A core problem is that people believe too strongly that there is a right way to manage society, and this right way is known.
Jeffrey Friedman uses the jargon “naive realism” to describe the state of mind in which you believe that your way of viewing the world is accurate. Because I trip over the word “realism” in this phrase, I prefer to call it “naive revelation.”
Naive revelation is the belief that the truth has been revealed to you. Closely related is the belief that the truth has been revealed to others (experts) that you can identify.
Naive revelation leads to faith that the solutions to social problems are easily found. This in turn leads to a belief that public officials who do not implement these solutions are blind or evil.
Public officials react to their failures by saying that they could solve problems if you give them more power. (Just let us implement lockdowns using science, and we will solve the problem of the virus.) Naive revelationists fall for this all the time.
The opposite of naive revelation is understanding that we face strong imperfection. Most of the time, the best we can do is adopt trial-and-error groping. But naive revelation is the dominant attitude.
Which is another reason that populism is not a solution. If you believe in populism, then you suffer from a form of naive revelation.
The future is primarily about group status, defined along racial and class lines. “Science” is just a weapon in those ongoing battles.
“It is surely nobler to be a victim of the most noble dream than to profit from a sordid reality and to wallow in it. “ – Leo Strauss
Sounds like irony.
Oh well. I was trying for ambiguity.
*A non-CCP affiliated comment. The author of this comment attests that he is not affiliated with nor has he accepted anything of value from the Chinese Communist Party or its affiliates or from anyone who has or their affiliates.
But the populist fought against the lockdowns, and generally act as a counterweight to the expert opinion when it’s harmful.
I continue to be confused by your definition of “populism”. Any definition where Elizabeth Warren, the complete opposite of a populist, gets that label seems meaningless.
Like any other group, populists are probably right about somethings and wrong about other things.
As I see it, lockdowns are not cost effective, but masks have a minimal cost and are helpful in preventing spread. Populists often oppose both lockdowns and mask mandates. Even if masks are mostly ineffective, there’s a significant cost to social cohesion for dying on that hill, as many in the pro-mask tribe view the sizable anti-mask tribe (essentially all right wingers) as a bunch of anti-social idiots.
Masks are primarily about submissions and humiliation, not stopping the spread. Mask mandates have failed to control the spread in country after country.
Most people will wear masks in common sense situations were it would do the most good without a mandate. The mandate is there to humiliate non-compliers in situations they don’t find masks useful or reasonable and establish who dominates and who is dominated.
I can see Warren’s positions on regulating finance and a wealth tax as populist, even if there are many populists who wouldn’t necessary go along with those particular ideas.
The defining feature of Warren is that she believe that an elite should have dictatorial power over society. The particular positions of that elite aren’t the important part on the populism/elitism axis. In fact, we will no doubt see those positions change and be contradictory quite often. The essence is who decides and what they are allowed to decide.
I would define populism as when people who spend their days working and picking their kids up from school find something the government has done so unworkable in their lives that they can’t ignore politics in this instance as is their normal desire, so they rebel. They try to use democracy to check the policies and individuals who implemented to intrusion.
Populism is not some consistent list of policy positions. It never was that. There are left and right wing versions of it.
Its most essential feature is a disgust with the status quo combined with a belief that “elites” (as variously defined by the person who is the populist) are oppressing the common people. It is this sentiment, rather than specific policy positions, that explains why so many people voted for both Obama and Trump. Both were marketed as rebukes to the elites and the status quo whether or not you see them that way.
Populists want to replace the current elites. But the replacements are themselves elites, or will become elites once in power.
If I decide what’s taught in my schools because I vote in my school board election and the people from my neighborhood that won decide it, then its populism. It reflects the popular will at the most local level possible through clear input from interested parties that have skin in the game.
If its determined by a committee of officials far away and I have no input in it, then its elitism.
There may indeed be a committee of elites in a building somewhere in that both instances, but in one they have power over an intimate detail of my life and in the other they don’t.
Populism is both the desire to eliminate that power, and when that isn’t possible to rebuke the decision makers and their decision when such decisions are strongly counter to peoples interests. Elitism is the feeling that the rubes don’t know what good for them and should be forced into it good and hard. Different elites believe different things, but they all believe they should be the ones deciding and have the power to implement those decisions without recourse.
Warren’s support for a Post Office bank might reasonably be considered populist. Presumably all citizens would have an equal right to an account. This would be a pragmatic response to the needs of many citizens who are having their accounts with private banks being unilaterally closed on the basis of political affiliation.
Populism is nothing more than a pejorative label that the elites get to pin on the non-elites anytime they step out of line. “Science” and “expert opinion” are just cudgels to reinforce the message. The elites have the p<.o5 studies to prove everything, so the non-elites just need to shut-up and follow already.
They indeed have P<0.05 to prove even opposite positions, meaning they can rationalize any "who, whom" decision in the same way a medieval cleric would.
By this definition, I fear that we are all secretly naive revelationists, at least on certain topics.
“Populist” is generally used interchangeably with “fascist” as a way of shutting off the expression of ideas that frighten the comfortably situated.
There are important differences though. At its core, populism is the notion that people should participate in their governance through social institutions s well as through political systems, typically democratic elections. Populists take democracy seriously and discern a difference between authentic democracy like that in Switzerland and the faux-democracies of say The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or California where unregistered individuals can show up at a polling place and cast a ballot without even showing an ID, the voter registration rolls are a shambles, and vote harvesting abuse is rampant. Populists acknowledge that the voters frequently make mistakes but have faith that by giving the voters what they voted for good and hard, learning will occur leading to incremental improvement. Populists believe people who claim their autonomy will respect the autonomy of others . And indeed this proven again and again as the most democratic countries are also the freest countries. As an embrace of democracy and personal autonomy populism is wholly pluralist and pragmatic.
It is important to note what populism is not. It is not the notion that demagogues should rule based on some notion of a single national will of “the” people. That is a ridiculous notion advanced by dogmatic apologists for ideological tyranny. Also populism is not some redistributionist scheme rooted in agrarian laws. In its early expressions such as The Levelers movement, populists rejected redistribution arguing instead for equality before the law. If all are equal before the law, a minority cannot be stripped of its possessions for the enjoyment of others. These ideas and those of the Commonwealths men who followed them eventually found expression in such populist documents as the Declaration of Independence and Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Fascism on the other hand is “A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.” The current libertarian embrace of techno-fascism and joint business and government repression of democracy and human rights is key to understanding the illiberal libertarian use of “populist” as a slur to eliminate debate. Fascism does not prize “important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association; an independent judiciary and public trial by jury; and the abolition of aristocratic privileges,” but populism does. Some populists have libertarian tendencies but none would support elites unilaterally shuttering public libraries because ideas might rule up popular discontent. For the new breed of illiberal libertarian, it is fine to shutter not just the public libraries but the internet as well so as to avoid any unwise democratic political movements from breaking out. For the new illiberal libertarians, the repression of Fahrenheit 451 is the new gold standard. Fear of others’ liberty.
Rejection of individualism, that is repressing individually directed attempts at revelation is the opposite of how Karl Popper defined the open society: a society “in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions.”
In this regard it may be useful to construct an openness axis and to illustrate it with examples from today’s headlines (public libraries, banning Homer, and allowing China to dictate the terms of free speech in other countries using trade as a weapon.)
At the left end of the axis we have libertarianism.
The libertarian is indifferent to the open society and believes:
– public libraries are morally offensive and should be constitutionally banned because public finance is theft;
– a private cabal of internet giants can purge Homer from the internet and that might be sad but there is nothing we can do about it; and
– China can use its trade policy however it likes, untaxed imports from China are our highest priority.
The Democrats are mostly opposed to an open society and believes:
– public libraries must be available but Homer must be banned from their shelves;
– a private cabal of internet giants should be free to purge Homer from the internet but only if they contribute generously to The Party;
– there are no enemies to the left of us.
Republicans are mildly sympathetic to the open society and believe:
– public libraries are ok and Homer is fine if the local library management wants to carry it, perhaps in an adults only section if anyone objects;
– a private cabal of internet giants can purge Homer from their servers but not from private foundation servers who can raise money offering copies as tokens of gratitude for large donations; and
– we will make discontented noises about China dictating speech codes but in the end money talks and we will roll over.
Populists embrace the open society and believe:
– public libraries are good and interest groups should not be able to ban Homer from the shelves;
– the law should provide recourse against canals that conspire in restraint of trade; and
– the nation should be insulated sufficiently from China that they may not dictate allowable speech within the USA.
Perhaps an axis to consider if the next TLP edition tackles populism.
*A non-CCP affiliated comment. The author of this comment attests that he is not affiliated with nor has he accepted anything of value from the Chinese Communist Party or its affiliates or from anyone who has or their affiliates.
How if at all does your notion of “naive revelation” differ from Sowell’s notion of the “vision of the anointed”? They sound awfully similar, perhaps intentionally.
Re: “Which is another reason that populism is not a solution. If you believe in populism, then you suffer from a form of naive revelation.”
Does populism entail naive revelation? I suppose it depends on what one means by populism. I would say that populism denotes (a) mistrust of elites (mistrust of both elite motives and elite competence), and resentment of elite contempt for non-elites; (b) advocacy of more direct democracy; and (c) belief in simple solutions to social, political, and economic problems.
It seems that mistrust of elites and advocacy of more direct democracy need not entail naive realism. But belief in simple solutions probably does entail naive realism.
And it seems that populist political entrepreneurs often rise to leadership by encouraging disinhibition (more open expression) of people’s resentments towards elites.