Populism

[Michael Hoover]

> One dimension of populism that I did not notice in the thread was the class
> basis.  Populists tended to fall midway between labor and capital, as was the
> case for small farmers.  As a result, their allegiance could go either way.
> Marx discussed this in his analysis of Bonapartism.  French friends tell me 
> of pairs of nearby villages that seem identical in terms of the people and 
> the economy, yet one would support the left and the other, the right.
> This phenomenon partially explains how the populists could shift from one 
> line of analysis to another so easily, eventually being lured to oblivion 
> by following the solutions of money cranks.
> Michael Perelman

 
Populist movements/parties generally claim to support 'common people'
in face of economic & political elites (whose characterization as
'corrupt' often serves as explanation in lieu of systemic/structural 
analysis).  So populism can be linked to many causes/ideologies.

 
Bonapartism has parallels with authoritarian-populism of Peronism 
which combined themes of obedience, order, and national unity with 
mass-based (that P referred to as 'shirtless ones') political support
resentful of US imperialism and desirous of economic improvement.

Nationalism has been common component of populist regimes seeking
to mobilize active public support through various means - elections,
plebiscites, mass demonstrations.  Results may be reactionary
(Khomeini), socialist (Nyerere), marxist (Nkrumah).

Stuart Hall called Thatcherism 'authoritarian populism' suggesting
that it reflected and responded to popular anxiety about relaxed
moral standards and weakening social authority.  New Right calls 
for economic 'initiative and enterprise' do stand alongside support 
for a strong state.  During 1984-85 miners' strike, Thatcher referred 
to trade union militants as 'enemy within' against which nation must 
be protected.  

In US, some call laissez-faire/anti-tax, traditional gender role/anti-
abortion politics 'populist conservatism' because of belief that only 
way to change things is through mass political action. Paul Weyrich, 
Howard Phillips, et. al., refer to themselves (and almost exclusively 
white national movement) as 'radical.'  Populist here means lower-middle 
income and working people dissatisfied with their circumstances who 
blame big institutions for their problems.  Donald Warren identified 
such folks as 'middle american radicals' and essence of their ideology
is that they believe that they pay  for 'rich giving into demands of poor.'

There is also 'progressive populist' current (Jim Hightower/Harry Boyte
types) in US emphasizing more equitable distribution of economic income
& wealth and political power. 

Perhaps 'middle-strata' populist Kevin Phillips is example of how
today's US populists could go in *either* direction.  Once celebrated
Republican adviser ('southern strategy') and self-described 
'conservative populist' declared his hopes for surge of 'progressive
populism' in wake of contemporary upward economic redistribution.

And, of course, Ross Perot is indication that one can be a 'three
billion dollar' populist...   Michael Hoover