnews analyst. (@JackBeattyNPR)

ANTHONY BROOKS: The John Birch Society was an ultra right-wing political movement that feasted on conspiracy theories.

It was founded in 1958 by businessman Robert Welch, who claimed, among other things, that President Eisenhower, a staunch Republican, was a dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy that Black Southerners' push for civil rights was fomented entirely by the communists.

Welch even blamed communists for putting fluoride in public water supplies with the passion of today's anti-vaxxers. And like Donald Trump and his devoted base, Birchers refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their political opposition.

At its peak, the John Birch Society had 100,000 members, and it represented an opportunity and a challenge for Republican elites, not unlike the challenge they face today. While some denounced the Birchers as dangerous paranoid extremists, others feared losing their political support.

Among them, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. During his run for the presidency, he criticized Robert Welch, but embraced his followers. He said they're good people. They believe in the Constitution, in God, in freedom. And when he accepted the Republican presidential nomination in 1964, Goldwater delivered this memorable line.

BARRY GOLDWATER [Tape]: I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

BROOKS: Goldwater lost the '64 presidential election in a landslide to Democrat Lyndon Johnson, and the influence of the John Birch Society eventually faded, but its ghosts remained. In fact, in 2016, another far right populist Republican with the support of conservative conspiracists, won the presidency.

So how has the spirit of the John Birch Society lived on? And what does the history of the John Birch Society teach us about far-right populism in America today?

A history of Robert Welch and the John Birch Society

Edward Miller:"Robert Welch was born in North Carolina. He was the son of a farmer. He had a long history of family farmers. And he came to Boston to study Harvard Law. Leaving Harvard Law School, because of the liberal policies of Felix Frankfurter. Then he went into the candy business and was a very successful candy manufacturer, creating such childhood favorites as the Sugar Daddies, the Junior Mints.

"But he had aspirations beyond the candy business. He wanted to go into politics, himself. He would run for lieutenant governor in 1950. He had aspirations to beat John F. Kennedy in 1958. Lofty aspirations, nonetheless. And despite failing in his inaugural bid for lieutenant governor, he did very respectably, he came in second to the former Republican state treasurer in the primary. He decided that he needed to pursue an educational organization.

"In 1958, he founded the John Birch Society, which was a conspiratorial organization. He became renowned and notorious for his claim that President Eisenhower was communist. This led to a response from his nemesis on the respectable right, William F. Buckley, who tried to drive him out of the movement. He was unsuccessful, I argue. But Welch stayed in there. He changed his tactics."

What kind of Americans were drawn to this movement?

Edward Miller: "The John Birch Society appealed primarily to those people who were disappointed with the Eisenhower presidency. They thought that Eisenhower was going to roll back the New Deal. They thought he was going to liberate Eastern Europe. So, many Midwestern conservatives who had backed Robert Taft in 1952, and believed that the 1952 Republican nomination was stolen by Robert Taft, it was stolen by Eisenhower from Robert Taft, came to support a more far-right brand of conservatism, which the John Birch Society embodied.

"They were Midwestern industrialists. They were the men of Main Street, not Wall Street, which Eisenhower represented. They were the everyday men and women who were concerned about where their country was heading in the 1950s. And despite the fact that Eisenhower is seen as a grandfatherly figure of modern conservatism, they rejected that notion and came to the conclusion that Eisenhower had nefarious aims."

On concerns of political violence committed by the John Birch Society

Edward Miller:"There were concerns. And Welch, one of the tragic aspects of Welch, is that he participates and continues to engage in many letters with segregationists and even people who are of a more violent persuasion. And so there was some consideration of potential violence that the John Birch Society would commit."

How do you see the influence of the John Birch Society today?

Edward Miller:"Even, you know, two days ago, I think that ... Governor DeSantis, said something about the smuggling of some nefarious ideas into the schools. He was very ambiguous about what he meant by that statement. But I think he was talking about the idea that school children are being introduced with ... what he sees as strange ideas.

"One of the key intellectuals of the John Birch Society, E. Merrill Root, wrote a book, Collectivism on Our Campuses. He also wrote a book about collectivism in our high schools. And he was concerned about how these ideas were creeping into our schools, and they were infecting the minds of our children, and liberalizing them."

On the influence of the John Birch Society in 2022

Edward Miller:"It's not necessarily the society itself. It's the idea that the society itself promoted. It's the idea that the Second Amendment is to be taken away. And that wasn't something that the NRA supported initially. That was something that the John Birch Society supported.

"So I think it's more the ideological aspects that the John Birch Society continued. I in no way suggest that the John Birch Society in my book is is making a significant comeback. It's the ideas that remained. And the John Birch Society provided some of the seedlings for this growth."

What should we take away from the John Birch Society's influence today?

Edward Miller:"I would just tell folks that the history that we have right now is incomplete. There are a number of great scholars at work John Huntington, David Austin Walsh, Seth Cotlar, who are rewriting the narrative of the conservative movement. They are research based university professors and they're doing great work.

"Rick Perlstein started this, you know, in a very important essay in which he wrote that, you know, 2016 convinced me that I was wrong about the conservative movement. And Rick Perlstein was the chronicler of four books on the conservative movement. Maybe he'll revisit those like a Lucasfilm."

Excerpt from A Conspiratorial Life: Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the Revolution of American Conservatism by Edward H. Miller, published by The University of Chicago Press. 2021 by The University of Chicago Press. All rights reserved.

Read more:

The history of far-right populism, from the John Birch Society to Trumpism - WBUR News

This episode of Hub Dialogues features Sean Speer in conversation with Henry Olsen, a Washington Post columnist and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, about the rise and durability of populism as a major political force around the world. Olsen is also the author of the must-read book, The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of BlueCollar Conservatism.

You can listen to this episode of Hub Dialogues on Acast, Amazon, Apple, Google, Spotify, or YouTube. A transcript of the episode is available below.

Transcripts of our podcast episodes are not fully edited for grammar or spelling.

SEAN SPEER: Welcome to Hub Dialogues. Im your host Sean Speer, editor-at-large at The Hub. Im honoured to be joined today by Henry Olsen, whos a Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the author of the must-read book, The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of BlueCollar Conservatism, and a leading commentator and analyst of global politics. If theres an election somewhere in the world, theres a good chance that Henry has well-developed views about the issues and candidates.

Im grateful to speak with him about his interesting career, as well as some of the big ideological and sociopolitical trends, including the rise of populism, that are shaping modern politics around the world. Henry, thank you for joining us at Hub Dialogues.

HENRY OLSEN: Thank you for having me, Sean.

SEAN SPEER: Lets start with your personal biography. You graduated from the University of Chicago law school and then clerked at the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, you subsequently walked away from the law to pursue a career as a think tank scholar and political commentator. Why? What drew you away from the law and into the world of ideas and politics?

HENRY OLSEN: I had been involved in the world of ideas and politics well before going to law school. I studied political theory at Claremont McKenna College as an undergraduate, and I had been involved with the American Republican Party since my days in middle school. I thought, well, maybe I should go try and make some money after doing this and went to law school. What I found was that I wanted to go back to what I had left, only approach it in a slightly different way.

Thats what led me into the think tank world and ultimately into the political commentary/opi3nion journalism world. I only spent three years practicing law and then I jumped ship and became the executive director at the Commonwealth Foundation, which is Pennsylvanias conservative think tank.

SEAN SPEER: The rest, as they say, is history. As I mentioned, Henry, you have unparalleled knowledge and expertise about politics around the world. Let me ask a two-part question. First, how have you developed such broad yet deep awareness of global politics? Second, which countries politics do you think are underrated in terms of the level of ideas and debate?

HENRY OLSEN: Lets take the first question first. I just love politics and campaigns. What I discovered is that once I was able to gain access to international information, that theres a lot that you can learn about your own country by looking at other countries. Debates about things like nationalism and trade and the viability or the democratic legitimacy of international institutions are sometimes more important in one country before they surface into another country. Of course, those questions were often more debated in Britain before they became obviously debated in the United States with the rise of Trump.

I also started to look on the internet and found that I could satisfy my political nerd side by looking up election data and using Google Translate to find out what people were saying in their own language about politics. Essentially its a hobby. While other people are watching television or going to live concerts, Im fiddling around on the internet, looking at the political demography of Belgium. Want to know where Vlaams Belang is doing well? Im your man.

SEAN SPEER: I should encourage listeners if theyre interested in learning more about electoral dynamics around the world they should follow Henrys Twitter account as well as his frequent Washington Post column which doesnt just cover U.S. politics, but truly reflects his expertise in political trends all over the world.

Henry, one final biographical question before we get on to some of these big political trends. You once won $250,000 as a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. What was that experience like?

HENRY OLSEN: Thats $250,000 American, I should say, not Canadian. Ive been a nerd and a trivia hound all my life. When I was living in Los Angeles after graduating from collegeor universityI tried out for a lot of game shows in the early 1980s and found that I would often pass the knowledge quiz. They always test you to see whether you can have enough knowledge in their format to do credibly, but then I failed the contestant quiz because really how many boring white nerdy guys do you want on a game show? Millionaire was different. They did not have a contestant quiz. You just got on by passing the knowledge quiz, and it took me a year and a half to get on.

Then it was just surreal. Its 36 hours in New York, they took me on stage, introduced me to the hostRegis Philbin at the timeran me through some practices, and then brought me under the bright lights to see if I could perform. I have cool hands, hit my mark, and as you say, the rest is history. And darn those Three Stooges.

SEAN SPEER: Very cool. Ive watched the episode before, and its funny watching you try to explain to Regis what a think tank is and what a think tank does.

Lets move on, Henry, to the rise of populism. Theres a tendency to focus on the Trump election and the Brexit referendum when one thinks of present-day populism. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, your Washington Post column frequently highlights populist expressions elsewhere around the world, including Norway, Chile, Bulgaria, and so on. These political developments have often come at the expense of traditional conservative politicians or parties. Help me and our listeners understand whats going on. Why have we seen the rise of political populism in so many countries in recent years? How much of the explanation is common and how much of it is contingent?

HENRY OLSEN: What I would say is different countries have different contingencies, but the trends are relatively similar in many countries because the populism of today is arising out of the failure of traditional political parties, leaders, and viewpoints to address the problems that have emerged since the turn of the century. There are really three types of populisms in the world, and youll see them in different countries to different degrees, depending on the country. Theres left-wing populism, theres right-wing populism, and theres centrist populism.

Left-wing populism is the sort that you might see in Bernie Sanders in the United States, or Sinn Fin in Ireland, or Jean-Luc Mlenchon in France, which is that they take an old-school critique of capitalism and apply it in non-traditional ways, often combined with nationalism. So it becomesin a sense, you could view the Scottish Nationalist Party as a left-wing populist party. They are extremely important in many political parties around the world.

Then you have right-wing populism, or more accurately nationalist populism, that tends to come from a blue-collar background. People who have been economically and culturally moved aside in the last two decades and often will say things like I want my country back. Again, this is typified by the Peoples Party of Canada, its typified in a softer way by Doug Ford or Franois Legault in Canada. Its typified by Trump, typified by Brexit, and I could go on and on about people all around the world.

Then you have centrist populism. Thats the sort that was often part of one of these two, but sometimes it stands on its own like in the Czech Republic or Czechia with Andrej Babi, and with the Five Star Movement in Italy, or in many of the countries in Bulgaria where its essentially not trying to critique an economic or cultural policy but simply says the elites are corrupt, its time to govern from common sense. As I said, you can hear those themes in both left-wing and right-wing populists, but its a distinct strain and sometimes it emerges in a distinct way to, in some ways, sometimes elect the leader of the country.

SEAN SPEER: Youve written that if populisms main strength is its ability to bring expression to unaddressed or underdressed problems, its main weakness is the lack of an affirmative policy agenda. As you wrote in January 2021, Henry, the populists often have a clear set of instincts, but little in the way of a detailed policy programme. Whats the main obstacle here? Is there something inherent to populism that limits its capacity to produce a clear, coherent governing agenda? Or are there institutional barriers that explain the lack of such an agenda?

HENRY OLSEN: I think theres a little bit of both. The first is that the sort of political entrepreneur who can see the populist movement tends to be the person who can grasp a new situation and communicate in strongly emotional language, whether thats the language of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States, or Nigel Farage in Britain, or Matteo Salvini in Italy. These are people who are ahead of the trend and can communicate an idea to the masses. They tend not to be policy experts and because theyre coming from outside of an established political order, they dont have a lot of policy experts hanging around them. They attract people who share those ideas or those instincts, and then people develop a policy agenda if those people or those parties start to gain traction.

There is an institutional barrier and that is that, again, populism necessarily is coming from the outside of an established political order. Which means it also tends to come from outside of the entities that credential people to run government, whether its the academy or whether its people who serve in government, either in legislative or executive roles. These people tend to have bought into an existing worldview.

Consequently, the people who are trying to shatter the worldview dont have access to those people, and those people dont necessarily then flock to the new leader and say, Oh, let me help you. Eventually, what happens over time as you develop that expertise the longer somebody and an institution or party shows traction, but particularly in the early stages, you have both a dispositional and an institutional hindrance to actually having a detailed, costed out, workable policy agenda.

SEAN SPEER: Lets turn the conversation to your book, Working Class Republican, about Ronald Reagan, which I would strongly encourage listeners to read. The book challenges the conventional narrative that the Reagan presidency was marked by a strong fidelity to a libertarian economic orthodoxy. In fact, you effectively make the case that President Reagan was something of a populist himself. Let me ask you a two-part question. First, can you elaborate on the books thesis? Second, why do you think the mythology of Reagan has come to deviate so much from his actual record?

HENRY OLSEN: With respect to the thesis, I can summarize it pretty quickly, which was that to understand Ronald Reagan, you have to take him seriously when he says, as he did many times, that he didnt leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. He was a person who was on the conventional left in his youth, in the 1930s, the 1940s, and into the 1950s. He was a member of the Democratic Party. He was the head of Hollywood for Truman-Barkley in the 1948 presidential campaign. He voted enthusiastically for Franklin Roosevelt in all four of his presidential efforts.

This is a guy who, conventionally, is understood to be in favour of more government. And then he becomes somebody on the right. And so, what Reagan was, was somebody who interpreted Franklin Roosevelt rather than directly opposed him. He was somebody who wanted to increase the degree of popular self-control. In his early speeches, hes talking more about bureaucracy and how it is strangling popular control and freedom than he is talking in the abstract ways of libertarians about natural rights or about state control of the economy. He often endorses a lot of interventions in the economy but says theyve gone too far, or theyre no longer what the people want, or things along that line. So, my thesis that to understand Reagan is to understand that he was about the internal self-government and the dignity of the individual more than anything else.

And so, how did he get misinterpreted? Well, first of all, he got misinterpreted because hes a great politician. He built a coalition around his ideas. He was not an academic trying to explain his ideas. So, what would happen is, as with any good politician, different parts of the coalition came to him for different reasons. And the libertarian side of the coalition, the people who were at making abstract arguments against government, saw part of what they wanted in him and then they became people who interpreted him for others.

So, theres a lot of people who have never read Reagan, never listened to a Reagan speech, but theyve heard of Reagan through the libertarian interpreters of him, and consequently when I say things to them like, You know Ronald Reagan supported compromise rather than dying on principle? Or Did you know Ronald Reagan supported tax increases when it was necessary? Or Ronald Reagan believed that you shouldnt discriminate against gays at a time in 1978 when he took that stand when it was quite popular to discriminate against gays? Because theyve never heard of him directly, they are surprised when I say this and thats because the high priests of Reaganism, as Ive said, took over the church of Reagans teaching and just pushed the actual teaching out of the temple.

SEAN SPEER: Its worth noting that one of the reasons that Canada ultimately came to the table on a bilateral, and ultimately North American, free trade agreement was because of the Reagan administrations use of tariffs that threatened Canadian access to the American market. Its a concrete example, as you say, of the willingness of President Reagan and his administration to occasionally deviate from libertarian orthodoxy in the name of broader political or national goals.

If I can come back to a contemporary populist conservative agenda, how much of it, in your view, should be focused on economic issues including, for instance, middle-class stagnation versus cultural issues including the rise of so-called wokeism? Maybe, to put it differently, Henry, is it your view that a challenge to left-wing ideas about race, gender, and identity, is a political winner for conservatives in the United States and Canada currently?

HENRY OLSEN: Every country has its own different political balance and every politician has to be acutely and finely tuned to that balance. What works for Doug Ford in Ontario or Franois Legault in Quebec is different than what would work for a populist in France, which was different than what would work for a populist in the United States.

The first thing you have to do if you are looking at it is look at what is the centre of public opinion in the country rather than make a broad brush that this always works anywhere and everywhere. Thats being an ideologue. One thing Ronald Reagan taught me is to eschew ideology in favour of principles. What is generally good everywhere is embracing a theory of the nation and making that into a positive statement. That is, a nation as something that embraces both rights and responsibilities of all of its citizens. Its one thats unafraid to talk about facts, scientific and moral, and human nature, physical nature, things that cant be changed by the person or the party in power.

I think with respect to the general question of wokeness, a generally acceptable conservative populist theme is that we can be tolerant of and approving of people who are in a minority of people who are, say, biologically in between male and female, or in other ways, but that you cant simply deny the facts of human biology or the facts of human interaction.

The idea is to unite people rather than to divide people. Some people on the left, I dont know if this is the case in Canada but certainly the case in the United States and the United Kingdom, they just say I dont know what a woman is. You dont have to be condescending or mean but most people on the street know what a woman is. Even if they want to treat somebody who is transgendered as if they were, but they can define whats in front of them.

Thats a sort of manner of speech and the manner of expression about those issues that I think will work for a populist. Broadly speaking, these cultural issues properly addressed are winners. Particularly if you put it in the context of a nation that works for all of its citizens socially, economically, and culturally. It applies in things like advancing opportunity for everybody, not just gender or race minorities but for people who have been left behind in any way, intentionally or unintentionally.

Thats something that Prime Minister Harper, in his recent book Right Here, Right Now, talked about that when he signed trade deals, he didnt just take an ideological view like Americans tended to and just throw the doors open and take a devil may care attitude, but he tried to make sure that certain sectors that were important to Canadas economy or to certain segments of the Canadian community werent devastated by the trade deals. That he was looking at it not just from an economic efficiency standpoint but from a social stability standpoint. Thats an example in the economic sphere of what a conservative populism ought to be trying to do

SEAN SPEER: In your answer, Henry, you used the word balance a few times. Let me ask you, are there any contemporary politicians around the world who in your view are achieving that kind of balance, and who should aspiring populists be studying?

HENRY OLSEN: Yes, I think that in Canada, both Doug Ford and Franois Legault have done a very good job of balancing conservative economics and populist economics, as well as conservative cultural concerns with the concerns of tolerance and inclusion. Again, theyre different politics but theyre addressing different polities, different sets of voters. I think overseas, Isabel Daz Ayuso, who is the governor of Madrid, she is somebody who is now the leading Spanish conservative politician because she talks about conservative culture, but also inclusion.

This is a woman who talks about the conservative nature of Spain and talks about Western civilization, who is an unmarried, non-believing madrileo who has a Depeche Mode tattoo on her wrist because shes rather modern. Its that sort of thing where you balance off the old and the new, the social with the individual in a way that still provides for human freedom and social stability. I think shes going to be prime minister of Spain, maybe sooner than later, but shes certainly somebody in the here and the now who can be looked to along with the Canadian examples.

SEAN SPEER: A fascinating example, precisely because it shines a light on the difference between social conservatism and cultural conservatism. Do you want to maybe just elaborate a bit on what those differences are, and what the different political fecundity may be of a cultural conservatism, particularly as it relates to some of the points you made earlier about the power of nationalism as a unifying idea for a contemporary populist?

HENRY OLSEN: Social conservatism in the Anglo-American world, or the U.S.-Canadian world, can tend to have a religious context. You can also see this in places in Europe that still have strong religious cultures like Poland or Italy, where a social conservative will talk in religious language and in a way that supports a particular theology. Cultural conservatism transcends that. It includes it, but it transcends that.

It is something that can speak to people regardless of background about their shared experiences, and their shared human nature. That a parent has concerns about their children, and about their dignity, and about their role, independent of whether they derive it from a particular sacred text or from some other cultural experience. A cultural conservatism is one that includes what is typically considered to be social conservatism, but it transcends it by driving it away from particularistic roots and language into a more stable and more broad-based font and approach.

SEAN SPEER: Let me ask you a penultimate question, Henry. Are we living in a populist moment, or a populist era?

HENRY OLSEN: Were living in a populist era, not a populist moment. We are now, depending on how one characterizes it, well over a decade into populism as a political feature. The denizens of those who chatter continually say populism is a spent force and it is over, and yet you continually see populists doing well in elections, and populist themes left, right, and centre re-emerging.

I think when our children, 40-50 years from now are in their careers or in university and writing the histories of the era, they will say that what were living through now is an era that is defined by populism. Itll be defined by which type of populism came to power and how well they succeeded once they came to power. The question isthey will come to power, they are already coming to power, and more will come to power in the next few years, left, centre, and right. Thats because the pre-populist experts and elites simply have no answers to the problems. They apply old answers to new problems. They get old solutions and then ask you to double down on the obviously unsuccessful solution, and people are getting tired of it.

If we look back in 40 years and we are still free politically, if we are still tolerant socially, if were still wealthy economically, then we will say that populism will have met its challenge. It will be looked at as we today look back on what can be called the labour/social-democratic era that upset the 19th-century dualisms of politics to create a new order to address the new challenges that industrialization and urbanization brought.

If were looking back and saying, gosh, how is it that the West became subject to autocratic forces? How is it that all the wealth passed from us to other nations? How did we go wrong? In other words, if were more like the early fifth century Roman empire than an ascendant reinterpretation or reawakening of Western civilization, well, then well look back and say that populism had failed.

I just dont see any way that were going to get through to 2040 and not have seen populism tried in many leading countries. Its already being tried in the United States and in Britain. Itll eventually come to Germany, France, and others. We will find out whether it succeeds. I think a prudent populism of the centre-right will renew Western civilization, but the proof is in the pudding.

SEAN SPEER: I said that was the penultimate question, but if I may just sneak one in before we come to a final question, a prediction about the future of American politics. One of the things that is so admirable about you, Henry, as an analyst and a commentator, is that from early on, youve taken the rise of populism seriously as a political force. On the other hand, youve been pretty clear-eyed about its weaknesses and able to analyze it dispassionately. That has precluded you from being swept up and forced to make false yet powerful binary choices about your own political affiliations and commitments.

What do you think has enabled you to do that? What in your approach to analyzing politics has served you so well in this period of turmoil and polarization?

HENRY OLSEN: I have a habit of mind of moderation. I dont like to get swept up in enthusiasm. I think in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. Oftentimes youll find people on one side or the other take a probability and exalt it into a certainty, and I just dont let myself do that. I also think it comes from the fact that theres nobody that exactly represents me. Its hard to get trapped up in enthusiasm when theres nobody who is singing exactly from your playbook. One of my favorite quotes is from Treebeard in The Lord of the Rings when he is asked by Merry or Pippin in the Fangorn Forest, Whose side are you on in the war? Treebeard says, Im not on anybodys side because nobodys exactly on my side.

SEAN SPEER: You said that youd prefer probabilities rather than certainties, but Id be remiss if I didnt ask you, as a final question, do you think Trump will be the GOP nominee in 2024?

HENRY OLSEN: Well, Ill quote another line from Lord of the Rings, when Sam meets Gildor in the forest. He asks Gildor for advice and Gildor gives him nuanced advice and Sam says, Well, thats why they say what they say. Go not to the elves for advice for they will tell you both yes and no.

Heres the thing, I dont know whether Trump will be the nominee. What I can say is that Trump is a political balloon that is slowly descending. Hes not descending so quickly that it would be unthinkable that he could win the nomination, but hes also not descending in a manner so that we would be sure. Hes not descending so slowly that we can say, oh, hes definitely going to keep his altitude and be the nominee.

I would say right now its a toss-up. I would slightly lean against him being the nominee, but Im also not a Trump fan. I have to be upfront about that. What I will say is that Trump is somebody who I think is hurting his own cause with his fixation on the past. That Trump now says little except They stole the election from me and I want it back. And thats not an attractive message.

And then you look forward and say, well, what can he, if Trump gets out of his narcissistic bubble and he decides to actually do what he did in 2015, which is offer a new message, what would he say that other Republicans arent? Hes a follower on policy now. He was a leader in 2015. Hes a follower now. So, its entirely plausible that somebody, Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, others that I know like senators Marco Rubio or Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley, could basically very credibly say, I represent everything that you want. I want to be a fighter against the woke culture. I believe in inclusion, and I believe in a strong nation. I am in favour of free markets, but Im not a free-market fundamentalist. But Im not Donald Trump.

And I think that the centre of the Republican Party is increasingly wanting that. They may still like Trump. They do like Trump. But they are increasingly wanting to consign him to the past rather than to the future. And so, I think that well see over the next year whether thats going to become more obvious, or whether Trump is going to become the leading dominant figure against whom no one can stand. Right now its too early to say, but I think those are the trends that are vying with one another. And I would like to believe that a populist conservatism can rest on a firmer ground, but it remains to be seen.

SEAN SPEER: Henry, well have to have you back on in the coming months and years to update our listeners, not only on this race but some of these deeper trends of populism here in North America and around the world. This conversation has been the tour de force that I had anticipated.

Henry Olsen, Washington Post columnist, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and author of The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism. Thank you so much for joining us today at Hub Dialogues.

HENRY OLSEN: Thanks for having me on, Sean.

Continued here:

'We're living in a populist era, not a populist moment': Political analyst Henry Olsen on populism, Reagan, and whether or not Trump's star has faded...

This is Ian Dunts Week, a subscriber-only newsletter from i. If youd like to get this direct to your inbox, every single week,you can sign up here.

Good afternoon and welcome to another week in which Tory leadership hopefuls compete in an arms race of idiocy. By the time this contest ends, theyll presumably have promised the end of the tax system altogether. Its an absolute bonanza of bullshit out there. Pack an umbrella.

This weeks column is below, along with some recommendations for what to do so that you stop watching the news. I take a step back to look at what the hell happened last week and what it might tell us about the future of populism. I wish I could say that the answers are reassuring, but of course theyre not.

We still havent processed what happened last week. Its all been too fast, too frenzied for us to catch our breath. No sooner had Boris Johnson resigned than the race to replace him kicked off a ferocious, non-stop whirlwind of news. Even as he sits in Downing Street, it becomes increasingly easy to forget that he ever even was Prime Minister.

But what happened last week was seismic, and not just in terms of who happens to lead Britain. It defined what populism is, the threat it poses, and the kinds of defences we have against it. We will be studying it for decades, even if we are ignoring it now.

Johnson, like Donald Trump in the US, finished his time as leader by engaging in the classic populist gambit: insisting that his personal mandate superseded the constitutional and political restraints against him. No matter that Trump had lost an election or that the public had turned against Johnson. Their supposed mandate overrode all other considerations.

Trump pursued the far more spectacular strategy of encouraging rioters to target the Capitol. Johnson did it in the rather more buttoned-up manner of threatening a snap election rather than accept the partys demands that he go. But constitutionally, it was the same principle.

Now, as the dust settles, Britain looks in a much better place than the US. Johnson was shuffled away. A leadership contest is taking place. Sometime after that maybe months, maybe years therell be a general election in which everyone is likely to accept the result. Things have gone back to normal. In the US, democracy feels fragile and tenuous, with a large part of the Republican party no longer recognising election outcomes.

Why? Whats the difference between them? Its natural to assume that the distinction might lie in the constitution. America has a single written constitution and numerous checks-and-balances. Britain has neither. Maybe, counter-intuitively, this more relaxed system holds up better than a formalised one.

But that is a blind alley. The key to what happened isnt about codified constitutions. Its about social norms. Did the political class act as if constitutional principles mattered? Did it behave as if these standards were true?

At the crucial moment, the Cabinet did precisely that. MPs said they had no confidence in him. Secretaries of state resigned. His ministerial ranks were left so depleted that government effectively ceased to function. And eventually, after some unseemly belligerence, he went.

But theres no room for complacency here. That is not the whole story. If you look at the last few years, rather than the last few weeks, a very different picture emerges.

From 2019 until earlier this summer, the party acted like Johnson was perfectly respectable. It did it through the unlawful prorogation of parliament, the purging of the parliamentary party, the attempt to dismantle the standards system, the dismissal of the ministerial code, the lies, the law breaking, the corruption. None of that made Tory MPs turn against him.

They never turned on the basis of morality or constitutional propriety. They turned on the basis of popularity. And that, ultimately, is the crucial distinction between the UK and US examples.

Johnson lost his popular support. Trump did not.

Even now, the former US president retains huge public backing. Fellow Republicans are too scared to come out against him. The same is not true in Britain. Johnson lost his support over Partygate and never got it back.

It was on that basis that Tory ministers and MPs finally moved to oppose him. If Johnson had still been cruising high in the opinion polls, those letters would never have gone in. He would still be in place now. Any talk of integrity or standards from those who served in his Cabinet is meaningless.

What if the public did not turn against him? What if Johnsons personal hold was stronger, or his political approach more effective, or his self-restraint more substantial? What if he had sufficient personal control not to attend parties in lockdown, as almost any other politician in the world does? Nothing in the British system would have stopped him from continuing on the path he had set: eroding standards, dismantling accountability, degrading truth.

But there is no recognition of this fact in the Conservative Party. There is no introspection. There is only the constant whirlwind of news. Onto the next thing.

On LBC last night, leadership candidate Penny Mordaunt was asked about her claim during the Brexit campaign that the UK would not be able to stop Turkey joining the EU. It was a false claim. The UK, like every other member state, had a veto. She could have now admitted it was false, apologised, and said she would try to do better. She could have taken this moment to reaffirm the value of truth in political discourse. Instead, she doubled down.

We need politicians who will uphold the norms of our culture regardless of whether they are popular or not. We need people who will stand up for what is right regardless of the opinion polls. That is what sustains our system.

At the moment it is clear that we do not have them. The Tory leadership hopefuls barely even mention Johnsons misbehaviour, let alone promise not to replicate it. They are now already starting to engage in it themselves.

Theres just silence, and distraction, and the constant whirlwind of news. No lessons are being learned. No principles are being affirmed. And that, more than anything, raises the danger of this happening again.

Next time, we might not be so lucky.

I stumbled across this 1970s debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault recently. Its a remarkable artifact. This is Chomsky before he became rather more eccentric. It is serious heavyweight stuff on the existence of universal human attributes. That all sounds abstract, but it reveals an intellectual crack, which would eventually lead to a fundamental split on the left between identity politics and socialism.

Afterwards, Chomsky would say: He struck me as completely amoral, Id never met anyone who was so totally amoral. I mean, I liked him personally, its just that I couldnt make sense of him. Its as if he was from a different species, or something.

I know, its two blokes half a century ago debating philosophy. Not the easiest sell. But it is genuinely gripping.

I first came across this Australian programme, which is packaged up into a podcast after broadcast, when I appeared on it years ago. I soon became a regular listener. It is perfect late night radio, Adams reassuring gravely tones providing serious intellectual heft to stories from across the world. From Hawaiis use of detention facilities to the European colonialist view of Australias mammals, it features items you just dont get to hear anywhere else. Patient, thorough and curious: an antidote to the usual tone of current affairs programmes.

You might know this from the Natalie Portman film on Netflix. That was great, but the book is better. Its the very best kind of sci-fi: mysterious, terrifying, operating somewhere beyond the range of human comprehension. It gives you that same feeling you get when looking at the recent extraordinary images from Nasa of being fundamentally incapable of understanding the scale and nature of the universe. Brilliant, beautiful stuff.

This is Ian Dunts Week, a subscriber-only newsletter from i. If youd like to get this direct to your inbox, every single week,you can sign up here.

See the article here:

The rampant populism of the Tory leadership contest shows how dangerous this moment is - iNews

THE Government did its bit for populism this week. Figures from the two bigger parties in Government frequently decry the rise of populism, particularly the tenet thereof that infers there are easy solutions to intractable problems.

However, nobody in Fianna Fil or Fine Gael ever acknowledges that populism, as it is currently evolving, is a product of misrule by establishment parties. Another example of that misrule was in evidence this week.

Planning legislation has become highly complexand technical, over recent decades. Holes are repeatedly picked in laws, especially by judges ruling on challenges brought against planning decisions.

This prevailing culture should ensure that new laws are drafted and legislated for with the utmost care. After all, getting it wrong when shaping the law will inevitably lead to greater cost, delays, and quite often the requirement to come back to the Oireachtas to do it all again.

In 2018, then chief justice Frank Clarke touched on this, calling for clearer legislation in planning, particularly in relation to the environment.

There will continue to be projects which, even though they may successfully clear all hurdles at the end of the day, may suffer by being held up for too long.

Never is such sentiment more relevant than in the middle of a housing crisiswhere there is an urgent need to get homes built.

Despite that, Darragh OBrien, the housing minister, couldnt help himself in attempting to ram through planning legislation this week without proper, or even any, scrutiny.

Last Thursday evening, opposition politicians were given details of 48 pages of amendments to be added to a 20-page planning bill going through the Oireachtas.

Two-and-a-half hours have been set aside on Wednesday to debate these amendments along with amendments from the original bill. It will be impossible for proper scrutiny to be applied in the Dil in that kind of timeframe.

If all of the amendments were uncontroversial that might be acceptable, but some deal with access to the courts and how bodies such as An Bord Pleanla can adjust rulings effectively in the middle of a legal challenge.

These issues go to the heart of the EUs Aarhus Convention, which determined that the public has a right to be fully engaged in the planning process.

Moving the goalposts

Solicitor Fred Logue says the proposed amendments in relation to a planning authority being allowed to change its ruling mid-stream in a legal challenge is effectively moving the goalposts.

Under Aarhus, the system has to be fair, equitable, and not prohibitively expensive, he says. Its basically unfair if you spend money on a judicial review and then the goalposts are moved and youre left challenging a fundamentally different decision. And there is no procedure in how this is done.

A spokesperson for the department said that it had been working in conjunction with the Attorney General (AG) on the amendments since last year but it was not possible to finalise the schedule until now.

Sinn Fin housing spokesman Eoin Broin points out that there is no urgency with these amendments and therefore no valid reason to rush them through the Oireachtas.

There is nothing ever simple or technical about changes in planning and they need to be thought through, he says.

Im increasingly getting the impression that the AG is directly planning reform rather than the minister and Im concerned about mission creep beyond his legal advice.

Ultimately, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the amendments are being rushed through to avoid controversy, negative media coverage, and the requirement to actually explain what is at issue. The result is that the role of the Dil is being completely undermined.

Yesterday, following pressure from various quarters and coverage of the issue in the Irish Examiner, the most contentious measure concerning legal challenges was withdrawn. Questions remain as to why it was proposed in the first place.

Notwithstanding that rethink, dozens of other amendments remain, which will not get the kind of scrutiny that would ensure the resulting law is robust and fair.

The approach being adopted by Government is straight out of the populist playbook they claim to oppose.

Populism offers a direct relationship between the strong leader or party and the people. Democratic institutions can be bypassed, as attempted by right-wing populists such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who undermined the roles of elections and parliament respectively.

The Governments actions this week amount to undermining the Dils function to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account in its lawmaking.

Not a one-off tactic

Unfortunately, this tactic is not a one-off. Last week, just two hours were allotted to debate over 100 amendments tabled in relation to the mica compensation scheme.

That scheme involves paying out at least 2.7bn of public money, yet the Government quite obviously calculated that proper scrutiny of the legislation including the finding of any fault would be sacrificed to avoid negative publicity that might attach to a debate.

Instead, it was rammed through as if the Oireachtas had no more function than to watch and envy the executive executing its will.

In mid-June there was more of this kind of thing when the housing minister again published an amendment at the last minute that made provision for political parties to run super-draws.

This was brought in under the cover of an electoral reform bill and, once more, a couple of hours were set aside to debate it and 100 other late amendments.

This is not down to sloppy scheduling. Social Democrats housing spokesman Cian OCallaghan pointed out this week that plenty of time had been given in the planning bill to amendments that were not controversial.

Ramming through the legislation only really applies when something awkward is involved.

Apart from anything else, conducting government business like this engenders cynicism among large sections of public. How can people trust the system if it is being abused in this manner? In whose interests is it being abused?

Cynicism begets the kind of populism now in vogue. If the establishment parties are holding the institutions of democracy in such contempt, how can they simultaneously accuse others of being intent on holding the institutions of democracy in contempt?

Meanwhile, there is the third stool to the governing coalition. The Green Party is in situ to pursue policies concerned with tackling climate change, an honourable and urgent pursuit.

However, the apparent failure to intervene when a Fianna Fil minister is rushing through legislation on planning is worrying. If this is a price for coalescing, perhaps they should check again what kind of bang theyre getting for their buck.

Go here to see the original:

Mick Clifford: Rushing through complex legislation is a cynical move used by populist governments - Irish Examiner

The volume and size of the chorus of voices promising tax cuts with former Chancellor Rishi Sunak a notable exception suggests many of the contenders think this is a policy essential for victory.

However, anyone proposing significant reductions must first address a number of alarmingly large elephants in the room.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

In any discussion about tax, the UK Governments vast debt simply cannot be overlooked. According to figures released in April, it reached nearly 2.4 trillion in 2021, compared to just under 1.9 trillion in 2019, before the pandemic hit.

So any candidate who suggests the country should get further into debt in order to fund tax cuts would be gambling recklessly with the financial health of the nation. Former Conservative Chancellor Norman Lamont yesterday warned that the leadership contest risked becoming a Dutch auction of unfunded, irresponsible tax cuts.

Another problem is that cutting taxes is only likely to increase inflation at a time when we are facing an inflation crisis, adding to the pressure to raise interest rates.

Furthermore, reducing government spending in order to pay for tax cuts with some even hinting at a decrease in NHS spending will inevitably mean further hardship for those struggling the most in the cost-of-living crisis.

There is widespread acceptance that Russia's invasion of Ukraine demands an increase in defence spending. But if that is to happen alongside tax cuts as promised by current Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi other departments would be squeezed even harder.

Some candidates have also signalled they might abandon the UKs target of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. This suggests they do not understand the reality of our situation as described by the worlds leading scientists, which is that humanity must take urgent action if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

Populist politicians are so named because they tell people what they want to hear, regardless of the facts, driven by their desire for power, rather than what is best for their country.

A true leader, most especially in tough times, needs to be better than that.

Read the rest here:

Why the race to replace Boris Johnson is raising alarm bells about 'irresponsible' populism - The Scotsman

The body-language expert for Love Island was chased down by Sky News to analyse Boris Johnsons resignation speech. The verdict seething and shocked offered no subcutaneous surprises. That a body linguist from a crass reality TV show should be deemed truthsayer about the fallen political hero is the real surprise. A house of self-promoters prone to cabin fever the parallels between politics and the nightly displays of human nature, red in tooth and claw, are unavoidable.

It wasnt always thus. There was an age of innocence, but it peaked, pre-Covid, with marvellous Maura Higgins and the pure feminist poetry of her fanny flutters honesty. Although a stable, loving relationship (plus 50,000) is the supposed prize of Love Island, the aim of the show is the opposite where would ratings be with stability? Consequently, when things threaten to get settled, sexual saboteurs are sent to the house (Casa Amor is a serious misnomer) to disturb happy relationships with seductions and sometimes downright lies.

Casa Amor is a wrecking ball, which trails emotional carnage and destruction every night. The awful inevitability transfixes viewers and, for the hapless contestants, thems the breaks. Or in their own argot, it is what it is. But what exactly is it? Why is stability so anathema to the human psyche? And are we all potential Love Islanders hurtling towards instability and self-destruction?

Today Sinn Fin will bring a vote of no confidence in the Government arguably the most stable government we have had since the financial crash. The pretext is the Governments loss of its overall majority over the mica compensation Bill, whereby the government, meaning the taxpayer, picks up the bill for failings in the private sector.

But the purpose is to destabilise. And if that seems apocalyptic, its only because we are sleepwalking into a scenario that has been well signalled by Sinn Fin itself and for which it makes no apology. Sinn Fin does not merely want to change the government, it wants to change the system. It says so in its manifesto. And as though to illustrate its contempt for political decorum, party TD Pdraig Mac Lochlainn last week cocked a snook at the common decency of the Irish people: the welcome for Ukrainian refugees.

The Government were complaining about having to spend billions to help their own people in utter distress whose lives have collapsed, buildings collapsing around them in Donegal and the west, and the same government were almost boasting to the world about spending billions and rightly. Thats our place in the world we help out refugees every country does that around the world. But they were complaining about doing the same for their own people, and I think thats stayed in a lot of minds and hearts and it goes to the core of whats wrong with the approach of this government, he told his local radio station.

Why would anyone juxtapose mica payouts with Ukrainian refugees or place our own people in contraposition to refugees? It smacks of naked populism.

Mary Lou McDonald and Matt Carthy, separately, were given ample time on radio last Friday to apologise. Both sidestepped it: contrition is not the Sinn Fin way. And while it is true that some rural Independent TDs have talked about a cap on refugee numbers, Danny Healy-Rae is not going to be leading government in a couple of years, as Sinn Fin almost certainly will. Especially since Fianna Fil seems to have had a fit of the fanny flutters towards them while Michel Martins back was turned.

Sinn Fin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Matt Carthy during a walkabout in central Dublin. Photograph: Brian Lawless/PA Wire

Othering was how Social Democrats TD Gary Gannon described Mac Lochlainns stance. The worry is this unwieldy word, which means marking another as different, will become commonplace as populism metastasises into something worse. Its a short distance from wilfully coupling refugees with mica payments to a Truthers-style conspiracy theory.

The Ukrainian refugees are no threat to anyones rights or jobs. We havent a great record on refugees. More than 30 years ago, we almost left the Vietnamese boat people to bob on the high seas. And 20 shameful years of direct provision cannot be easily explained away. Anyone who is close to Ukrainian refugees knows that anxiety is their pathology. Anxiety and a labyrinth of fear; fear for those left to fend and fight; fear for their future. Some 33,000 women and children have little agency and rely on the kindness of strangers. Their gratitude is humbling. They hide their sickness for home.

Against these desperate people fleeing a tyrant, would Sinn Fin erect a mica wall? Displacement and misplacement are global facts of life. Refugees always assume they are running away from something bad to something better. But liberation is not necessarily freedom. With populism being stirred and Sinn Fin in power, how much better will they or we be?

Just as the over-35s in Britain were aware of what Boris Johnson was but eagerly voted him in, everybody over 35 in Ireland is aware of what Sinn Fin stands for but, according to polls, many are eager to vote for it. And if the under-35s protest that the past and the violence Sinn Fin refuses to apologise for is nothing to do with them, they cannot turn a blind eye to the present and Sinn Fins dangerous populism.

According to its last election manifesto, the partys intention is to establish a democratic socialist republic whatever that means nowadays. We do know, according to the finance director of Coiste Seasta (the eight member committee that runs things), that Sinn Fin does not consider itself a normal political party but an activist group that does not want to be controlled by its elected representatives. We cant pretend to be shocked.

Read the original:

Sinn Fin shows its populist colours over Ukrainian refugees - The Irish Times

Do you remember Rishimania? Of course you do. It was the most squirm-inducing political phenomenon of recent times. There was a point when even a glimpse of Rishi Sunaks ears was enough to send liberal-media types into a teenage frenzy. Those eager, wholesome ears, gushed a writer for the Gentlemans Journal, no doubt typing with one hand. Then there was that lingering hint of a playground lisp; his eyes that sparkle like a baby deer; his smooth and soft skin, as if a glowing Snapchat filter had been placed over Downing Street. Someone needs a cold shower.

GQ was at it, too. Its style editor reported feeling blindsided by [Rishis] kind eyes. Hereditary columnist Flora Gill fantasised about self-isolating with Rishi. Never mind taking the knee, Id happily get on two knees for the likes of Sunak, she said. Shes easily the worst thing Amber Rudd has ever done. It was during lockdown, when Rishi was splashing the cash, furloughing workers and giving us 50 per cent off our meals out, that the then chancellors star really rose. A writer for Ham&High summed up life in lockdown as follows: Toilet cleaning and crushes on Rishi Sunak. Sometimes I just dont understand the middle classes.

What was all that Rishiphilia about? It wasnt just his ears and eyes, fetching as Im sure they are. It was because Sunak was Not Boris. Yes, he might have been Boriss chancellor, but he was, in the glazed-over eyes of the liberal media, the Counter-Boris, a lisping, deer-like good guy to that scruffy oaf put into power by people who didnt even go to Durham, never mind Oxford. He was studious, stiff, unlikely to get pissed at a dinner party, in contrast with the populist loon that the media elites judged Boris to be.

As one Guardian writer put it, he was a technocrat in an age of populism. If we were at school, Rishi would be the kid who knows the librarian by her first name and sings competently in chapel, said that Gentlemans Journal piece. These people love competence above all else. Hes a cosmopolitan technocrat, said Bloomberg. Hes Captain Sensible while Boris is blundering, one insider told The Times in 2020.

So the fact that Sunak has been prepping his leadership-challenge website Ready for Rishi for months isnt surprising. The media elite has been talking him up as an anti-Boris force, the man who could return at-sea Britain to the safe shores of technocracy, for ages. For me, it is precisely that he is the favoured candidate of the sensible ancien rgime that we the people only just tried to turf out of power that makes him the worst possible choice for PM.

Yes, the Sunak shine has come off in recent months. He was fined over Partygate, his crazily rich wife was found to have non-dom status, and Rishi was exposed as holding a US green card until just last year (cosmopolitan technocrat, indeed). But make no mistake, the Smart Set still fantasises that he can fix this populist-scarred nation. They still believe that the man once christened by the New Statesman as an intellectually nimble and open-minded technocrat can turn the tide on the madness of the Boris and Brexit years.

Lets be honest: they like him because hes tepid. Everything about him is tepid. Even the statement he made in support of Brexit in 2016 was dry. It pains me that I have reached a different conclusion to people I greatly respect get on with it! but outside the EU our businesses [will] thrive in exciting new markets, he said. Such passion! Its like someone watching the English Revolution in the 1640s and thinking, I hope this improves my sales of cabbages.

Absence of passion is the key selling point of Ready for Rishi, too. Sunak is clearly keen to put himself above those pesky culture wars. Hes made noises about respecting sex-based words like woman and mother, but fundamentally he wants to be the unity candidate, he says. So naturally hes won the backing of Grant Shapps, who just yesterday said Britain needs to focus on bread-and-butter issues, not woke issues. The Rishi set is all about draining the populism and feeling from politics and just getting the job done. Im yawning.

This is the opposite of what Britain needs right now. We dont need a head boy (Sunak has the smile of a head boy, of someone who is handy with a jug of orange squash, say his mad fans). No, we need a bruiser. Not for the hell of it, not to be contrarian, but because there are massive battles ahead. The fight for Brexit isnt over, the fight against woke must be waged (whatever Sunak and Shapps say), and the fight for a better, freer, wealthier way of life is only beginning. We need a Churchill, not a choir boy. Dont vote Sunak, however cute his ears are.

More here:

The head boy from hell - Spiked

Similarly, Trump saw through Russias gas ploy. Russian President Vladimir Putin saw such a strong strategic advantage from Nord Stream mark one gas pipeline that he undertook to build a second gas pipeline transporting the Russian fuel that countries like Germany needed to go green. Trump warned against it and, in 2019, signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helped build Nord Stream 2, on the basis that the pipeline posed a security risk to Europe. Again, events have proven him right and liberalisms idealists wrong.

This foresight should not be written off as the luck of the savant. Rather, it is a warning that the eternal sunshine of the liberal mind can be an inbuilt handicap. As Financial Times columnist Janan Ganesh wrote recently, It takes a cynicism about human nature, even a certain roughness, to comprehend the threat posed by the enemies of the West. Liberalism can lack this reptilian vigilance.

Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese products.Credit:AP

We will now never find out if a leader might have emerged who could have unmasked the autocrats and reset international relations while cocking his pinkie among his couth kind, but we can say that previous presidents, despite their sophisticatedly rare steaks and soaring rhetoric, did not.

Likewise, while Boris Johnson is now celebrated by liberals for the greening of Britain, it was not such a long time hence that he was the populist villain of Brexit. Brexit is still decried by the free-marketeers enamoured of the internationalist club of the European Union but, while it may not have been the most economically rational move, there is evidence that it has solved many social problems.

Who would have guessed that Brexit, which was driven by a sense that Britain had lost its sovereignty and with it control over its borders, would lead to a greater acceptance of immigration? Johnson perhaps? Because polls have found that, while immigration to Britain has increased since Brexit, people are no longer anxious about it. In fact, in most areas of life, British citizens now regard people born elsewhere who have moved to Britain as a net positive.

It seems that a spoonful of populism makes the liberal project possible. Or, in more direct terms, that liberalism is a set of academic ideas which need to be corrected by populism aka, the people.

Trump has now been democratically discarded and Johnson is trying to reinvent himself as a leading light of liberality. But as the new liberal leadership cohort extends NATO and once again congratulates itself on having solved history, or at least found the right side of it, leaders should privately ask themselves two crucial questions: what would a populist do in my position, and what will the next populism be sparked by.

The winners of democratic contests like to tell themselves that voters never get it wrong. In which case, they havent in recent history either.

Loading

The rest is here:

Liberalism is better with a dose of populist wisdom - Sydney Morning Herald

At the dawn of this century, the Sheila Dikshit-led Delhi government of the time took the bold decision of privatising the power distribution business in the national capital. A similar model was shaping up only in two other cities Ahmedabad and Surat. This made the Delhi model the largest and also the most politically sensitive.

TO READ THE FULL STORY, SUBSCRIBE NOW NOW AT JUST RS 249 A MONTH.

249

Select

1799

Select

Best Offer

1799

Select

150 /for 5 articles

VIEW ALL FAQs

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

First Published: Fri, July 01 2022. 19:36 IST

View original post here:

20 yrs of privatised Delhi discoms: Leap in tech but feet tied in populism - Business Standard

Moises Naim is a Venezuelan journalist. His book The end of power placed him among the top 100 influential global thought leaders by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute. He also served as editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine for 14 years.

Naim has a very interesting analysis of various so-called democratic countries which are gradually transforming into autocracies because of democratically elected populist leaders who consider themselves above the law. He is of the view that in democratic republics power is harder to acquire, very difficult to use, but easier to lose. The author points at fundamental flaws which in his opinion are responsible for this gradual erosion of democracy.

The first, in his opinion, is populism which more often than not creates wrong notions in the mind of a leader who becomes self-righteous, egoistic and disdainful of law and constitution. Such leaders discard collective wisdom, look down upon political opponents and present themselves as indispensable. Their hate speeches are full of venom, show disrespect for democratic norms and use foul language which gives birth to toxic environments. This according to the author, creates extreme polarization, damaging society.

The other factor which flouts democratic norms, disregards parliamentary values and ignores traditional parliamentary ethics is the dependence of a populist leader on blatant lies. This includes giving false hope to people, and making promises to achieve unattainable objectives. This confuses the general public which is unable to differentiate between the truth and a lie. This is how democracy starts sleepwalking towards autocracy, especially when populism of a leader transforms into a cult. The leader then starts thinking that s/he perhaps is the only politician on the domestic political landscape who can solve all issues without creating a national consensus. The author rightly concludes that populism is not at all an ideology. It only is a tactic to grab power.

Naim writes: They propagate lies that become articles of faith among their followers. They sell themselves as noble and pure champions of the people, fighting against corrupt and greedy elite .They defy any constraint on their power and launch frontal attacks on the institutions that sustain constitutional democracy, stacking the judiciary and the legislature and declaring war on the press.

We in Pakistan are facing such a situation in which credibility of democratic institutions is fast eroding, parliament has lost its significance and political issues are being negotiated. Political battles are being regarded as a jihad. It is true that many countries like the UK, Israel, Spain, Russia and even the US are in the grip of internal political polarization but in Pakistan, it has really shaken the fabric of our civil society and is putting the democratic dispensation in real danger. If you mislead people with attractive slogans, gate crash into the corridors of power, miserably fail to deliver, try to use state power target your political opponents, resultantly lose the majority and are finally ousted from government through a constitutional procedure, no one else except the leader is to be blamed.

Bloody fights in elections and refusal to accept results will in no way help the country. Blatant lies, fake news and poisonous propaganda on social media has further compounded the situation. As a result, unfortunately democracy is losing the fight.

There are of course many lessons for our political leadership both in and out of power. History is replete with examples when democratically elected leaders turned autocratic like Hitler.

Today we need to make our institutions more potent and strong based on the trichotomy of power principle to strengthen parliamentary democracy. Parties which take the law into their own hands, destroy property, block roads and fight the police instead of sitting in parliament do no service to the country and the democracy.

The writer is former chairman Senate Standing Committee on Defence Production.

View post:

Erosion of democracy - The News International