Populism and Conservativism

Two great tastes that taste great together.

I cringe every time an alleged conservative uses the term “populism” as a pejorative, as if conservativism couldn’t be equated with populism. Race Bannon (aka Mike Pence) just did it a day or so ago in a speech he gave.

The Webster’s dictionary definition of populism is simply: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people. Some definitions add the contemporary twist that it is the people struggling against an “elite” or a corrupt government.

Back in 2020, Stanford News printed a piece about a white paper by a bunch of leftists that claimed populism was going to destroy democracy. The article began with:

“The rise of populism – a political argument that pits ordinary people against a corrupt, government elite – is putting democracy at risk, said Stanford scholars in a new white paper released today.

When populist leaders discredit formal institutions and functions, democracy is being undermined and hollowed out, warns Stanford political scientist and paper co-author Anna Grzymala-Busse.”

So why do these “political scientists” (Mike McFaul, Obama’s ambassador to Russia and Francis Fukuyama, who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, among them) think global populism poses a threat to democracy?

I think it has to do with a false premise and definition of populism. In the Stanford News, it states:

“Populist politicians and governments view the formal institutions of liberal democracy as corrupt creations spawned by crooked establishment elites – and so they systematically hollow out and undermine these institutions, such as the courts, regulatory agencies, intelligence services, the press, and so on. They justify these attacks as replacing discredited and corrupt institutions with ones that serves “the people” – or, in other words, populist parties and politicians. Moreover, precisely because populists claim to represent “the people,” they have to define the people first and that often means excluding vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as religious or ethnic minorities and immigrants.”

We don’t view “the formal institutions of liberal democracy as corrupt creations spawned by crooked establishment elites”, we view the formal institutions of liberal democracy corrupted by crooked establishment elites – big difference. Their stand gives them purchase to argue that we simply hate government and the people in it simply because it is government and people are in it.

We don’t – I’ve never met a conservative who didn’t think government was necessary, we just have more if it than necessary – and that is both a conservative and a populist belief.

But the libs can’t drop any definition of anything having to do with the right without claiming racism is one of the foundational aspects. We don’t exclude vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as religious or ethnic minorities and immigrants”. We do make significant distinctions when it comes to radical Islam, enclaves of ethnic minorities who refuse to assimilate,  and illegal immigration because we see those groups, along with the libs who sponsor them, as the greatest threat to democracy.

So, given that conservativism shares the same distrust of government – and even the Founding Fathers worried about how government could become corrupt and tried to conceptualize and canonize ways to prevent it – and the libs hate populism, so one wonders why it is that conservatives have a problem with it - but some sure do.

My wonder is more of a semi-rhetorical query than anything because we all know it is all about Trump living rent free in the heads of every single lib and NeverTrumper neocon.

It seems a natural pairing to me.