Category Archives: Populism

At first glance, Frances presidential election looks rather like a rerun of the 2017 contest. Most polls suggest that incumbent Emmanuel Macron will top Sundays first-round vote before facing, and defeating, Marine Le Pen in the April 24 runoff. In other words, 2022 will be the return leg of the previous electoral matchup between liberalism and nationalism. But beyond this superficial resemblance, the political landscape has profoundly changed since 2017.

Chief among these structural differences is that, as the mainstream has steadily shifted to the Right, the far right is stronger than ever. Before the first round, Le Pen is polling at similar levels to 2017, at around 20 percent. Yet, she fares much better in second-round polls. While she only took 33 percent in the 2017 runoff against Macron, her predicted score if she makes it this time is roughly 45 percent.

Furthermore, the major event that shook the 2022 campaign was the meteoric rise of another far-right candidate: ric Zemmour. While Le Pen has managed to maintain a lead over him, he initially threatened her chances, bringing her down from her hitherto comfortable place alongside Macron and far above all other candidates. Indeed, beyond its current divisions the latest iteration of an older divide between traditionalists and modernists, which I will explore in this and following articles the far right as a whole is showing remarkable electoral strength. Tellingly and somewhat chillingly regardless of their relative strength throughout the campaign, the combined voting intentions for Le Pen and Zemmour have remained steadily over 30 percent.

To better understand this situation, lets turn back to the political landscape in 2017, a tight election and unique moment in French political history. The traditional alternance, or exchange of power, between center-right and center-left, which had shaped France for the last three decades, seemed like a relic of the past, threatened by a rising tide of new political challengers.

On the Left, the discredit of the Socialist Party (PS) after Franois Hollandes presidency opened an unlikely path for Jean-Luc Mlenchon and the radical-left France Insoumise (LFI). On the Right, the conservative Les Rpublicains (LR) chose in Franois Fillon a hardliner who was weakened by a political-financial scandal involving his wife. Benefitting from the defeat and discredit of centrist candidates within these mainstream parties, former finance minister Macron filled the vacuum in the center by building a personalistic movement, En Marche, which promised renewal through a liberal politics beyond left and right.

Meanwhile, the Front National (FN) was progressively losing its pariah status. Since its founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, infamous for his politically incorrect and overtly antisemitic quips, left his place as party leader to his daughter in 2011, its communication had changed drastically. Indeed, Marine Le Pen placed the strategy of ddiabolisation (de-demonization) at the heart of her leadership. To normalize the partys image, she sought to distance the FN from its association with racism and antisemitism.

In practice, this meant adapting its discourse to make it more acceptable without fundamentally changing its program, and also excluding problematic party members who did not follow that new line. Burdened by her fathers embarrassing legacy in her first 2012 campaign, three years later she evicted him from the party he created after yet another revisionist declaration on the Holocaust. While Le Pen pre and his most faithful supporters cried betrayal, this exclusion was framed by the new FN leader as the ultimate proof of her commitment to ddiabolisation.

Simultaneously, Le Pen emphasized the personalistic dimension of her leadership, distancing herself even from her fathers divisive surname. Instead, she played along to the sexist trope of female politicians being defined by their first name, encouraging references to herself as simply Marine. This was most visible in her 2012 bid to coalesce smaller far-right candidates around her Rassemblement Bleu Marine (Navy-Blue Rally) playing on the polysemy of her first name, which also stands for navy blue. While this was criticized internally as a sign that the FN was becoming a dynastic party, Le Pen emphasized her femininity and ordinariness, to humanize her and soften her image.

Inspired by Donald Trumps unexpected breakthrough in 2016 and influenced by her then right-hand man, Florian Philippot, Le Pen fully embraced the populist style in her 2017 campaign. To be clear, here populism is not understood as inherently reactionary or grounded in any specific ideological content, like the nationalism with which it is too often conflated. Rather, following the work of Ernesto Laclau and Benjamin Moffitt, I define populism as a political style a way of articulating of ones discourse.

The populist repertoire is built around three clusters: (1) framing politics as a conflict between the people and a specific elite although the exact content of what is meant by either depends on the ideological content that it shapes; (2) transgressing political norms to make oneself and ones message appear more authentic and closer to the people; (3) performing a crisis narrative which requires urgent change. Stripped to its core, the populist style articulates a society in crisis where an elite is failing in its duty to represent and act on behalf of its people, and where radical change is embodied through the salutary intervention of a transgressive leader.

But the ideological content of Le Pens campaign had already changed compared to her 2012 bid. Le Pen continued a trend that her father had begun in his 2007 campaign by adding social edge to her economic patriotism; she notably promised tax rebates to the smallest companies as well as various benefits aimed at the poorest. Although it remained grounded in an ethnocentric nationalism that de facto excluded immigrants, Le Pen defended a form of welfare chauvinism aimed at convincing blue-collar workers.

On social issues, she also toned down the most conservative side of her program. She adopted a form of ambiguity on issues like the death penalty, abortion, and same-sex marriage by not taking an overt stance on them, which contrasted with her explicitly reactionary position in 2012. The flagship measure of abandoning the euro, which occupied a whole chapter in her 2012 program, was kept but rephrased less radically as a return to monetary sovereignty.

However, what most notably distinguished Le Pens 2017 bid from her previous campaign was its populist framing, with her nationalist agenda entirely recast as a struggle by the people against an unresponsive elite. From her campaigns motto, In the name of the people, to the antiestablishment rhetoric in her campaign advertisement, Le Pens campaign heavily played on this antagonism to develop the image of a relatable outsider that would defend the people by changing the status quo.

This was also accompanied by a shift away from her party and its tricolor flame logo. Unlike in previous campaigns, Le Pen chose not to use any of the symbols and imagery associated with her party. Instead, Le Pen made the transgressive choice of embracing a blue rose, itself representing the claim to go beyond left and right: blue is traditionally associated with conservatives in France, whereas the rose has historically been the emblem of the Socialist Party.

Understood in this light, populism provided a way for her to cover her exclusionary nationalism with a new coat of paint. Fighting to close the French nation from foreign immigrants and influences sounds backward-looking, and implies an exclusionary vision of the nation. But framing this as a matter of defending the French people against a political and intellectual elite that benefits from immigration and enables terrorism made it seem much more legitimate to far more people.

This new line furthermore provided a way for the FN to reach beyond the traditional core of far-right supporters by appealing to the large pool of habitual nonvoters disappointed by the traditional parties. In a nutshell, the populist style which she was far from the only candidate to mobilize in that election allowed her to modernize her ideology and close off room for accusations of xenophobia or racism a natural fit with her de-demonization strategy.

So, what has changed for Le Pen and the far right more widely in 2022? The first part of this answer lies in a backlash against her personalistic and populist line from within her own political camp.

Although Le Pens 2017 results were a record performance for her party, the end of her campaign was tainted by her catastrophic performance in the debate with Macron during the runoff. Although Le Pen had developed a reputation as a combative debater, in this case she reached a new level of aggression. Furthermore, since Macron extended the first part of the debate on economic issues as long as he could, Le Pen ended up looking unprepared and out of her depth. She did partly recover in the latter half of the debate on security, but never regained the upper ground with commentators widely framing her abundant use of irony as flippant. In a rare candid admission of error, Le Pen later acknowledged that this was a failed rendez-vous with the French people,

Inside her own camp, Le Pens performance was seen as the embodiment of two things. Firstly, on a personal level, it was framed as a demonstration that Le Pen lacked the professionalism and stature to be a credible contender for the presidency a criticism especially damning as it was even leveled by her own father. Secondly, her crushing defeat by Macron highlighted the limits of a strategy reliant on populism and de-demonization. Some in the party insisted that Le Pen had diluted her message so much that her campaign lacked ideological spine and lost part of its radical appeal or even accused her of having become too leftist because of her choice to include social measures and incorporate criticism of laisser-faire into her anti-elite rhetoric. For them, courting voters disappointed by left-wing politicians was a fools errand which could never lead to victory.

Proponents of this line argued that the only path to success was to explode the republican dam between mainstream conservatives and the far right. In other words, rather than the populist promise to go beyond Left and Right, the FN should pursue the union of the right wings by reconciling the mainstream-conservative LR with the FN to create a united family of patriots. During the 2017 campaign, Le Pen described such an aspiration as a fantasy, but her disappointing second-round performance merely fueled her critics argument.

This conflict between a traditionalist wing calling for a return to the ideological fundamentals of the Right and a modernist wing seeking mainstream acceptance is nearly as old as the far right in France. In one of the major historic disputes within the FN, Bruno Mgret a key figure responsible for modernizing the partys ideological doctrine openly clashed with Jean-Marie Le Pen in the late 1990s, claiming that his transgressive posturing would never lead to victory. Le Pen pres refusal to change and his exclusion of Mgret led many high-ranking members to leave the FN with him, including Marine Le Pens eldest sister, Marie-Caroline Le Pen.

Indeed, the Tours congress in 2011, which determined who would succeed the founding leader, saw a re-emergence of this divide. Although Marine Le Pen garnered more than two-thirds of the votes with her promise to modernize the party, she confronted her fathers heir apparent, Bruno Gollnisch, who defended a much more conservative program.

After her defeat in 2017, Le Pen made some concessions to her critics from the conservative wing, pushing advisor Florian Philippot to leave the FN in September 2017. Having the man most closely associated with the FNs populist turn quit its ranks could be seen as an attempt at re-centering her party. Yet, this was also a perfect opportunity for Le Pen to get rid of a polarizing rival who had become increasingly central to the party and also made him the scapegoat for the campaigns various missteps.

Moreover, it further solidified her existing iron grip over the party, slowly isolating those who disagreed too openly and surrounding herself with faithful lieutenants like Jordan Bardella, a twenty-six-year-old whose meteoric rise in the party was entirely owed to Marine Le Pen herself. His youth, polished rhetoric, and ease in TV appearances, made him the ideal face of a de-demonized party. After a successful trial run as head of the 2019 European election campaign, Bardella was even made temporary party leader while Le Pen was campaigning for president a sign of trust demonstrating his solidified place within her innermost circle.

Indeed, Philippots departure would remain the only major change in Le Pens strategy as she set her focus on 2022. She persevered in her attempts at softening and normalizing both her partys and her own image. The most visible illustration of this was the name change in June 2018, as the party abandoned the divisive and combative connotations of Front to become Rassemblement National (National Rally, RN), a word which was associated with an idea of inclusive gathering while being the continuation of the aforementioned Rassemblement Bleu Marine.

For her 2022 campaign, Le Pen even abandoned the blue color, which was not only associated with her name but also semiotically attached to the Right. Instead, she chose a vivid green to serve as a natural backdrop for an optimistic pose that could have been lifted straight out of a green partys campaign. Le Pen added more focus on her personal life, as could be seen in her increasingly frequent mentions to her passion for cat breeding.

Ideologically speaking, she further accentuated her de-demonization strategy by developing two complementary tactics: mainstreaming her program and accentuating the populist framing of her politics as a struggle for the people beyond the Left/Right cleavage. To do so, she first removed several of the most controversial measures in her 2017 program, most notably the departure from the European Union, exiting the Schengen Area or returning to a national currency.

Instead, she continued the superficial hybridization of her nationalist and conservative agenda with exogenous elements from apparently left-wing ideologies, a phenomenon that was already apparent in her 2017 campaign with the introduction of social undertones to her rhetoric. Among the newest additions for 2022, the concept of localism,theorized by Herv Juvin, provided a local counterpart to the notion of national preference while introducing a green twist to her program.

Le Pens strategic decision to double down on her normalizing strategy for the 2022 campaign unsurprisingly did little to satisfy party hardliners. Worse than that, her attempts at marginalizing the voices of her critics became increasingly obvious over the years leading to the next election. A major turning point happened in 2020 as Le Pen prevented many of the most prominent representatives of her internal opposition, including notably Gilbert Collard and Nicolas Bay, from being part of the commission nationale dinvestiture,the committee determining local candidates for future elections. The event, which some described as a purge, pushed Marion Marchal, Le Pens niece and the rising star of the conservative wing of the party, to take a stand in the media against her aunt.

Marchal, who used to go by Marchal-Le Pen until 2018, had made history as the youngest member of parliament in 2012. She then retired from electoral politics after the 2017 campaign to launch a private political science school with the purpose of training up cadres from the right, from all the strands of the right. As against the aim of electing Le Pen through what Bardella called a front populaire populiste opposed to liberal elites, Marchal became the most vehement advocate for a return to the strategy of the union of the right wings. This would mark a clear return to the left/right cleavage, with the RN contesting the leadership of the declining LR, the conservative party weakened by Macrons hostile takeover of the center-right. However, despite her protests against the marginalization of her allies within the RN, Marchal had chosen to bide her time and build her networks outside of party politics. Acknowledging the dominance of her aunts strategy within the RN, it seemed that Marchal was betting on Le Pens defeat in 2022, so that she could herself make a bid in 2027.

Indeed, although she asserted her control of her party in a less openly authoritarian manner than her father did, Marine Le Pen managed to quell most internal dissent without appearing overly rigid or controlling. In a remarkable parallel with her overall success in crafting a smoother image for her party without compromising on its nationalist radicalism, Le Pens strict leadership did not seem to affect the relatable persona she had constructed in the public eye. In both party and personal matters, Le Pen thus perfectly embodied an iron fist in a velvet glove.

However, the image of a party cohesively united behind the leader, which Le Pen had worked so hard to mold for the RNs presidential campaign, soon showed cracks with the causes of discord only temporarily silenced. Indeed, as internal challenges to Le Pen seemed doomed to fail, the perspective of a successful comeback from the traditionalist line unsurprisingly came from an outsider: ric Zemmour. A conservative pundit in the media eye, Zemmours voice in the far right mattered and he has always been a critic of Le Pen, both strategically and personally.

A few days after Le Pens defeat in the 2017 runoff, Zemmour targeted scathing criticisms toward her, describing her campaign as a complete debacle and comparing her to a reverse Midas that turned into lead all the gold she was touching. Today, the longtime journalist is challenging her hegemony over the far-right camp in France, as he mounts his own bid for the presidency. In a second article, I will discuss what the rise of Zemmour represents exploring its consequences for the future of the far right and of French politics more generally.

Read the rest here:

Marine Le Pen's Populist Image Is an Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove - Jacobin magazine

Weve been hearing for years about how the U.S. two major political parties have realigned on economic issues, and the new breed of MAGA Republicans arent like the old corporate Reaganite Republicans. Theyre populists. Ive even heard the claim that, however conservative they may be on social issues, their economic views approximate those of democratic socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Now, the House just passed a measure to cap the price of insulin at $35 a month. And yet the loudest MAGA-ites all voted against HR 6833the Affordable Insulin Now Act. Take a look at the roll call. Marjorie Taylor Greene voted nay. Madison Cawthorn and Lauren Boebert? Nay, nay. Paul Gosar, Louie Gohmert, and Matt Gaetz? Nay, nay, and nay.

You can argue that politicians of many different ideological hues are often corrupt (or simply insincere) and fail to live up to their crowd-pleasing rhetoric. And thats true. But these are supposed to be the hardest corethe GOPs equivalent of Bernie or the Squad. And they couldnt even vote to throw the tiniest bone to suffering people at the expense of corporate profits. (37.3 million Americans, or one in every 10 Americans, has diabetes, according to the CDC.)

The idea that the price of insulin is just being cappedrather than made free to those who need itsays depressing things about the level of resistance to more meaningful reform among our political elites. Medicare for All is supported by well over half of the American publicand a public option in healthcare is backed by an even bigger majority. The insulin issue is a perfect demonstration of why these proposals resonate with so many people.

Try to imagine this happening in other scenarios.

Imagine that before the police investigated death threats from a stalker, you had to pay a fee at the Police Departments reception desk. Or that when you stood on your front lawn watching your house burn down, the local fire captain approached you with a portable card reader so you could swipe or tap your debit card before he let his men take out their hoses and get to work. Would you be concerned with making these services more affordableor would you regard the very idea that they would be treated as commodities as a moral abomination?

Its a ludicrously tiny infringement on the Divine Right of Corporations to make as much money as all possible, at the expense of suffering people. That was too much for the MAGA populists.

You cant be denied entrance to an emergency room because of your inability to pay. (Youll just be bankrupted by the bill if you live.) You can, however, be denied life-saving insulin.

As of last August, there were 3,600 campaigns on GoFundMe that mentioned diabetes or insulin. In one disturbing case that went viral a couple of years ago, Shane Patrick Boyle died after falling $50 short in his GoFundMe effort to raise $750 to buy a month of insulin. He succumbed to diabetic ketoacidosis while rationing his last vial of insulin, which made his blood acidic. Its a horrendously painful way to die.

As conservatives never tire of pointing out, someone has to pay for free services. Yet when it comes to services ranging from fire protection to K-12 public schools, the moral calculation is its better for everyone to pay for them through progressive taxation. That means no one has to think about money when they call 9-1-1 or enroll their child in school. This concept has become so baked into how we understand what it is to live in a civilized society, that the very thought of charging for these things at the point of service sounds like the stuff of dystopian science fiction.

If that calculation should be applied to anything, it should be medicine. Charging a diabetic for their insulin is like charging someone on a future colony on the moon for their months supply of breathable air.

Given all that, its pathetic that the best President Joe Biden can do is push for a limit on how much people are shaken down for the privilege of continuing to draw breath. And it was telling that in the same State of the Union speech where he introduced the idea, he announced that new anti-viral treatments for COVID were going to be offered for free. COVID is a unique crisis and, thus, centrists are willing to situationally support Medicare for All. The 100,000 people who die every year of diabetes, though? That just feels like business as usual.

It's also worth noting that the Affordable Insulin Now Act wouldnt have saved Shane Patrick Boyle, who lost his benefits because hed moved across state lines to care for his ailing mother. It also wouldnt help many of the thousands of people currently raising money to pay for their insulinwho dont have health insurance at all. The only thing the Act would do is stop insurers from passing on more $35 a month of the cost to diabetics.

And even that was too much for the allegedly populist and anti-corporate MAGA wing of the GOP. Its a ludicrously tiny infringement on the Divine Right of Corporations to make as much money as all possible, at the expense of suffering people. That was too much for the MAGA populists.

If you can see this shameful episode and still believe that economic populism exists in any meaningful way on the American Right, I have a whole series of bridges to sell you.

See the article here:

Republicans Just Proved 'Right Wing Populism' Is a Con Job - The Daily Beast

Indias top bureaucrats are worried about political parties resorting to competitive populism and announcing fiscally unsustainable schemes to win votes in state elections. Reports suggest that they voiced these concerns to the Prime Minister in a meeting on April 2.

We did not need secretaries of the government of India to highlight the growing tendency towards competitive populism in India. Political parties are increasingly promising all sorts of things to voters from restoration of the old pension scheme for government employees to cash and two-wheelers for students who enter or finish college and free pilgrimage to senior citizens.

Is this new wave of competitive populism going to lead to a fiscal disaster in the country? Who exactly is responsible for this kind of behaviour? And can a political consensus be built to prevent such spending by state governments?

How big a problem is competitive populism in India?

This is not an easy question to answer. A state can spend money on providing free food over and above what the Public Distribution System (PDS) entitlements provide for, or it can spend money giving scooters to students who have entered college. There are enough examples of political parties making such promises in India.

And there is bipartisan support for this kind of politics. For example, both the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI (M) led government in Kerala and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Uttar Pradesh banked heavily on the free ration scheme in the elections held in 2021 and 2022. The Congress accused the BJP of copying its demand of giving free scooters to women students in the recently held Uttar Pradesh elections.

While a fiscal hawk will scoff at both kinds of spending, especially if the state is hard-pressed for resources, the actual economic impact of such programmes is likely to be quite different. Additional food entitlements are likely to generate tailwinds for aggregate demand as the recipient households will be able to spend the money they would have had to spend on food on other items. Such a scheme is also targeted towards the most needy. The same cannot be said about gifting scooters to students. That money would have had a better use somewhere else. Similarly, farm loan waivers are a sub-optimal use of money towards throwing palliatives at what is a structural problem and often at the cost of long-term spending in agriculture.

This qualitative difference in the effect of various populist schemes also underlines the pitfalls of reading too much into headline numbers on categories such as social service spending by state governments. Building a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative database of what and where exactly state governments are spending on populist schemes, and how it is affecting the macroeconomy and society is a project which can keep even a large think tank busy for the next couple of years.

What drives this political behaviour?

The lack of clarity on the second question is the biggest reason why some of these schemes have attracted economists who use randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to understand policy decisions and their impact in India.

While the RCT method has been duly recognised with a Nobel Prize to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer in 2019, there is an illustrious list of economists who have spoken against the dangers of relying too much on RCTs to make large policy decisions. The short point is, economists, on their own, are unlikely to arrive at an agreement on the impact or efficacy of such policies.

This brings us to the question of why are politicians doing this? The clichd answer that they do not care about fiscal prudence will not suffice, because state governments have to adhere to a more stringent fiscal norm than the Centre in India. When read with the fact that states have been left with very little tax sovereignty after the roll-out of Goods and Services Tax (GST), this is an even more intriguing question.

At the risk of oversimplification, one can say that the best answer to this question was given by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a campaign speech during the recently held Uttar Pradesh elections. Speaking at a rally on February 20, Modi referred to a social media video, where an old woman was pledging loyalty to the BJP because she had tasted Modis salt (ration) and therefore wont ditch him. While this can sound like usual election rhetoric to some, political scientists have been arguing that the BJP has been making a concerted effort to centralise welfare delivery which also leads to greater attribution for giving these benefits to none other than the Prime Minister.

This extraordinary centralisation of power, not just institutionally but also within the BJP, implies that the voter is increasingly likely to attribute (that is, give credit for) the delivery of economic benefits to Modi rather than the state-level leader. This contrasts with much of the 2000s, where, after a spate of fiscal decentralisation, several state-level leaders built their reputations on the ability to deliver benefits Neelanjan Sircar, a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research argued in a March 2021 Economic and Political Weekly article.

While Sircar argues that this process has also weakened the welfare credentials of chief ministers from the BJP and its allies too, and they will most likely look to establish their credentials not in welfare delivery but in Hindu mobilisation, it is not surprising that the anti-BJP parties have been trying to outdo the BJP by promising more populist schemes. Promises such as restoration of old pensions scheme and cash transfers by anti-BJP parties need to be seen in this light.

As is obvious, competitive populism by regional political forces is a last-ditch attempt to push back against the BJP which is the new national political hegemon in India. To meet such challenges, the BJP also indulges in competitive populism at the level of states, not to speak to decisions such as implementing PM-Kisan, which gives 6,000 to every farmer in India, from the Centre a decision taken after the BJP lost crucial state elections just before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

Realpolitik suggests that regional parties are unlikely to prioritise long-term economic health over political survival. And that perhaps answers the third question.

Every Friday, HTs data and political economy editor, Roshan Kishore, combines his commitment to data and passion for qualitative analysis in a column for HT Premium, Terms of Trade. With a focus on one big number and one big issue, he will go behind the headlines to ask a question and address political economy issues and social puzzles facing contemporary India.

The views expressed are personal

See the original post:

Terms of Trade | What drives competitive populism in India? - Hindustan Times

Vichardhara kya hai tumhari(What is your ideology?)I had askedto a group of 18-year-old boysthatI met at Jaunpur during my recent election travel. Theyreplied,woh kaun dekhta haihum toh vote Modi-Yogi ko denge.Its not like they didnt know what the word ideology meant, theydid muddle about Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra;its just that they dont need to apply any ideology to shape their political musings. Rather for them,their attachment to politics is moulded by their personal instinctsand liking to the leader, Modi ji, and their way of politicking.

Something similar had happened at a family functioninmy mothers village in Rajasthan. Election talks of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab had stirred the conversation to Rajasthanassemblyelections of 2023.Politics ofRajasthanhas always been dominated by eithertheCongress ortheBJP. So, it was a little shocking when some of the cousins mentioned AAP as their preference. When I inquiredwhy,they had no definite answer. One said bahut ho gaya Vasundhra aur Gehlot,Rajasthan needs change while for the other,it was the pull of Arvind Kejriwal and his clean image.

Par haan desh ke liye, hamesha Modi ji, I was reminded as a matter of fact, by my cousins, in case I took them as anti-Modi supporters.

Also read: Delhi can finally breathe clean air in winterif Punjabs new AAP govt can convince farmers

The public discourse has become devoid of the nuances that once used to fascinateand gripthe ideological narrative. The public of today, particularly the young and the restless, have lost patience and their desire is for instant politics, like instant noodles. As suchthe political behavior of the voter has undergone a change. Gone are the days when over cups of tea andcharcha,election manifestos would be discussed. Gone are the days when loyalty to a party would be based on ideology, policiesand performance. Inthetime of WhatsApp and social media,nobody wants to read those boring manifestoswith big ideas anymore. Their demand is for instant benefits, for freebies. They want snappy videos of castigation, of politicians of other parties being presented in poor demeaning light.

People wanta nayakto relate to, amahanayakwho adds zing to the narrative, andakhalnayakfor entertainment and sneering.

HaveIndias traditional ideological clashes faded out in these newer times? Have weenteredthe post-ideological times? Or is the new -ism of New Indiapopulism?

Populism hasbarely everbeenconsideredorused as an alternative to ideology to understand the phenomena of Narendra Modi and his politics.When Aatish Taseer wrote an article in theTime Magazinein 2019 Of the great democracies to fall to populism, India was the firsthe had faced the wrath of the Modi Sarkar.

In 2004, a young Dutch political scientist named Cas Mudde publishedThe Populist Zeitgeist, a paper that proposed a new and concise definition of populism. He defines populism firstasthe idea where society is separated into two groups,at odds with one another the pure people, understood to be fundamentally good and the corrupt elite, understood to be fundamentally corrupt and out of touch with everyday life.As per the second definition,populists believe that politics should be an expression of the general will a set of desires presumed to be shared as common sense by all ordinary people.

If weapplythis theory tounderstandthe newer politicaldiscoursethat has been shaping India, apicture emerges.

In 2014,Narendra Modi made the Prime Ministerial appeal as a humble candidate with no strings attached, having an ordinary background with rootsina poor family. Proclaiming himself aschaiwala,kaamdaar, and achowkidaar(in 2019),Modi tapped into the sentiments of thepeople. He launched attacks on the Congress, saying they are a party ofnaamdaarswho were born with a silver spoon in their mouth.Dynasticpolitics thus became a depraved term. So high was the rhetoric that a narrative was set which was emotional in its political toneand excitingin the rhetoric, thereby giving Modi his first thumping win in 2014. A narrativethathas beenrepeatedly put to usein multipleassembly electionssince then. And five years later, in 2019,it became onlylarger, encompassing the expression of the general will.

Today,the moodis at its zenith,incessantly being cultivated, of Hindus being persecuted in their own land, and becoming more righteous postThe Kashmir Files. Narendra Modi (along with Yogi Adityanath) has imbued into the conscience of the people that if there is anybody who can keep India safe from invaders (Pakistan) it is them. Adding to it the belief of the parent organisation of making India a Hindu Rashtra, Narendra Modi has invincibly become the common sense of the people.

Also read: BJP is no longer just a Brahmin-Bania-Zamindar party. UPs labarthis show why

But its not just Modi, Arvind Kejriwaltoois fast becoming aformidablecontenderin national politics. Today,Kejriwal has a following in Rajasthan where his party has no visibility, where the local journalists claim that it will take another election (maybe by 2028) to establish ground in the mind and heart of Rajasthan.Butthe mood is already brewing forhim.

Kejriwals AAP is a classic political example of the post-ideological times. A party which is devoid of ideology or political leanings, minus any caste, creed or identity politics, yet has managed to fill the vacuum of the other alternative. To establishhimselfin politics,Kejriwalclung to the ideas and ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, donning thetopiofaam aadmi. But when the mood changed, Gandhi was replaced by Bhagat Singh and withtopicame the recitation ofHanuman Chalisa. Swaying with the time,Kejriwal filled the dots of not becoming an -ism of any traditional ideology artfully. He offers free electricity and employment to counter Modisfree ration, he takes upon corruption to counter Modis parivarvaadattackand to counter the Gujarat Model,Kejriwal has developed a Delhi Model thus sweeping the state of Punjab.

AAP, akin to BJP of Modi, has become a political party of newer times, built for a crowd that jiggles and thrives on boisterous cult personalities.

Along with job, money, security,jantaalso craves forflamboyanceand sloganeering like Bulldozer Baba,Modi haitomumkin hai, double-engine sarkar. It is aboutYogibulldozerbaba vs AkhileshbhaiyaYadav, NarendrahopeModi vs RahulPappuGandhi.

Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal, both, in some ways have become the icons in this post-ideological populism movement, one that consistently promises to channel the unified will of the people, and by doing so undercuts the self-serving schemes of the elite establishment. Maude,however,clears to say that populism is not a fully formed political ideology like socialism or liberalism rather it is a thin ideology.

The sheer defeat of Congress and the smaller regional parties in the recently concluded assembly elections have made them irrelevant to the politics of newer times.Congress leaderShashi Tharoorwroteina national magazine, claimingCongress is essential for India and how it can be revived.He explainsthe ideology ofthe party, reminding of the past, secularism,and theeconomic prosperity India achieved underthe party. But he forgetsthatthe newer generation does not care. For them, the traditional ideologies have been sidelined with a simplistic narrative of Left is bad, Right is good,one that has become the pragmatic reasoning.

In New India,the concept of development, a commitment towards nation building upon ideology, is not finding space in the instant moodand political behaviorof the new generation. Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal, followed by Mamata Banerjee, KCR, Jagan Reddy, all are speaking a language directed to an audience that wants no attachment to inclinationsor beliefs.

Populismis here to stay, cementing robustly and perhaps becomingtheideology of New India.

Shruti Vyas is a journalist based in New Delhi. She writes on politics, international relations and current affairs. Views are personal.

(Edited by Anurag Chaubey)

Originally posted here:

Indians bored with politics of ideology. Populism speaksfrom Modi to Kejriwal - ThePrint

What is the link between corruption, anti-corruption campaigns, and the rise of populism? What conditions create an opening for autocratic-leaning, populist leaders to challenge democratic systems? In a timely discussion, expert guests will explore the challenges that corruption and populism pose to good governance and democracy. WorldCanvass will take place from 5:30-7 p.m. (CDT), March 31, at MERGE, 136 South Dubuque Street, Iowa City, IA.We invite you to come at 5 p.m. and join us for a pre-show catered reception.

You may attend in person or virtually,please register here.

This is the lead-off event of a three-day symposium, Corruption, the Rise of Populism, and the Future of Democracy (March 31-April 2), developed by faculty in the Department of Political Science with support from a Major Projects grant from International Programs. Major Projects funding is provided by the Stanley-University of Iowa Foundation Support Organization. All events are free and open to the public.

To read more information about the program and speakers, please visit https://bit.ly/Mar31-Schedule

Following the live event, the video recording of WorldCanvass will be available on the International Programs website and on YouTube. In addition, audio podcasts of all WorldCanvass programs can be found on iTunes and the Public Radio Exchange (PRX). University of Iowa International Programs produces the series in partnership with MERGE, 136 South Dubuque Street. Audio production is provided by Kyle Marxen.

Link:

WorldCanvass - Corruption, Populism, and Democracy | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion | The University of Iowa - Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Pakistan launched its first-ever National Security Policy (NSP) earlier this year, which purports to be citizen-centric and claims that the country changed its geostrategic policy into geoeconomics. The document of the NSP explicitly states that Pakistan will build its relations with all nations based on mutual gains and economic interests without being part of any bloc politics. The agenda and manoeuvring of the NSP based on human security and national interests is impressive, but actions on the ground are different.

The prime minister of Pakistan is continuously criticising the USA and the West on past events and opining that the West used Pakistan to clean the mess in Afghanistan. Moreover, he has also harshly rebuked the USA for drone attacks in Pakistan.

After the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, the regional dynamics of politics are altered, and the US interests have shifted from the Middle East to the Pacific Ocean. And now America wants to contain China in the South China Sea and to stop China as a new emerging superpower. For this the US policymakers prefer India over Pakistan to promote their interests in the region. For Pakistan, it is difficult to balance relations between two big giants but not impossible. Pakistan has already cooperative and close relations with China, while the US and Pakistan are old economic partners. And Pakistan was an ally of Washington in the Cold War and the War on Terror.

To establish ties with the US based on a win-win game, Pakistan needs diplomatic efforts to boost relations based on an understanding of mutual interests. Already the US is our largest trade partner, to which we export goods worth $4 billion per year, while we import goods from the US worth $2.5 billion a year.

The quick withdrawal of the US forces from our neighboring country without a political solution created security threats for Pakistan. The situation is worsened when the US blames Pakistan for its failures in Afghanistan. BUt Pakistans prime minister alleges that the US wanted to remain in the region and sought help from Pakistan for providing military bases, to which he claims to have replied with the now notable phrase, Absolutely not. This approach has created uncertainty and distrust on both sides, affecting bilateral relations.

The necessity of the hour is to stop populist rhetoric from the Prime Minister of Pakistan, while the US has to adopt a policy of non-interference and mutually beneficial ties.

Intentions as laid out in the National Security Policy document are all about remaining neutral to maximise the pursuit of national interests. But on the ground, open denunciation of the US and the West will not work if we want to achieve the goals laid out in the NSP. Diplomacy has some norms and values. If Pakistan has resentments and grievances with the USA or the West, it should use a diplomatic platform to address the issues.

Our economic condition and overall strategic situation do not permit populist rhetoric from our side.

Go here to read the rest:

Anti-Western Populism By The Prime Minister Is Not Compatible With The National Security Policy Document - The Friday Times

Marina Zaloznaya| Special to the Iowa City Press-Citizen

These days, corruption is a buzzword in political speeches, popular protests, yellow press and dinner table conversations around the world.

Sensational cases that involve large sums of money, sexand political power make for tantalizing stories, garnering substantial public attention. But corruption is by no means an exclusive domain of the rich and powerful. According to Transparency International, a staggering 1.6 billion people worldwide routinely pay petty bribes, extend in-kind favors, and pull strings to obtain desired goods and services in the public sector.

Corruption is as harmful as it is pervasive. No matter how minor, abuses of power for private gain disproportionately tax the poor, undermine meritocracy in the government, and inhibit free market competition. In the long term, these processes deepen social inequality and eat away at democratic institutions.

The unfairness at heart of corruption makes it intuitively repulsive to people across different cultures. This powerful moral charge has turned corruption into an effective call to arms for citizens dissatisfied with their governments in countries around the globe.

From the Arab Spring in the Middle East to the Occupy Movement in North America and Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe, grassroots anti-corruption protests have broken out in all regions of the world, overturning some non-democratic regimes and threatening many others.

Yet, despite the initial enthusiasm of the international community about this wave of uprisings, the anti-corruption surge had an unexpected effect of helping autocratic-leaning populist politicians ascend to power and hold on to offices that they already occupied. In countries as diverse as Brazil, Hungary, Turkey, Russia, the United States and the Philippines, right-leaning populist strongmen have positioned themselves as outsiders to the thoroughly corrupted political establishments. Many were, in fact, propelled to power by loud promises of draining the swamp or reducing corruption within the political systems of their respective states.

Yet, once in office, many of these very leaders turned to corruption as the primary mode of governing. To name just a few examples, informal distribution of public jobs, goodsand services in exchange for continued support at the polls, widely known as patronage, has been common in Argentina and Colombia; the sale of political decision-making to big business, or state capture, has shaken up South Africa; while the systematic blurring of boundaries between the public and private domains leading to spectacular enrichment of the elites has outraged many in the United States.

Some authoritarian-leaning leaders have also used the pretense of fighting corruption the initiatives that tend to be highly popular among ordinary citizens to further consolidate their hold on power.

For instance, recent governmental anti-corruption campaigns in Russia and China are widely recognized as subversive. Not only have they selectively targeted regime critics on manufactured and trumped-up charges of corruption, but they also created a faade for the likes of Xi and Putin to further diminish citizens civic freedoms and tighten state controls and surveillance. Ironically, then, popular disgruntlement with corruption has brought to power and sustained governments that are, themselves, deeply corrupt.

This brief discussion illustrates the enormous complexity of the relationship between the two phenomena causing current democratic backsliding worldwide corruption and populism.

To address this widely misunderstood relationship, and to foster an open dialogue about the challenges that corruption and populism pose to good governance and democracy, the symposium "On Corruption, The Rise of Populism, and Future of Democracy" (to be held at the University of Iowa on Friday and Saturday), will bring together leading corruption and anti-corruption scholars from across disciplines and geographic areas. The symposium is open to the public.

The opening event of the symposium, sponsored by UI International Programs, will be a free, public WorldCanvass discussion from 5:30-7:30 p.m.Thursdayat MERGE in downtown Iowa City. A number of highly regarded scholars will join me and WorldCanvass host Joan Kjaer to explore corruption, populismand the future of democracy a conversation that could not be more relevant at this moment in history. Please join us.

For more information, visit: https://international.uiowa.edu/worldcanvass-corruption-populism-and-democracy

Marina Zaloznaya is an associate professor of sociology and political science at the University of Iowa.

Read more:

Opinion: Corruption eats away at democratic institutions around the world Corruption, Populism, and the Future of Democracy - Iowa City Press-Citizen

AAP seems keen to deliver on the promises in Punjab and promote its model of governance

AAP seems keen to deliver on the promises in Punjab and promote its model of governance

The Aam Aadmi Partys spectacular win in the recent Punjab Assembly polls shows that it has successfully crafted a new dynamic in State politics. In its election campaign, AAP exhorted voters to give the party a chance and allow it to replicate the Delhi model of governance, where it is in power. It offered several freebies against the backdrop of the States staggering debt of around 3.5 lakh crore. Will AAP deliver on its promises, and can populist politics help the party grow at the national level, in the run-up to the 2024 general election? In a conversation moderated by Vikas Vasudeva, Pramod Kumar and Ronki Ram weigh in on the challenges ahead for AAP and similar parties. Pramod Kumar is Director at the Institute of Development and Communication, Chandigarh and Ronki Ram is Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chair Professor of Political Science in Punjab University, Chandigarh

Pramod Kumar: First, we have to understand how AAP scored such a massive win in Punjab, and it is not merely because they promised freebies. To my mind, it is a three-layered phenomenon. The first layer of AAPs success in Punjab is that they didnt locate themselves on the fault lines of caste, religion or region. It largely followed a catch all approach, whereas the other parties positioned themselves on one or the other fault lines; for example, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) largely located itself with the rural peasantry and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with urban Hindus and the Congress, isolated from all the fault lines, tried to strike a chord with the Dalits. These traditional parties competed with each other and branded the other as either drug mafia, or sand mafia, much to the comfort of AAP. AAP presented itself as an honest new party, which could be trusted on the basis of its performance in Delhi. Then the branding of AAP as a trustworthy paternalistic caretaker party, through promises of free education, health, free electricity up to 300 units to each household, and 1,000 monthly stipend to women resonated with the voter. Lastly, in this exercise of populism politics, it has emerged as a new Congress to compete with the BJP and is also poised to target States like Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan, currently all bipolar party States. Their focus is now on these States. The whole politics of AAP appears focussed on replacing the Congress and competing with the BJP to emerge as an alternative at a national level. The partys strategy has changed as it is moving from the local towards the national in comparison to 2014, when the party contested the national elections first, and then tried to enter into States.

Ronki Ram: To my mind, in Punjab, AAP has entered not just because of freebies. The people of Punjab were definitely not happy with the leadership of mainstream political parties. If AAP is able to establish itself with good governance in Punjab, its emergence cant be denied. Because the gap between elections in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh after Punjab is small, AAP would want to deliver on the promises in Punjab and present its model of governance which would push the party towards becoming a national entity as a political force. Against this backdrop maybe the anti-incumbency factor in Haryana and Himachal would work against the Congress party, which in turn, could give a new shape to politics with the possibility of AAP emerging as a visible force.

Pramod Kumar: To my mind, in the new language and grammar of politics, the Delhi Durbar somehow got either overshadowed or blurred. When people used to think of Delhi Durbar, they used to think that the interests, the rights, and the justice of the region blurred, because of the intervention of the controlling parties from Delhi. But in the recent elections, AAP presenting itself as a party from Punjab to deliver justice to people and liberate them from the traditional parties, showed a reverse role of the Delhi Durbar. I think that the historical or traditional way of looking at politics may have to change now and, as political scientists or students of politics, we have to rethink the new language emerging at the grass-roots level. How AAP places itself with regional aspirations for example, river water dispute, is a very crucial issue. How AAP being in power in Delhi, and also aspiring to be in power in Haryana and Himachal will be able to reconcile the claims of Punjab vis-a-vis Haryana and Himachal will be a contentious issue. Also, this will provide space for the re-emergence of regional parties, mainly the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD). The whole notion of Punjab was to have a Sikh State in mind and this will be a challenge for AAP. If AAP fails to tackle these issues or fails to answer the regional aspirations of the State, it might provide space to SAD to re-establish itself in this domain.

Ronki Ram: Bhagwant Mann, the Chief Minister of Punjab, before taking the oath of office clearly said that they would be taking guidance from the Delhi government. He stated that it would be a two-way process, they would take guidance from Arvind Kejriwals government and would also provide some suggestions from the State. In the near future, AAP will try to answer the federal-related questions of both the government in Punjab and the AAP government in Delhi. The party would be in a better place, to showcase two States working together in cooperative federalism. So here we need a new language and new grammar altogether, to understand New Delhi versus Punjab. I think people will wait and see what the new government will do; they are not going to buy the idea that outsiders are ruling the State. People want the government to resolve the real issues.

Pramod Kumar: I think a good governance model is now a demonetised currency because a number of elections have been won on this plank. The more digital you become and provide efficiency in services, other issues will arise, which calls for moving away from delivery of services to income redistribution, allowing greater access for the marginalised populations and to integrate them into the economy. I think that the challenge will be bigger because the moment you achieve this, you face bigger challenges. AAP avoided the basic fault lines in Punjab and didnt even mention certain crucial issues like national security, which are very important especially when it comes to having a relationship with Pakistan. Punjab has not been able to take full advantage of the trade between different States in India. At some stage, the party will have to face these issues as people in Punjab would want peace with Pakistan and open trade with the neighbouring country. If AAP supports this, it may mean making the party slightly unpopular in Gujarat and other States. The other issue is the agrarian crisis; there is a stagnation in agriculture. On the issues surrounding federalism, the party will have to evolve and become the main player in cooperative federalism, to draw maximum advantage from the Centre. Finally to grow nationally, AAP will have to face these challenges.

Ronki Ram: We need to study who AAP considers as its constituency its the people plying auto-rickshaws, rickshaws, whose children study in government schools. Then there are the women and marginalised people. For these people what matters the most is employment opportunities, better governance, for example ease in getting domicile certificates etc., from government offices.

Are Pakistan and India going to fight? These issues do not matter much to ordinary people. And AAP knows this very well, and its worked on its strengths in raising local issues, which were people-centric. Before the recent polls, did you find any AAP leader talking about drones coming to Punjab from the Pakistan side. They focused on extending promises of providing 300 units of free electricity, providing better schools, health services etc., and said they will work towards fulfilling these promises. It is not their strategy to get lost in big issues.

Ronki Ram: This is the litmus test for the strength, performance, and capacity of the new government. It was not only AAP which raised the pitch surrounding freebies; other political parties also made promises. It all depends on the management of resources. This is a hard task; how to build your treasury, how to build your strength.

Pramod Kumar: Punjab has a history of delivering on good governance. So, I think AAP may not have to do much work on that front.

The infrastructure and institutions are in place; AAP has to only restructure them, re-brand them and the fact is that the party is very good at branding. It can brand the work and market it. In fact, the traditional parties of Punjab were not good at branding and marketing themselves. I think AAP will be able to market itself well and this will be to the partys advantage. AAP will maximise this advantage and Punjab will be seen to be performing well until the day that elections in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat are held.

Ronki Ram: Every State, every society is different; the ground realities are different. If similar conditions as those prevailing in Punjab are present in other States, and credible governance is provided, then the answer is, yes. Also one must examine the extent to which political parties stand discredited in States. The Congress certainly stands discredited in most States. But if you see SAD, it helmed the government consecutively for two terms. The point is you cant take this as a model and try and plant it everywhere. The same Punjab, which made the Aam Aadmi Party visible at the national level in the 2014 general elections, did not give them the mandate in the 2017 Assembly polls. So, there are lessons to be learnt.

Ronki Ram is Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chair Professor of Political Science in Punjab University, Chandigarh; Pramod Kumar is Director at the Institute of Development and Communication, Chandigarh

Read more:

Can a party grow nationally on a populist plank? - The Hindu

But in every other theater of the world, his thesis looked relatively dubious. American power didnt seem to be obviously declining. China was integrating with the Western world and liberalizing to some degree, not charting its own civilizational course. Russia in Putins first term seemed to aspire to alliances with America and Europe and to a certain kind of democratic normalcy. In India the forces of Hindu nationalism werent ascendant yet. And even in the Muslim world, there were repeated moments, from the Green Movement in Iran to the Arab Spring, that seemed to promise 1989-style democratic revolutions followed by convergence with the West.

The first years of the 21st century, in other words, provided a fair amount of evidence for the universal appeal of Western capitalism, liberalism and democracy, with outright opposition to those values confined to the margins Islamists, far-left critics of globalization, the government of North Korea.

The last decade, on the other hand, has made Huntingtons predictions of civilizational divergence look much more prescient. It isnt just that American power has obviously declined relative to our rivals and competitors, or that our post-9/11 efforts to spread Western values by force of arms so often came to grief. The specific divergences between the worlds major powers have also followed, in general ways, the civilizational patterns Huntington sketched out.

Chinas one-party meritocracy, Putins uncrowned czardom, the post-Arab Spring triumph of dictatorship and monarchy over religious populism in the Middle East, the Hindutva populism transforming Indian democracy these arent just all indistinguishable forms of autocracy, but culturally distinctive developments that fit well with Huntingtons typology, his assumption that specific civilizational inheritances would manifest themselves as Western power diminishes, as American might recedes.

And then, just as tellingly, the region where this recent divergence has been weaker, the post-Cold War wave of democratization more resilient, is Latin America, about which Huntington acknowledged some uncertainty whether it deserved its own civilizational category, or whether it essentially belonged with the United States and Western Europe. (He chose the former; the latter seems more plausible today.)

Then what about Huntingtons specific predictions about Ukraine, raised by Roy and Caldwell in critique? Well, there he did get something wrong: Though he accurately foresaw internal Ukrainian divisions, the split between the Orthodox and Russian-speaking east and the more Catholic and Western-leaning west, his assumption that civilizational alignments would trump national ones hasnt been borne out in Putins war, in which eastern Ukraine has resisted Russia fiercely.

That example fits a larger pattern: None of the emerging non-Western great powers have yet built grand alliances based on civilizational affinities, meaning that the third of the four big Huntingtonian predictions looks like the weakest one today. He imagined, for instance, that a rising China might be able to peacefully integrate Taiwan and maybe even draw Japan into its sphere of influence; that scenario seems highly unlikely at the moment. Instead, wherever smaller countries are somehow torn, in his language, between some other civilization and the liberal West, they usually prefer an American alliance to an alignment with Moscow or Beijing.

See the original post here:

Opinion | Yes, There Is a Clash of Civilizations - The New York Times

This article appears in the April 2022 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here.

Part of their economy is picking pecans off the ground. Old people pick pecans from under trees, Lucas Kunce explains to me as we turn onto Braggadocio Road. Its his third trip to Hayti Heights, a 537-person town in the cotton country of southeastern Missouri, and Kunce, a candidate for U.S. Senate, knows his way around.

He met Mayor Catrina Robinson last year, and drove out to attend a town fundraiser. They were just sitting down to Polish sausage and bratwurst when Robinson said she had to step away. Kunce tagged along.

Five times a day, Robinson drives around a circuit of four pumps that push sewage from one end of town to the other. Since she took office in 2019, only one pump has been working. To get wastewater moving, she uses hand-powered gas generators that work like lawnmower engines: You fill the tank with gas, pull the chain, and wait for the sewage to flow.

I swear to God, it was like I was in Iraq again, says Kunce, a veteran of two wars who still serves in the Marine Corps Reserve. When Id drive around on missions in Iraq, Id see all these gas-powered pumps all over the place, moving irrigation water, moving sewage. People would go out and crank them. It was just crazy to see right here in Missouri.

More from Lee Harris

It has been 50 years since Hayti Heights, an all-Black town, split off from neighboring Hayti, which is about half white and has a handful of businesses. Hayti Heightss economy is rudimentary. Besides the pecan pickers, one resident participates in a USDA program that sends her vegetable seeds. The town pays Hayti for water under an emergency contract, and also pays to empty sewage into a disputed lagoon.

Robinson has been working to get the citys finances in order to reclaim the municipal water system, which is currently in receivership. But much of her time is spent manually running the wastewater pipes, fixing leaks and dusting spillage sites with lime when sewage bubbles up in residents front yards. People sometimes bootleg electricity by running a power cable to the water tower, which currently stands empty. Also complicating her efforts, Robinson said, most of the towns records were destroyed when the city hall was twice set on fire.

Its a town of firebugs, Robinson said. Theyll set fire to try and cover up anything.

There is a staggering amount of arson. Almost every corner shows some evidence of fire damage. The last commercial business in the Heightsa joint barber shop, tire shop, and loungeclosed after a 2019 fire that Robinson said was set deliberately. Even one of the gas generators was torched. In one especially bad week, Robinson said, a car, a business, and a house were set on fire. Every night, something was burning.

Hayti Heights is the first place Kunce takes me during the three days I shadow his campaign. He doesnt offer much commentary, but since the place gets almost no attention from journalists, he presses Robinson to detail its problems.

The town is emblematic of a point Kunce makes often in his populist campaign for Roy Blunts old Senate seat: Weve spent trillions on failed nation building abroad, and none at home. And unlike many politicians, he can speak from experience. During tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, he oversaw a bevy of failed adventures in state development. He watched multimillion-dollar buildings erected in the middle of the desert that would only be used to enrich defense contractors.

Over the same period, economists took to comparing Americas hinterlands to the developing world. A 2017 United Nations study found that 5.3 million Americans live in Third World conditions of absolute poverty. John Ikerd, an emeritus economist at the University of Missouri, calls land and labor use by agribusiness giants a form of economic colonization. Democrats, meanwhile, have been almost eradicated in rural America.

Kunce, who has never won elected office, wants to rein in the reckless adventurism of Wall Street bankers and rechannel imperial vanity back into Missouri. A century ago, Roosevelts Rural Electrification Administration helped bring light and heat to towns including Hayti. If Kunce wins, he wants the Plains States to manufacture and install the next generation of energy. You wont hear him talk about a Green New Deal, but his campaign pays homage to the postwar eras program of public investment. And populists have won before in Missouri, on similar plans to stanch corporate greed. The Show-Me States only native-son president climbed to fame off a war profiteering investigation. Kunce now lives in the same town where Harry S. Truman grew up: Independence.

Kunces plainspoken style has earned him the attention of national media. TV news has turned to him to explain failed wars, Russian energy, and his pitch for banning stock trading by sitting members of Congress. With an entirely grassroots-funded campaign, Kunce raised more money in 2021 than anyone else running. Private polling shows him within striking distance. His slogan is targeted at places that have been left behind by globalization: Its time to Marshall Plan the Midwest.

At times, Kunce seems to see Missouri as a foreign country. Driving across the state, he marvels at the cattle country of the north, the Ozark mountains of the south, cobalt mining, corn and cotton. The state map is a microcosm of America: a reddening core flanked by two blue coasts, complete with a Florida-style southern bootheel. Its all, he frequently remarks, very interesting. I suggest adjectives beyond interesting. Diverse? All-American? Its the biggest softball question for any candidate: Tell me about the district. What binds Missouri together?

The most he can offer is a kind of kid glee: We touch the most states! Eight. (Missouri is tied with Tennessee as the state with the most neighbors.)

Kunce is reluctant to spell out exactly who hes fighting for. Instead, he gets animated about pressing back hostile forces: the Wall Street raiders, monopolies, and foreign oligarchs that have stripped Missouri for parts. Hes allergic to talk of identity, which he sees as an elite PSYOP. Culture wars keep workers fighting each other instead of the owner class, so hell have no part in them, thanks. But in a state drifting right where two-thirds of the citizens believe in hell, can he write off unifying values and build his coalition around a common enemy?

Kunce grew up in the state capital of Jefferson City with Christian parents who were conservative Democrats. Working-class and pro-life, the Kunces opposed abortion, the death penalty, and nuclear weapons. Lucas was a Boy Scout, and his dad, who worked for the state Department of Conservation, was a scoutmaster. Together they tagged deer and chopped down invasive plant species. When his youngest sister was born with a heart condition, his parents went into debt and eventually declared bankruptcy. But neighbors made them resilient. His mom would write a check and ask the grocer not to cash it yet. The cashier would oblige, Kunce says, because we grew up in a magical neighborhood.

Benyam Tesfai, a fellow Boy Scout, remembers Kunce as the kid who made it cool to wear shabby clothes. Kunce is more diffident. I was super nerdy, he says. I was not, like, a sought-after commodity.

Kunce spent middle school ashamed of his grubby socks and his dads rusted-out van. Then, a classmates fatherthe warden of Algoa state penitentiary, who drove a black Cadillacgave him a ride home from their fancier house. Kunce tried everything to avoid it, but the man insisted. When they pulled up, seeing Kunces distress, the warden stepped out of the car, and told him to be proud of where he came from.

The episode gave Kunce a lasting confidence. He became class president and valedictorian, and also sat on the homecoming court. He then breezed through four years at Yale, running track and trying a stint as a male cheerleader. In fact, he seemed to do everything without trying. He joined the Marines and is running for office, Tesfai thinks, because he wanted to be challenged by something.

Kunce deployed to Iraq with his Marine unit in 2007. Much of his work involved state capacity-building. This was tracked through a system called stoplight charts, color-coded lists of skills for Iraqi partner forces, assessing them on how they conduct community policing, for example. Red meant the forces were poor, yellow would mean making improvement, and green stood for excellence.

When Kunce first got his stoplight chart, it was mostly green. I was like, damn, these guys are good, he said. Then he was assigned to assess Iraqi detention facilities in the field. We discovered, theyre not green on any of these things. He told higher-ups the charts were inaccurate. They came back and were like, No, there will be no re-review. And, at the end of this thing, they better have gone up in a couple of categories, and were not gonna ever put them down in anything.

Iraq was his first lesson in the disconnect between on-the-ground reality and happy talk. Afghanistans corruption was worse. As an attorney, he was charged with reviewing infrastructure projects, water wells, and combat forces. We would do reviews of the security forces we were paying for, and discover that most of the soldiers or police didnt even exist. One guy would invent a sheet of people, and get the salaries for all of them.

That experience gave Kunce the nerve, last summer, to unequivocally support withdrawal from Afghanistan, as other critics hemmed and hawed. I learned Pashto as a U.S. Marine captain and spoke to everyone I could there: everyday people, elites, allies and yes, even the Taliban, he wrote in a widely circulated op-ed for The Kansas City Star. The Afghan National Security Forces was a jobs program for Afghans, propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars. As a curtain-raiser for a national audience, the op-ed gave Kunce a name as a straight talker.

Elite adventurism in the Middle East did other lasting damage, he found. American rivals grew stronger: Europe became more reliant on Russia for fossil fuels and on China for green technology. He was further convinced that America was getting screwed during a stint in the Pentagon, where he led arms negotiations with Russia and NATO. And while working in weapons system procurement, he worried about parts sourcing for jets like Boeings KC-46 refueler. Where dozens of contractors had once competed to sell military equipment, he noticed, many key systems now had only a single supplier.

To talk about his concerns, Kunce asked Matt Stoller, a researcher on monopolies, to lunch at the Pentagon. They hit it off: Both now work for the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit that opposes corporate consolidation, and they co-wrote an article for The American Conservative on monopolization among military contractors. At the nonprofit, Kunce found that the dynamic he had identified in defense was part of an economy-wide takeover by a handful of firms and financiers. Within six months of leaving the Pentagon in 2020, he was back in Missouri plotting his Senate run.

In 2006, while getting his law degree at the age of 24, Kunce ran for the Missouri state House, taking on an incumbent Republican in an ideologically indistinct district with a campaign Kunce said he had been planning for three years. He came up short by about 1,600 votes, but narrowed the gap relative to 2004 by 17 points.

That was 16 years and a world of time ago for Missouri. In 2006, the state had five statewide elected Democrats and four Democrats in the U.S. House. Today, state auditor Nicole Galloway is the only statewide Democrat, and she was demolished in a 2020 run for governor. The Republican-Democratic split in the House delegation, once 5-4, is 6-2.

The red tide is glaring in a state that has passed progressive ballot measures like expanding Medicaid and legalizing medical marijuana, while overwhelmingly rejecting a proposal for an anti-union right to work law. Adjusted for cost of living, Missouris minimum wage trounces New Yorks and Californias. Yet Democratsonce the party of workersare in dismal shape in the former swing state.

Kunce is undeterred. High-profile Democrats pitched right to cling to their seats. Former Sen. Claire McCaskill lost after repealing tax cuts on the rich and pushing for a balanced budget. By contrast, Kunce focuses on fighting corporate power, a message he thinks cuts across party lines. Studies have found that Republicans and Democrats alike see big tech companies and hospital conglomerates as wielding too much power. One poll had farmer opposition to the 2018 merger of Bayer and Monsanto, two agribusiness giants, at 93 percent.

His model is FDR, whom he admires for reviving the adversarial relationship between the state and the private sector, watching contractors like a hawk. He cites the takedown of aluminum giant Alcoa, decided a month before Roosevelts death in 1945. Appeals court judge Learned Hand argued that, despite a lack of evidence of illegal conspiracy to exclude competitors, a single enormous producers market position could itself be a form of abuse under the Sherman Act. Not to find Alcoa guilty of monopolization, the court found, would emasculate the Act.

Kunce would like to use the same logic against Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, three insulin producers he says set abusive prices. He proposes that the government set up its own insulin production facilitiesideally in Missouri, which already has a biopharmaceuticals presence. It will be important to spin these off to the private sector, he says, since the government should fund things, not run things.

Clean energy is also a big chance for public investment. In March, conservative talk radio host Pete Mundo asked him if the U.S. should drill more oil, given recent geopolitical shocks. Since 2018, Kunce pointed out, the United States has been the worlds biggest producer of oil and natural gasbigger than Russia and Saudi Arabia. Yet the market-driven volatility of U.S. oil production has made Americans more vulnerable, despite controlling a huge slice of global production. Meanwhile, Europe is sourcing big shipments of renewable-energy infrastructure, like solar panels, from China.

We are going to find ourselves replacing Russia and Saudi Arabia, as people who control the global dominance of energy, with China, Kunce told Mundo. Add clean energy to the list of sectorsincluding rare earth elements and pharmaceuticalsthat he fears are controlled by Chinese producers.

In raising concerns about foreign capital penetrating American markets, Kunce is reviving an old script. The Peoples Party, which merged the China-hawkish Union Labor Party with the Farmers Alliance in the 1890s, once organized Missourians against the interests of railroads, corporations, and national bankers. Populists combined left-wing, pro-worker views with strident protectionism, arguing in an 1892 platform for giving Native American land freely to settlers while banning foreign ownership of land.

On the campaign trail, thats now an applause line. In Greene County, it hits home with James Tucker, a corn, cattle, and soy farmer who counts himself lucky to be in business. He is a sixth-generation independent farmera lifestyle that now needs routine cash transfusions. USDA data shows that most income for family farms now comes from somewhere other than farming.

Tucker is concerned that Chinese firms are buying up farmland. Kunce homes in on the issue, pointing out that the 2013 buyout of Smithfield Foodswhich left its Chinese parent company raising 1 in 4 hogs in the United Stateswas organized by bankers at J.P. Morgan.

Jamess father, Jim Tucker, is also worried about Chinas rise. But he is less thrilled about Kunce using elite as an insult. The royals had cross-eyed kids, but they were informed people. Weve given choices over to the citizens of this country. So youve got to have an informed electorate, he tells me privately, adding that he has worked on promoting agriculture around the globe with Englands Princess Anne, who is a farmer. Dont go picking on elites.

He eventually raises the issue with Kunce, who explains that, by elite, he doesnt mean any schoolteacher or professor thats gone and gotten a college education. He just means the unpatriotic owner class of monopolists and bankersoligarchs, you could call them. Tucker seems unconvinced.

You might say the same about Missouri. Galloway highlighted foreign ownership of farmland in her bid for governor. Widely thought to be sharp and sensible, Galloway lost by 17 points. Democrats have a toxic brand.

Local Democrats arent thrilled with Kunce, either. Many view him as an unknown quantity. Another telegenic veteran, Jason Kander, came within three percentage points of unseating Blunt in 2016, when Donald Trump carried the state by a 18.5-point margin. Kander, Missouris former secretary of state who had put in years at the state capitol, was criticized as an outsider who spent too much time on the Kansas side of Kansas City.

Virvus Jones, the former comptroller of St. Louis and father of current mayor Tishaura Jones, wont entertain Kunces claim to be a populist. Jones sees a Reagan Democrat, the latest in a string of candidates willing to alienate the partys African American base to pull in intolerant rural Missourians.

In Kunces hawkishness toward China, Jones hears the latest iteration of McCaskills anti-immigrant promise to protect borders. Thats not where the base is. I dont know whos telling him that the base has some kind of Chinese fetish. I talk to a lot of people, and I have not talked to anybody who tells me the problem in this country are the Chinese. And to me, its a xenophobic kind of approach. Truth be told, we opened up China, China didnt come to us, Jones said.

Maybe Jones is a Kunce supporter who doesnt know it yet. In March, he condemned a liberal law firm for promoting spending a million dollars to attract immigrants from Afghanistan & $0 to recruit or retain black people to STL.

Kunce played Magic: The Gathering throughout his tours of duty overseas. At the facility in Afghanistan, one of the communications Marinesthe data nerdsordered a box of cards from the makers, Wizards of the Coast. (Now its a subsidiary of Hasbro, Kunce notes, because everythings consolidated.)

Inspired by role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons, Magic is a fantasy trading card game in which players summon creatures or cast spells using sets of cards with names like The Orzhov Syndicate, Elite Spellbinder, and Subtlety. It is a game of strategy whose developer has a Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics, and involves a heavy dose of chance. Some commentators have argued that possession of land early in the game makes play strategy too dependent on luck.

Kunce has played Magic in every place hes lived. Theres always Magic people, everywhere you go, he says. I joke that it must be the only globalist community hes a part of, and he clarifies that he has only really played with Americans.

These days, he plays on Friday nights when hes home in Independence, at a game shop around the corner from his home. He takes me on a Tuesday, but the regulars still recognize him. One player tells me his play style is highly controlled: Its mostly reactive. He wants to see what were doing and try to beat that. But mostly, he just stops us from doing our thing.

In tight spaces, Kunce tends to hunch. Six-foot-two with a lantern jaw, it is sometimes unavoidable. He looks very Captain America at the fantasy card shop and seems to feel it, tilting his body forward, scrunching up. Hed rather just be a war nerd.

The next day, walking on the street where he grew up in Jeff City, full of small houses and empty lots, Kunce is more at ease. He made this same walk last year for a campaign announcement video called Home. This is where we build our future. On the cracked streets, in the forgotten neighborhoods

Josh Hawley, the senator Kunce would serve alongside if elected, begins his speeches invoking similar imagery. Quoting scripture, he said in November that its the job of men to build up the ancient ruins repair the ruined cities. But Hawley frets that governing a republic calls for manly virtues, and Americas men are withdrawing from society to watch pornography and play video games.

Others in the race are tripping over each other to provide thick models of masculinity. Mark McCloskey, a personal injury lawyer who shot to fame brandishing an AR-15 outside his St. Louis mansion, has just joined the race. Hawleys preferred choice, Rep. Vicky Hartzler, has made banning transgender athletes from womens sports a key campaign plank.

Kunce cant quite bring himself to rehearse cultural scripts ascribed to Middle America. He likes Clint Eastwood moviesand Star Trek. What does he watch while lifting weights? Netflixs most frivolous rom-com, Emily in Paris. His campaign wardrobe, endorsed by his two young sons, emphasizes animal print: button-downs embroidered with lemurs, butterflies, and dinosaurs. He thinks people should figure out their private preferences, and politicians shouldnt be in the business of moral edification.

Whether you want to frame it positively as a guiding light, or negatively as a controller, Kunce says, the government should never seek to steer individuals moral choices. It should just give people the resources to figure out their own lives. Government should be a self-determination freedom provider.

What about issues like abortion, guns, and trans rights, where the boundaries of self-determination are disputed?

In his 2006 campaign, Kunce opposed abortion. Today, he cautiously supports a womans right to choose, and stresses the language of individual choice, framing anti-abortion laws as another area where elites are passing Big Brother laws to keep Americans weak and divided. He refers to a Texas law that relies on private citizens for enforcement, pushing neighbors to spy on one another.

If youre one of the people whos profiting massively off our economic system and want to keep the status quo, he explains, its great to fund culture war stuff, on either side, because you keep everybody distracted.

Since he was a teenager, Kunce has played computer games like Sid Meiers Civilization. (He once retorted to Hawley that he and his fellow Marines played video games between missions.) But unlike family-values conservatives with high-flown talk about the decline of masculinity and a looming clash of civilizations, Kunce knows the difference between battleground and fantasy.

Globalists have these ideas like theyre playing a computer game, and they dont even know whats going on in their own backyard. Or if they do know, then theyre particularly evil, Kunce says. What about Hawleys vision for reviving American manliness?

Thats Star Wars: Clone Wars crap, Kunce says. Does he want us all in his image? I wouldnt want to be like him. To me, that would be emasculating.

Democrats build handsome careers these days losing long-shot campaigns in red states. McCaskill and Kander, the last two high-profile Democrats to fall short in Missouri, are now frequent contributors on MSNBC, where Kunces star is rising. Several Democrats, convinced the state is irretrievably red, suggested that he could be running for a book deal.

If thats the gambit, he is playing masterfully. Nearly everyone who meets Kunce is charmed. The bigger worry is not that Kunces honest intentions will fail to come through, but that his authenticity may be beside the point. If he makes it past a field of seven primary challengersincluding one former state senator who is basing his candidacy on electabilityKunce may not get a chance to make his general-election pitch to voters, because Missouri, like the nation, is deeply divided.

With each passing year, fewer and fewer Missourians think of themselves as temporarily estranged Democrats. The state is drifting right, so the question is less whether you have a perfect message, and more where that message breaks through. Americans increasingly consume their news on Facebook, where inflammatory culture war content plays best.

He may have the resources to overcome that. Despite not taking corporate PAC money, Kunce has consistently outraised not only his own fellow Democrats, but all the Republicans in the race, which includes two sitting members of Congress, the current attorney general, and a former governor.

Given his new role as a media gadfly, it may not be surprising that a large share of Kunces grassroots contributions come from out of state. Does that make him, in the old populist lingo, a carpetbagger? Money isnt in Missouri, is his response, since whats happened in Missouri over the past 40 years is basic economic warfare.

In 2012, McCaskill held onto her seat when she faced down an opponent who dismissed the likelihood of getting pregnant from legitimate rape. If Kunce wins, it could be because hes dealt the right hand. Former Missouri governor Eric Greitens, currently the Republican favorite, is a Navy SEAL with a Ph.D. from Oxford in refugee studies.

Greitens is ethically challenged. Frequently likened to Trump, the candidate has been embroiled in a scandal surrounding the misuse of a donor list to his veterans charity, and was found by a state panel to have tied up and sexually assaulted a woman in his basement. Before resigning as governor, Greitens said, This is exactly like whats happening with the witch hunts in Washington, D.C.

Scott Faughn, a Republican newspaper owner, said that in a race between Greitens and Kunce, he would probably support Kunce. He cant bring himself to back Greit-ens, he said. Im just not part of the basement wing of the party.

What about Kunces campaign as a positive case study for populism? Can a Marine who loves Magic unite mainline Democrats and disenchanted workers?

Kunce doesnt talk about it in those terms. Hes not rustling up team spirit, but identifying a common enemy. He may be reluctant to name his coalition because its members wouldnt want to be found at the same campaign after-party. Some might suspect each other of being racist whites, politically correct Blacks, or temporarily embarrassed yuppies. His insistent focus on the looting of the American heartland allows him to be many things to many people.

Moderate Democrats, for instance, are forever rediscovering the idea of running brawny veterans in red states, hoping that Republicans get whipped into such a patriotic fever that they accidentally vote blue. They might get more than they are bargaining for. Blandly handsome Kunce has repackaged progressive ideas as sensible plans for investment in green manufacturing, and thunders proposals for trust-busting to cut the investor class down to size.

There is also a growing appetite among national pundits for someone fiscally progressive and socially conservative who can articulate a vision of revived American greatness. That is, in fact, who I thought I would be meeting. Someone who had been to D.C., read the room, and replanted himself in the no-till soil of Independence, Missouri, to refute globalization and the delusions that marketization and growth would be peaceful, and offer a counter-vision for Americas new role in a multipolar world. Instead of managed decline, this would be a vision in which American power is spent more sparingly, but is no longer a dirty word.

He believes in the project of America, Matt Stoller had told me. He wants to wield power Hes saying, Im an optimist.

Actually, Kunce is a realist. He doesnt have much patience for abstract cant about the American project. And he is a conservative, but not the same kind as Hawleys speechwriters. He wants to rebuild a state torn up by the violent invasion of markets. The friend who seemed to know Kunce best was not Stoller but Robinson, the mayor of Hayti Heights, who was most struck by his neighborliness. When he has visited, Kunce has helped her refill the gas generators and prime the sewage pumps. That surprised her. Most people, theyll be deterred by the smell.

Faiz Shakir, a former Bernie Sanders adviser, wrote a recent article with Sarah Miller, Kunces boss at the American Economic Liberties Project, diagnosing Democrats failure to project muscularity. Even amid a surge in bold proposals to curb corporate power, they say, Democrats are still delivering a shaky pitch, deferring value-based judgment and leadership.

Kunce wants to revive public investment and patrol elites. That would seem to be what Shakir and Miller are looking for: building a political coalition around a set of shared values. Kunce suggests otherwise. Hes betting that if you identify a common enemy, your allies are implied.

For her part, Mayor Robinson says she is not a political person. Kunces focus on restricting the power of elites is rousing.

He dont care whose toes he step on, she says. She especially likes his proposal to ban congressional stock ownership. The people who own all this money in stocksthey started getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. I agree with that. Stop making them get rich. They pick and choose when their stock can go up and downits not fair. I agree wholeheartedly.

UPDATE: The day before this article was published, the St. Louis socialite Trudy Busch Valentine announced that she will join the race as a Democrat. Shortly following that news, former state Sen. Scott Sifton, Kunces top primary competitor, dropped out and endorsed Valentine.

Heiress to the Anheuser-Busch beer baron August Gussie Busch Jr., Valentine is a Democratic party donor who was a major contributor to former Sen. McCaskills campaign. She held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2016 that was attended by McCaskill, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Launched in St. Louis in 1876, Anheuser-Busch makes iconic beers such as Bud Light, and markets itself as America's Best-Loved Brewery. It is now a wholly owned subsidiary of AB InBev, a Belgian multinational.

Read this article:

The War Nerd - The American Prospect