The recent waves of anger against “the establishment” across Europe and the United States have claimed the populist pitchfork by both critics and proponents alike. A taking back of government for the people by the people. It's true populism has been defined as an attempt by the common people to oust the elite, and reclaim control over the political system, the ruling class. But who composes this unique and powerful club? Is it the industrialists, the military, the bankers, the entertainment industry, the political party which controls the presidency, or the party which controls two of the houses of congress? None of these factions are a monolithic organization, nor are these groups likely to coordinate with each other. They each have their own desires and goals. Assuming enough power resides in the control of any individual faction so they alone determine the fate of the country, or presuming they conspire together against the common good, veers headlong in to conspiracy.
If you will, forget all
the movements people have called populist, especially those of the
last few years. Consider instead, the core of populism: that which
benefits the common people. Populism is not inherently against
politicians, because if populists wish to aid the public welfare (and
this is their singular goal) then they will have need of politics.
Populism is the pursuit of liberty, equality, and security for all
people. Let's consider these in broad terms.
To ensure the liberty of
the citizenry, a nation must ensure the preservation of a democratic
society. Democracy is essential for individual liberty. Kings,
dictators, and oligarchs govern for themselves obtaining only the
limited consent of the people. To ensure freedom for the people, the
citizens must retain the ability to implement the policies which
benefit themselves. They require an unrestricted right to vote, but
this is not enough. Even if every state, today, made voting as easy
as it should be (and some out there think voting is a privilege which
should be earned by passing through onerous bureaucratic obstacles),
this would not be enough to secure rule by the people.
A populist, valuing
freedom, can not elect a strongman, willing to destroy democracy. A
populist can not accept a cult of personality, because even if the
leader they had chosen implemented every one of their policies, his
authoritarian attitude would trample on the freedom which is
essential to the movement.
Citizens should be
involved in their government beyond the act of voting, but there are
legitimate reasons why they are not. As mentioned previously, there
are obstacles in voting, but tradition and law restrict the activity
of the layman in other areas.
Citizens seeking to
directly effect the public sphere through legislation, but without
acquiring an office, can propose a referendum on a specific topic.
This year Californians were able to vote on seventeen ballot
initiatives. Though to my eye, at least one appears unnecessary to
bring before the entire state, referendum are a useful tool of
populist politics.
But referenda can violate
the populist ideal of equality. While California was fortunate in
fielding options for voters, it must do something to curtail
spending. Nearly five hundred million dollars was spent on the
ballot questions. The amount, absurd and wasteful as it is, isn't
the real problem. No, instead it is how money effects the results.
While people believe it doesn't we must admit advertising has an
effect. Of the seventeen questions, the side which spent more money
was victorious on twelve issues. Occasionally the power of the
advertiser is resisted but not often enough. For this reason
populism must reject the influence money in politics, by curtailing
spending.
Equality is in the voting
box and the treatment of everyone. If the basic ideal of, one
person, one vote, vital to the rule of the people, is disregarded
there is no lever by which people can influence government. For the
common people do not have the illegitimate power of wealth. As long
as corporations and the affluent can spend to influence referendums
there is no equality. No person may exert more force than his voice.
Let no voice can be restricted, let no hand be tied in the work of
politics, and reform, and advocacy. But the millions and billions of
dollars spent on lobbyists, on advertisements, and on direct campaign
funds, must end.
Here is an issue. Supposed populists will say that the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC was
in their interest. But it doesn't reflect the values of populism.
Corporations are not people, and do not deserve more influence than
the any singular voter. The modern corporation can not accept the
economic agenda inherent in populism. The multinational corporations
need to be brought under the control of the people of the United
States, through the government. Not, as is today, the corporations
controlling the people through the government officials.
Let
no one declare that the estate tax is for the people. Let no one
claim, someday it could benefit you. Populism is not determined to
write rules for everyone in the pursuit of wealth. It's economic
framework does not benefit the multitude of the soon to be wealthy
(who will never be wealthy), but the not wealthy, who will never be
wealthy (which is almost everyone).
These
are the tools of the anti-populist to ensnare, seduce, and pacify the
people with false rewards. Patriotic consumerism is a tool of the
anti-populist to ensnare the people. They assume a raucous U-S-A as
the zenith of patriotism, willing to ignore the foul deeds done in
their name, and the laws sign against their interest. They buy their
candidates merchandise as a sign of true devotion to the country,
enriching the coffers at their own expense. True populist patriotism
is standing against thoughtless idolatry and affectation, and seeking
not the glorification of a candidate or even a countries strength,
but how the country is of the people and for the people.
The
anti-populist encourages intentional ignorance, know-nothingism, as a
sign of devotion. They seek to turn away from education. Tearing
down learning, which is the best source of success, the anti-populist
strikes at teachers, colleges, and truth. They want their devoted
followers to believe only the words which issue from their solitary
lips. Issues, the anti-populist claims, are irrelevant unless they
can be compressed into a single sentence, and all facts are false
unless they are affirmed by me. Populism requires a well educated
public. Only they can understand the policies necessary for their
success. And only then can they hold politicians accountable for
failure or corruption. Education is the one tool a people have to be
proper guardians of their own freedom and dignity.
The
anti-populist seeks to divide the common people by whatever means
necessary. Race or war, entertainment or stereotype, anything will
do. Anyone who instigates the people to violate the rights of others
is not interested in the people, but in victory through division.
And this is not populism, which is strength of the people in unity.
There
are many foes of populism, many demons, but only one demon slayer.
It isn't any particular person, but an educated people willing to put
aside their differences and not be distracted by irrelevances.
Comments
Post a Comment