Wendy Rahn and Eric Oliver write,
Of course, authoritarians and populists can overlap and share dark tendencies toward nativism, racism and conspiracism. But they do have profoundly different perceptions of authority. Populists see themselves in opposition to elites of all kinds. Authoritarians see themselves as aligned with those in charge. This difference sets the candidates’ supporters apart.
Once again, I recommend the whole post.
I think of populism as a dangerously self-negating approach to politics. The problem is that the people attach themselves to a charismatic leader, and that leader is bound to have the sort of arrogance that populists supposedly resent.
This reminds us why questions like “Do you want a leader like Donald Trump to be unfettered by Congress” are problematic. The insinuation is that Trump supporters want Mussolini. But what if what they are really thinking is that Congress is acting like Mussolini and needs a whooping? That is almost the opposite conclusion.
The data show the things that I see. Trump, rightly or wrongly, represents to his supporters think they want to preserve about the American ideal.
Marxism has historically fit your last paragraph, but I guess indeed it’s a larger trend. Leaders love to say that they are supportive of the people, but any leader that can get anywhere is by definition not going to have to have some special weatth and power.
Oddly, many Democrats I know hold contrary beliefs in this regard. They both (a) think that “poor people” are the most important problem that the government should work on, and (b) the behavior of American poor people is disdainfully bad, including shopping at the wrong big-boxes and smoking the wrong kind of plant matter.
A cigarrette subsidy would likely make the American poor happier and also lower national health costs (either publicly or privately funded–take your pick). Such a policy is not popular among the people who say they want those two goals, however.
I don’t see populism so much about authority and governance but as a particular way of appealing to the crowd, that features an enemy (always) and dramatic but easy answers. The latter almost always means bad economics.
“. . . people attach themselves to a charismatic leader, and that leader is bound to have the sort of arrogance that populists supposedly resent.”
BINGO !!
What do you call someone like me who’s both an anti-elitist (at least in regard to our current elites, anyway) and anti-populist? A misanthrope?
We just need a word for “I believe everyone tends to be biased towards their own interests.” Maybe the word is “economist.”
The premise of the quote – that “populism” and “authoritarianism” are distinct phenomena – is just wrong. Populism is often authoritarian. That has been recognized since classic times, when it was observed that democracy typically degenerated into tyranny as the more numerous lower classes came to support a strong man.
I think what the authors mean by “authoritarianism” is really oligarchism or aristocracy.
I’m betting that the authors don’t see any authoritarian tendencies on the contemporary American Left.
Should be “classical times.” Sorry
Is it just me, or does anyone else just want to ditch terms like ‘authoritarian’, ‘populist’, and even ‘fascist’, as having become worse than useless boo-words that neither contain nor convey any real or coherent meaning?
We’d just screw up the new words.
How about words like “racist” and “nativist”?
As for “conspiracism,” have the authors heard that the presumptive Democratic nominee for president believes that any criticism or allegation against, or opposition to, her or her husband is the product of a “vast rightwing conspiracy”? Does that qualify as “conspiracism”?
In the end they all just mean ‘bad person’, and so obviously can’t apply to good people.
Like people who write analysis pieces for the Washington Post, their genteel readers, and the politicians they vote for. I’m beginning to understand.
that leader is bound to have the sort of arrogance that populists supposedly resent.
Of course this is the Republican side with Trump leading the Primary versus the Democrats are falling fairly in line with HRC. Bernie has run a good campaign but i don’t see how he run a winning campaign at this point after losing all 5 states last night. Vox estimated Bernie has to win 58% of the vote in remaining states. And the two largest states are NY and CA which are both minority heavy and lots of upscale left center voters.