There is a way and, I suggest, only one way to defend populism from a liberal viewpoint: it is to reject the populist concept of “the people.”
Let the people be plural, that is, a collection of individuals. Let each individual be recognized as having a right to veto (at some contractual-constitutional level) any prohibition or mandate he (or she, of course) does not consent to. A fortiori, no subset of the people may use coercion against the individuals in another subset. It follows that the elite or the experts (“they”) or the politicians themselves may not legitimately boss people around. If populism is thus characterized, it is defendable from both a moral and an economic viewpoint as it would coincide with (classical) liberalism. Liberalism is about a negative veto right of each individual—at least as formalized by James Buchanan and Anthony de Jasay. Liberalism certainly and emphatically does not support an unrestricted positive right of some individuals, even a majority of them, to impose bans or mandates on individuals in the plural people.
That is not how populism, in the standard meaning of the word, is defined and sold to the masses, that is, to a majority or a plurality of them. Populism requires the existence of “the people” singular (see, for example, Cass Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Populism: A Very Short Introduction [Oxford University Press, 2017] for the academically accepted definition, which is close to mine). If “the people” (singular) does not exist as such, then populism is not possible; it is just a label that hides an interventionist, collectivist, and authoritarian ideology. (See my “The Impossibility of Populism,” The Independent Review, Summer 2021.)
To be both internally consistent and compatible with liberalism, populism would have to take “the people” in the plural and liberal sense of “individuals,” with none more deserving of power over his fellows. It would not be “populism” anymore.
******************************
The People in the populist sense, as an organism, by DALL-E
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Nov 26 2024 at 1:23pm
It seems the term populism is exclusively used to attack vwrsions of populism one disagrees with as opposed to the version of populism one espouses.
Monte
Nov 26 2024 at 5:07pm
Theseus’s Paradox. You’re effectively replacing a main plank of populism with one from classical liberalism. This is transformative and would, as you say, redefine the concept.
Student of Liberty
Nov 28 2024 at 3:35am
Yes. “Populism […] is just a label that hides an interventionist, collectivist, and authoritarian ideology” reason for which it is a swearword. Why change that and try to appropriate the word?
Jose Pablo
Nov 26 2024 at 6:20pm
Let the people be plural, that is, a collection of individuals
It is clear to anybody that has had to deal with any “big” (but not necessarily so big) group of people that this is the only interpretation that reflects reality. People are indeed “plural” and never fully agree with each other (wait for the family dinner this week and you will see)
Within any group (with the possible exception of brainwashed members of a cult) the sentence “everybody in this group think (or feel or want) … “ can’t be followed by any meaningful predicate. So, “the American people wants X” should be immediately suspicious.
Particularly so when the predicate that follows this implausible subject (the organic “the people”) is clearly reflecting the preferences of the wannabe leader making the statement and his handful of hardcore followers.
And yet, this very cheap and obvious trick keeps fooling “the people” (at least many of them) into believing that what “the people” want, is a valid reason to coerce “other people” into what they don’t want.
Why? I suspect some kind of primitive tribalism plays a significant role in the infantilism of assuming that the American people want, think or feel as a single individual (the populistic organic “the people”).
Mactoul
Nov 26 2024 at 11:01pm
What has agreement to do with anything? Any group will have individuals that dominate and others that submit to the domination. See any family. Because people differ–not only in preferences (which is repeated infinitely) but in ambition, drive and will to power.
Unanimity is vastly overrated even within two persons. As applied to marriage, it quickly leads to divorce.
The spontaneous, organic way is to let the individuals sort themselves into an hierarchy.
Jose Pablo
Nov 27 2024 at 2:38am
The people (organic) is always, apparently, in full agreement under the rule of the egotistic self imposed leader. “It” (the people) always wants as one. And the leader is there to provide this monolithic want (normally against the “non people”, a figure much needed for populism).
In marriage it is submission that quickly leads to divorce. At least in the civilized world, this institution is all about consenting.
Nothing wrong with individuals shorting themselves into “hierarchies” (what for?), as far as those “hierarchies” (whatever they are needed for) are voluntary and require the consent of the “dominated” (the people).
It should be (again) very suspicious to the non-simplistic mind that “the people” is, at the same time, the “masters” (what “it” wants constitute a “mandate”) and the slaves (they have to be dominated into obedience to materialize this mandate)
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 27 2024 at 12:07am
Jose: Your last paragraph is in agreement with what Hayek writes in The Fatal Conceit. He distinguishes the extended social order and the tribe. To quote my review of this book:
Mactoul
Nov 26 2024 at 10:52pm
Populism is whatever opposes Party line as promulgated by NY Times, CNN and BBC.
And if this collection of individuals forms a social contract a la Buchanan, what would you call it?
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 27 2024 at 12:23am
Mactoul: For Buchanan, they never become “the people”; they are simply individuals who have concluded a contract and accepted to live under a government constrained by the rules of their contract. I just did a search in The Calculus of Consent, and found half a dozen “the people” in 349 pages, but it is always the plural people: for example, “Many collective projects are undertaken in whole or in part primarily because they do provide benefits to one group of the people at the expense of other groups”; “the result is that it is much easier to work out coalitions which will benefit the people in the lower four rows than in the upper three.” This is, I think, one key to understanding Constitutional Political Economy.
It’s contrary to everything you (and most of us) have learned.
Mactoul
Nov 27 2024 at 4:27am
I don’t understand. Are you talking about the mythical social contract which in Buchanan must be unanimous or about practical everyday legislation (which I believe is not unanimous in Buchanan).
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 28 2024 at 9:49pm
Mactoul: The key is to understand the distinction between rules and decisions under the rules. A social contract à la Buchanan establishes general rules that govern and constrain day-to-day politics. The book to read is Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan’s The Reason of Rules (I don’t think it is very technical, but it is essential). (If you believe that the distinction between rules and decisions under the rules is vacuous, you are in the good company of Anthony de Jasay.)
Jose Pablo
Nov 27 2024 at 2:51am
The people (plural) is never “monolithic”, for the populist. It always comprises at least two groups:
“The people” (the organic unity of the right minded) and the “non-people” (the billionaires, the oligarchs, the immigrants eating cats and dogs, the Jews …)
The simplistic view of the world divided in “good” and “evil” is, no doubt, part of the enduring attraction of this system: a complex world which the average human mind can not comprehend becomes, all of the sudden, easy to grasp and so clear about how to act upon
Laurentian
Nov 27 2024 at 4:03am
And splitting the world into civilized and barbaric is not simplistic?
José Pablo
Nov 27 2024 at 6:45pm
Very likely yes.
For instance “these barbaric Chinese people trying to subjugate the world” vs “these civilized American people trying to spread democracy”, very likely represents a simplistic view of the world
You got it!
Mactoul
Nov 28 2024 at 1:00am
Could you define what you mean by term the populist who has a simplistic view of world with “good” and “evil” so clearly separated?
I have given a definition of presently existing populism which is opposition to the decrees of CNN and BBC and NYT. In particular, a populist opposes unrestricted immigration.
Jose Pablo
Nov 28 2024 at 1:24pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423.amp
Here is a pretty good one that includes all the relevant traits (including the creation of the non-people, ala “the bad guys”) and some interesting examples (in both European and American cases)
Mactoul
Nov 29 2024 at 12:47am
Is BBC a neutral authority esp on populism?
Populism is precisely the opposition to the centre-left Party line espoused by the likes of BBC.
BBC is a player in politics. Notice they will never call populist Hillary Clinton (who called half of her countrymen as deplorable) or Obama (with his reference to bitter clingers of Bible and guns).
Laurentian
Nov 27 2024 at 3:41am
These sorts of articles ignore the pesky fact that attacking populism and tribalism is inherently tribalistic and us versus them since you are still splitting the world into good people (cosmopolitan classical liberals) and bad people (populist nationalists).
Second of all classical liberals of the past were very populist. How many of them didn’t complain about how corrupt, immoral and bad the church, monarchy and aristocracy were and how the decent people were being oppressed by them? They sure embraced an us versus them philosophy.
Also classical liberals of the past were quite open about how civilized they were and how their opponents were barbarians. Hayek for example was one of them. This of course is still an us-versus-them philosophy. John Bright and Herbert Spencer were perfectly fine with British Imperialism as long as was directed against the barbaric Irish Catholics.
Also much of the attacks on populism seem to be predicated on the assumption that our present elites are somewhat classically liberal (see Fukuyama). This is nonsense as our elites’ rejection of freedom of speech alone is enough to disprove of this contention. Or how Lemieux himself has on more than one occasion bemoaned how people ought to listen to expert economists. This is predicated on the assumption that these experts are ones he agrees with (as opposed to say the likes of Cass, Piketty or Stiglitz) or that the elites will listen to the economists he agrees with.
Monte
Nov 27 2024 at 7:53pm
Pierre, in his piece, “The Impossibility of Populism”, argues that “one cannot apprehend society or “the people” as a whole in the same way one can see or touch a biological organism—say, a porcupine. To conceive “the people” in this way is to fall victim of an organicist or anthropomorphic illusion (Hayek 1973, 52–53).
I’m currently reading Spencer Heath’s “Citadel, Market, and Altar”, wherein he conceives of society as an integrated, functional organism harmonious with its constituent (individual) parts. That is to say, a tangible whole of individuals interconnected to one another by consent and exchange free from coercive oversight. This is, of course, a holistic view of society in conflict with Hayek’s caution against organicism. I nevertheless find it rather compelling and one that treats society as something much more concrete and less abstract than Hayek.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 28 2024 at 9:40pm
Monte: I haven’t read this book, so I can’t comment on it. We need to consider two different justifications of the organicist or anthropomorphic conception of society. The usual one is normative in that it sees a moral value in some individuals being the (or part of the) brain of the society and other individuals being subordinate cells. Besides the examples I give in my TIR article that you quote, remember Orwell’s 1984: “Can you not understand, Winston, that the individual is only a cell?” As for organicism as a positive theory of society, Hayek and so many others showed that this is a primitive explanation. It explains very little of society, from the versatility of individuals to their conventions (rules of conduct), their incentives, the price signal they generate and use, political power and its evolution, the labor market, rent-seeking, crime, and so on, and so forth. The work of Hayek in this respect is especially useful, notably his last book, The Fatal Conceit.
Monte
Nov 29 2024 at 12:22pm
Perhaps my interpretation of Heath’s concept of society was a bit ambiguous. He was more of a Geo-libertarian who envisaged society as an organism composed of interdependent parts co-existing synergistically, each serving a unique purpose in constituting the whole in the absence of any hierarchy. There is no brain center, no central intelligence to which the subordinate cells must acquiesce, as traditional organicists maintain.
Property rights and the free market were foundational to Heath’s social theory, occurring under the umbrella of voluntary exchange for the mutual benefit of all. Unlike Hayek, who emphasizes the emergent nature of social order from individual interactions, Heath’s focus was more on the role of said institutions for the structuring of society.
Mactoul
Nov 28 2024 at 12:29am
Scott Sumner today has a post in which this statement occurs
So Sumner is a collectivist? There are other statements betraying collectivism. In fact, can one do economics without being a collectivist? After all, Adam Smith titled his book The Wealth of Nations so presumably he has a concept of Nation and I suspect he doesn’t mean anything peculiar with the concept Nation.
Warren Platts
Nov 30 2024 at 10:16am
Pierre, your essay is very unfair! I don’t know what the “standard” definition of ‘populism’ is, but Merriam-Webster defines the word as (1) “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment” or (2) “general concern for ordinary people.” I see there no commitment to an organicist “the People” with a capital ‘P’.
Indeed, look who says that an ontological commitment to “the People” is a necessary condition of any definition of ‘populism’: it’s the same self-dealing elites, the mendacious politicians, and the incompetent technocratic “experts” that populism is a reaction against! Any such critiques from such minions of Leviathan is guaranteed to be a straw man. Theseus Paradox? Gimme a break. Sad to see you carrying water for Leviathan Pierre!
Monte
Nov 30 2024 at 12:30pm
Not exactly sure exactly how you mean this, Warren. Do you believe my use of the term as a metaphor in this instance is inappropriate?
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 30 2024 at 8:27pm
Warren: According to your definition, communist parties in the West were populist, as were other communist parties before they became the establishment. A useful definition is one that distinguishes enough different phenomena to be useful in their analysis while capturing their recognized features (for example, the existence of populism of the right and populism of the left. It is not a matter of “fairness” at all. Indeed, my own definition is quite close to both the standard academic definition and to how people usually distinguish populist movements from mere opposition movements. See, for example, Mudde and Kaltwasser cited above, or just the Britannica entry on populism.
John Alcorn
Dec 3 2024 at 6:51pm
I come late to this blogpost about populism, but would like to add a comment nonetheless.
Populism has strengths and weaknesses, from the vantage point of classical liberalism or libertarianism.
Strengths:
Populism mistrusts the motives and competence of the establishment. Thus it dovetails with public-choice theory and with skepticism of ‘the deep state’ and of ‘rule by experts’. Occasionally, a corrective to smug technocracy.
Populism discloses previously suppressed grievances about major problems (e.g., economic and cultural dislocation caused by automation and trade). Not always pretty, but at times refreshingly frank. A counterweight to what Hume calls “the civilizing force of hypocrisy”?
Weaknesses:
Populism focusses on simple (perhaps symbolic?) solutions to complex problems. The solutions then will miss the mark and foster more political frustration.
Populism abhors cost-benefit analysis, which deserves a place in policy-making.
Conclusion: Populism requires a wise leader who inspires ‘the people’ enough to earn elbow room in policy-making.
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 4 2024 at 3:09pm
Thanks for your comment, even if late, John. I would qualify your two last paragraphs, though. Populists would love cost-benefit analysts if they are told that the benefits go to The People while the costs are paid by the “enemies of the people.” Similarly, since policy-making is presumably designed to govern, and if one agrees that governing means favoring some at the cost of others, we need elbow room in policy-making as much as a hole in the head (sorry for the cliché).
Comments are closed.