احتواء عدوى الشعبوية

Nov 24, 2016 Harold James

برينستون ــ يبدو أن الشعبوية تحولت إلى عدوى فيروسية تجتاح الاقتصادات المتقدمة، وفي الوقت نفسه تتقهقر المؤسسة السياسية. ويسجل الدخلاء انتصارات سياسية كبيرة من خلال بذل وعود مثيرة بقلب الأوضاع أو الإطاحة بالنظام. وأعداء الشعبويين هم أعضاء "النخبة العالمية"، الذين خانوا القيم الوطنية، ومع ذلك فإن ثورتهم ضد ما أسماه الرئيس الأميركي المنتخب دونالد ترامب "الأممية" تطمح أيضا إلى التحول إلى ظاهرة عالمية، وتعتمد في واقع الأمر على نسختها الخاصة من مبدأ الدولية.

العدوى عملية مفهومة في عالَم التمويل. فالصدمة التي يشهدها مكان ما تُحدِث اهتزازات في أماكن أخرى، حتى في غياب أي ارتباطات مالية مباشرة، لأن المشاركين في السوق الذين يبحثون عن نمط معين يدركون القوى الأساسية العامِلة.

وتستعرض الثورة الشعبوية اليوم ديناميكية مماثلة. فقد وعد ترامب مقدما بأن يكون فوزه أشد تأثيرا من الخروج البريطاني؛ وبالفعل، بعد فوزه على الفور، نظرت قوى اليمين المتطرف الهولندية والفرنسية إلى انتخابه باعتباره بشيرا بما هو آت. وكذلك فعلت حملة "لا" في الاستفتاء الدستوري المقبل في إيطاليا ــ والتي عليها راهن رئيس الوزراء الإيطالي ماتيو رينزي بمستقبله السياسي.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Harold James

Writing for PS since 2001
159 Commentaries

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation. A specialist on German economic history and on globalization, he is a co-author of the new book The Euro and The Battle of Ideas, and the author of The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History of the Legendary German Firm, and Making the European Monetary Union.

Saving Italy From Itself
Simona Granati/Corbis/Getty Images

Saving Italy From Itself

Paola Subacchi explains why Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is facing the prospect of an early exit from office.

2
Illiberal Democracy or Undemocratic Liberalism?
Jeff Swensen (Stringer)/ Getty Images

Illiberal Democracy or Undemocratic Liberalism?

Yascha Mounk traces the rise of populism in Europe and the US to decades of expanding technocracy.

8

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 32 in all 32 Comments on this article

Joss Wynne Evans Dec 11, 2016

Populism, as those who fear it term it, is not anything more than a widespread revolt against the endemic corruption and wickedness of the so-called "global elite" both in and around politics, that have reduced the Middle East to flames, have worked to create armed conflict in Europe (which without the internet would probably have succeeded), and manipulated governments to create inequality unparalleled in the modern age such that 40% of the US population own less than one family. If it is global is is so because what opposes has global ambitions.

It is understandable and predictable that those who fear it choose to cry up the foul phantom of an earlier fascist age, but that has yet to be evidenced as a threat on the scale implied in a populace now better informed than at any time in human history. The rejection of "post-truth" does not need fascism, indeed it is revolting against the covert fascism of the globalists and their hangers-on who wish to make war and corporates an engine of profit at the expense of the planet.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
luis caraballo Nov 28, 2016

Por que no traducen al español inmediatamente todos los articulos que son tsn inoortantes ara nosotros
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Nov 27, 2016

The author gives all kinds of generalities in explaining populism, and where that could lead to. Thereby referring to history.
If ever something is to be learnt from history is that leaders do not listen to their citizen and do not always act in the best interest of their citizen. They are driven by their own lust for power, status and money. Until eventually the citizen protest and remove them.
Populism is just such a movement. History is repeating itself.
Significant is that the leaders and their elite are shocked by the success of the new leaders. They have no clue and try to explain it away as this author does.
Advice: go beyond your elite circle and ask the citizen. You will surely get very specific answers.
- Curtis Carpenter Nov 28, 2016
  
  Agree. I think we abuse the word "populism" by being too lazy to identify the particular form of it we're referring to. To a progressive, for example, "Trump populism" is seen as a disorganized form of right, or authoritarian populism of the sort we found in Germany and Italy in the 1930s. Sanders represented a form of left populism.
  
  Conservative populism is an interesting case, being something of an oxymoron. Since Edmund Burke, conservatism has _always_ distanced the political leader from the people. In that regard, it is a form of authoritarian populism, where it admits to being "populist" at all.
  
  The point I'm trying to illustrate is that -- in alignment with your view -- abusing the word "populism" without clarification oversimplifies the case and reduces it to an off-handed abuse of the people.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Nov 27, 2016

'For example, China could start to speak for all of Asia; and the EU might finally find ways to unite against those who would tear it apart.' The EU uniting to go forward cohesively is one thing, but why does the author think 'China speaking for all Asia' is an equally meritorious outcome? Why would Japan or India want China to speak for them? EU countries don't have territorial claims against each other. China has claims on some of its neighbors. The EU permits free movement and allows people to change their nationality. China does not. It asserts rights over ethnic Han Chinese people holding other Nationalities. The number of non-Han people to whom it has granted Nationality is tiny, even if their grandparents were born on territory that it is now sovereign over.

Populism may be a bad thing but how can its contagion be contained by some Professor asserting that 'China speaking for all Asia' is a good outcome?' This is stupider than anything Trump or Farage or Le Pen has said.
The author thinks 'an obvious historical parallel for today is the interwar period'. Is he mad? Where is there a Versailles treaty; a demand for reparations; revanchist and irredentist territorial claims and counter-claims; tens of millions of demobbed soldiers unable to find jobs who can be recruited into extremist political adventures?

No 'firewall' needs to be built against imaginary threats- like zombie Nazis from the center of the earth, or Stalinist Vampires from the planet Venus.
Multi=lateral treaties are in trouble because they are either subject to 'McKelvey chaos' if they are multi-dimensional due to agenda control by narrow cliques, or else because they methodologically ignore Knightian uncertainty and thus vitiate the market processes that would otherwise mitigate their deleterious effects.
- Curtis Carpenter Nov 27, 2016
  
  I don't think James is touting regionalism in his last paragraph here. As I read it, he's suggesting a range of possible results should such regionalism emerge -- some good, some bad.
  
  I do think that his view of regionalism might be equated to a new form of economic imperialism though, and we've traveled that road before.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Nov 25, 2016

Harold I do find the term "populist" an unhelpful "catch all" description for electors rejecting mainstream politics which has been unexciting and predictably drab for many decades.

In the face of huge social changes, we have seen in Europe the basis on which we live on the Continent change beyond all recognition with little or no chance of affecting the direction of it. I am sure many in the US feel the same.

Despite having laws on illegal migration; modern slavery; people trafficking; drugs smuggling/arms smuggling; and welfare tourism, many citizens find themselves cheek by jowel with people who are scamming the system, or worse, tax payers are expected to pay vast amounts of taxes to schemes; projects and initiatives that seem to be going nowhere. At the same time our own families are suffering while we are forced to give what cash we have to other people over whom many of us feel we have no responsibility.

To call the electoral reaction in both the USA and Europe "populist" is to miss the point. People have quite simply had enough of leaderless government and we all want change.

The EU have presumed to run the 28 countries of Europe, with a blind fold on and fingers in their ears which is a dangerous posture for any organisation, but the EU are determined to start running in that condition off the proverbial cliff. These people will not review their policies; they will not accept they are failing, they will not recognise the stats that prove their failure, they have all the certainty of an LSD taker that he can fly - here is where you find the roots of your so called "populism".

The binary electoral systems of Labour/Conservative in the UK and Republican/Democrat in the USA simply offer "same old same old" and frankly we have seen that, written it off and need a new offering. In both countries "outsiders" have shaken up the cosy consensus. Farage by operating outside of Parliament, largely because the political system is so rigged against any new party he couldn't do what he has done by being part of it. And of course Trump is most definitely an outsider to the mainstream Capitol Hill GOP.

In the end it doesn't matter that what these people have said has got them elected, because what we do know that is true, is that we have been lied to for years by the mainstream parties;none of the serious questions of our times are being addressed by our politicians and if we vote for the same old same old we won't get any change at all - so radical will have to be the choice because nothing else is worth voting for. Politicians have created this mess because they have been far to complacent about voters and they are also doing a very bad job in protecting and securing our economies and ways of life - it really isn't much more complicated than that.

As a strategic planner myself, you are trained to look at cause rather than effect when trying to analyse how to deal with problems. Our core problem has been that businesses who want to sell to the US and UK markets have been allowed to migrate production to dollar a day economies to manufacture goods that are sold for eye popping sums back in the USA and UK making huge profits for company owners and beggaring the work forces across the world and what we have seen over the years is a race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions for the average working man - of which most if not all of us count ourselves among. The middle class is shrinking as many administrative/professional jobs are replaced by computers and as face to face contact is swapped for an on line interface. You are seeing some very rich elites and oligarchs who have plundered the natural resources of countries like Russia; South America and the Middle and Far East cream vast amounts of wealth to themselves, whilst larger and larger numbers of people in the west are starting to lose wealth and opportunity as the limited cake that is our "world" economic system is divided across 7/8 billion people rather than the 4 billion there used to be.

Poorly run countries; massive corruption; wars and unrest; have created a mass flight from States of no hope to those areas where life is better - and these frictions have been enabled and facilitated by the incompetence of politicians failing to enforce laws on migration, or (worse) to open the door wide (like Shengen) and then are confused why the peoples affected by such crazy policies reject both the policies and the politicians who act in such an incompetent way.

As a mother of two university age children I worry about their future. The huge bills for their education and due to mass inward migration house prices in the UK are sky rocketing; where will my children live ? At the same time we are blackmailed by Europe to take in many migrants who have simply left their countries for a better life and expect taxpayers like us to pay for it.

Closer to home in Europe, you see many a failed socialist government in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe put out the begging bowl, because their socialist ideals have failed and are failing their societies because Europe believes the likes of the UK and Germany will provide everyone with a free lunch. We see obscene waste of public money; arrogant incompetent European leaders strut the world stage failing every growth target and performance target they set themselves, and when the populus have the temerity to want these people to go, or we choose to "leave" we are dismissed as the uneducated older generation who are unable to change. Change into what? From success to failure; from wealth to debt; from democracies to authoritarianism; from social peace to social disharmony??? This is what people are objecting to, the failure of mainstream politicians to listen, develop policies which address these pressing issues and a political class that is so sure they are right they have simply stopped listening to the electorate.

Politicians demand respect, whereas the public believes they have to earn that respect as things stand the people do not respect the political classes and intelligent concerned societies want change not platitudes.
- jagjeet sinha Nov 26, 2016
  
  THE WORLD SPRING IS NUCLEATED IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
  Christine makes a brilliant point in saying "Poorly run countries, massive corruption, wars and unrest, have created a mass flight from States of no hope". BREXIT was inevitable, as the flight from NOHOPELAND became endless - Brussels having fabricated European Union into States of No Hope is the enigma. Instead of constructing an Economic Epicentre out of European Technologies - that became a World Magnet that attracted and harnessed, like The Anglosphere has done for 300 years. Without Germany and Britain, European Union has become in reality like Latin America vis-a-vis USA and Canada. Unfortunate predicament - that made Brexit and Brexit plus plus inevitable.
  The Anglosphere is the template - that delivered the Growth Epicentres for 300 years.
  In challenging that Global TRUTH - challengers have not crafted the alternatives, and made the World vulnerable.
  The populist contagion that the author describes is ClubMed challenging The Anglosphere - without any alternative framework.
  Recognizing Reality is often the first step in distillation of The Truth.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Nov 25, 2016
  
  I would be interested in your reaction to the article by Gordon Brown on PS today Ms. Constable. Perhaps there is some movement in the direction you propose?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Nov 25, 2016

I would advise the author of this article to read a report on CNBC today about a letter that David Betras, the Democratic Chairman in Youngstown, Ohio, had written to Hillary Clinton back in May 2016 warning: " It's still the economy stupid"..... And nothing but....
- M M Nov 25, 2016
  
  Curtis, my apologies, the dots should have been before the word.... stupid. Well spotted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Nov 25, 2016
  
  It's not "the economy stupid" -- it's just "the stupid."
  The economy might admit to some corrections from time to time, but stupid is forever.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Nov 25, 2016

Gripes about democratic outcomes that do not resonate with a group are nonsensical. These outcomes are the direct result of incumbents sustained policy failure. It would be far more pertinent to appraise the dismal failure of economic strategy since 2000. A economic strategy which in the developed world has been uniform in its outlook and mechanisms during that period and associated common failure. Gripes about democratic outcomes are complaining about the wrong person, the voter. When incumbents policy fails the voter is only left with one option, get rid of the incumbents. The idea the incumbents and their supporters gripe about this as an outcome and say the voter is at fault is laughable. It simply parades a particular unwholesome mindset. Politically it is very simple - oppositions do not win elections, incumbents lose them
- Steve Hurst Nov 26, 2016
  
  @Mark
  
  That would be fine if there was a Sale of Goods Act about manifesto promises. The first thing that happens upon election is much is thrown in the bin and what goes on is unrecognisable.
  
  That is already going on with Trump and Brexit. Trump suddenly likes and respects Obama and likes parts of Obamacare, and the wall will not be a wall. Brexit means Brexit suddenly means 5 years exit maybe more, not 2 years, money still being paid into the EU and whist that is going on you can be assured free movement will continue and money will not be going into the NHS for example.
  
  You also neatly sidestep the the effect of targeted demographic groups to buy votes and imply somehow there is a whole population responsibility for outcomes in a 'winner takes all' system when clearly there is not
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Mark St. Angelo Nov 25, 2016
  
  In a democracy or a republic, the electorate (which includes not just those who voted but all those eligible to vote) always is responsible for the outcome of an election, and thus for the success and/or failure of the policies that are implemented by those who are elected.
  
  In the US, because so many don't bother to vote, usually about one-third of the electorate actually decides who gets elected and thus, indirectly, what policies get implemented and how they are implemented.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 25, 2016

Cherry picking bad examples of populism. What about the French Revolution or the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Populism is just direct democracy which happens when the elite betray the interests of the people.

Ultimately, a cosmopolitan international world is going to happen but it needs to one that works for most, and not just a handful of billionaires and their economist lapdogs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Nov 25, 2016

I very much hope that the "contagion" cannot be contained.
The actual personalities of the leaders riding the waves do not matter.
This is a popular uprising of our inherent human nature.
What is breaking, giving way is the false political correctness, the distorted, fake makeup. People had enough of the sustained, global attempts to create faceless, tasteless, aimless and even "gender-less" masses that are easier to manipulate and lead like sheep.

We will return to people with individual and national characteristics, pride, regained self-esteem.
Only when everybody, both individually and nationally know who they are, what their positive and negative characteristics are, can they start mutually complementing each other and build a diverse, multi-colored, mutual "global mosaic".

What we need is an honest, transparent, global and integral education program for all, explaining the laws and principles of the globally integrated conditions we evolved into, and how we could adapt our inherently selfish, individualistic nature into that system through positive motivation, without coercion or misleading trickery.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 25, 2016

Harold James quips about the irony of populists' revolt against globalism, which has seemingly become a global phenomenon. Unlike communism, which under Lenin became a "global brand" - the Communist International - and fascism, embraced by Mussolini and Nazism by Hitler that had spread to Asia and South America, populists focus on "national concerns" and refuse "to think collectively, or engage internationally."
It explains why populist parties in Europe are divided - left or right, they draw their conflicting passions from a well of nationalism. United by a rising xenophobia they share the same benefactor - Putin. In Britain, working class people from Labour voters to UKIP supporters resent immigration and the elites. Populists in Europe don't share the same ideology - in Scandinavia, they attack the establishment from the right; in the south, from the left. They ridicule "transnational" cooperation and "any coordinated international action."
The author deems it important to contain populism, before it morphs into any "intensely nationalist movements" in the 1930s in Italy and Germany, that adopt "an unstoppable logic, whereby every country must close itself off to trade, migration, and capital flows, or risk losing out in a zero-sum game." What worked half a century ago won't work in today's world of interdependence and interconnectedness.
According to the author "two measures" can be taken to contain the "poulist contagion." In order to address the grievances of the public, it is crucial to begin with confidence building. Politicians need to regain citizens' trust in "global governance institutions and existing democratic frameworks" and launch political reforms. He points out that "many problems that now affect individual countries are, in fact, transnational, and cannot be addressed by one country alone," like climate change.
The author is optimistic that "today’s contagious populism will create the conditions for its own destruction," as fear and uncertainty "could deter investment and choke off growth in already-fragile economies." In order to guarantee a sense of "certainty and continuity," short-sighted populists become pragmatic and "often make a pact with some part of the business class" they loathe, betraying their supporters.
Even though the Brexit vote and Trump's electoral victory have emboldened populists across Europe to dismantle the EU, the bloc has began to enjoy more support than ever. Brexit serves as a caveat and populists like Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders may have little success with a similar referendum in France and Holland. In Britain even if the "outcome of June’s Brexit referendum did not cause the economic catastrophe that much of the “Remain” camp had predicted it would." Many brace for an uncertain future, and the "economics of ..populism" may fail.
Following Trump's proposal, there are "fears of a trade war, or a dramatic spike in the dollar, owing to looser fiscal policy and tighter monetary policy, /that/ cause additional economic uncertainty." But the author believes America would remain "uniquely resilient: because it has historically been the global safe haven in times of economic uncertainty, it may be less affected than other countries by political unpredictability." He says, unlike smaller countries, a "big country like the US can generally impose the costs of its unpredictability on other countries, and especially on emerging markets."
Populism - according to the author - can be beaten, if countries "could begin to form defensive regional blocs to protect themselves from the populist contagion." He says China should lead in Asia. Why Beijing certainly doesn't support populist movements, it might have the ambition to speak for all. There is optimism that the EU "might finally find ways to unite against those who would tear it apart. At worst, this new regionalism could fuel geopolitical animosities and reprise the tensions of the 1930s; at best, regional integration could set the stage for sorely needed governance reforms, and thus clear a way out of the populist trap." Perhaps there is something good that comes out of something bad, and if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Aale Hanse Nov 24, 2016

The media and academics got it wrong with Trump, what are the chances you have it so wrong with your populist contagion rhetoric. Ask yourself - why it is so. These things do not occur in a vacuum as much as what has been set has.
Take heart you are not alone in you ways when an outsider rattles the cage. It has happened many times and each time it makes people stand to attention and address the situations with a bit more clarity....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Armin Schmidt Nov 24, 2016

The events can in my eyes also be interpreted differently. I created a theory founded in basic ethics and then making conclusion on a political supercycle. best-for-all politics is overdone and people think of their liberation, or subgroup liberation again. Not in these terms, but surrounding them. Oversimplifying: moral activity is out, existential is in.
The feared problem associated with subgroup liberation is, that it is often done mutually ignorant and damaging, spiralling, eventually with nukes.
A rule of thumb to contain this trait:
"Subgroup liberation demands fairness and compensation."

There is more in my account's biography.
- Armin Schmidt Nov 24, 2016
  
  Oh and to connect a thought to the concluding words of the comment: the "trap" aspect is the mutually harming dynamics, out could lead insight in its causes and subsequent activity. In the long term, thinking from the theory mentioned above, the subgroup liberation will end when it succeeded and peoples' lives got more free. Then inspiration to again focus on "best-for-all" activity resumes. As in the 1960's. Then the "establishment" will be the people still focusing on "subgroup liberation".
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Morten Lynge Nov 24, 2016

Reading the article... He's just another one from the 'established' global elite who think that the peasants should just do as they're told.
All he really writes is that the elite's solutions, globalisation, multi-culturalism etc., are right, and that the problems is the populists...
He fail to admit that the real problem is that the people voting for the populists are seeing real and significant problems in their lives caused by those 'solutions', and that the 'elite' (which he belong to) are not interested in hearing about it, and much less do anything about it.
More global trade, with the moving of workplaces to cheaper countries, is not going to help the European worker who isn't capable of doing the advanced jobs.
More immigration is not going to help the European person seeing his neighbourhood turn into a ghetto.
...and so on...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Nov 24, 2016

Be really careful of what you are asking for. Is this an example:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/vagaries-pakistan-cybercrime-law-161124082838234.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Nov 24, 2016

Mr. James I do not think "containing the populis contagion" is what you really mean in your article. I think you controlling the masses. Presently, masses of populations are rebelling from varying degrees of effects of authoritarian control by different regimes. The bottomline is that Nationalism resurgence will be a normal process in regrouping of mass populations due to geographic and local ideologies. Presently, I think even you have forgotten that laws are established to preserve the existnece of the state, even at the loss of the citizens. However, as much as you may like to only view citizens as consumers, on differing levels, everyone has been educated to various levels to recognize what is reasonable citizenship. Now if you want to establish mass censorship, limited access to the Internet, which unfortunately, I expect to occur quite rapidly now, then various Regimes may very well quite successfully contain the populist contagion. Check out the following link, and especially view the videos. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/egypt-anti-protest-law-legalising-authoritarianism-161107095415334.html
Just what type of governance reforms do YOU suggest, behind closed doors of course. Of course publicly glossing over the realities of fine print in any new legal proposals.
- Elizabeth Pula Nov 24, 2016
  
  There's couple of typos in my post. What I think you mean is just controlling the masses.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Nov 24, 2016

James and others continue to use phrases like "the populist contagion" which is in essence a smear against the people and the idea that they can have legitimate grievances. And a right to voice those grievances even when they run counter to the view of "the experts."

Ironically, it's this sort of smear that has helped to produce the very brand of populism that most of us find dangerous and in need of containment.

James and others, in my view, need to learn to express a more nuanced understanding of populism and, by extension, the people. That might be a necessary first step in restoring some credibility to the experts in a great many eyes.

Populism, like people, comes in different flavors. Some are deplorable, others can be noble. _Authoritarian_ populism belongs to the first category -- and that's what it should be called in essays like this. The American Revolution was a product of a different -- perhaps we could call it "liberal" -- form of populism that most of us find noble. (Others might argue the point of course).

More context here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/21/how-do-we-fight-loudmouth-politics-authoritarianism-populism-paul-mason
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rick Puglisi Nov 24, 2016

No firewall is needed. Just admit you made a mistake, balance trade, and acknowledge that people deserve to have a country.
- Mark St. Angelo Nov 25, 2016
  
  Unfortunately, it is not so easy to "balance trade," and I note that you haven't provided any suggetion(s) regarding how that might be accomplished.
  
  When workers in one area are willing to work for less money than those in a different area, those who own the means of production tend to shift their factories from areas with high labor costs to areas with low labor costs, even within the same country. That's why auto manufacturers not only have relocated plants to countries outside the US, but also have relocated them within the US from states with strong unions to states in the South where unions are weak and wages are lower.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Nov 24, 2016

Populism is the politics of protest in a period of fundamental change. Its rise is predicated on the mobilization of discontent but it is incapable of implementing structural change. The rise of China and wider Asia has brought an end to the North Atlantic-centered international system and an alternative order centred in Asia is emerging. Trump is a signal that the USA is incapable of playing a dynamic/constructive role in the process while Merkel is girding herself to deal with the future. She will be taken seriously. Trump and his acolytes will be but a passing wind.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux Nov 24, 2016

'[c]an a firewall be built to prevent such political contagion? '

Possibly, yes; probably,no. Too much political and economic inflexibility in the existing system, and no credible, easily-conveyable persuasive alternative. so any success will be mor by good luck than good management.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux Nov 24, 2016

'With populism seemingly going viral in the advanced economies, the political establishment is in retreat.'

Well, that's 's how revolution is done these days! Or at least attempted. Neither the Bastille (nor even Wall St) is stormed, but the (justified) anger of the mob is visited on those it holds responsible. the mob has met its enemy and it's (gulp!) us!

What will happen when it realizes that neither the Old Regime (Clinton, Cameron) nor the New (Trump, Brexit) can deliver, will be very, very interesting to see. I plan to be out of town, that day.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerald Silverberg Nov 24, 2016

A new regionalism sounds much more like Britain's Imperial Preference, Imperial Japan's Co-prosperity Zone, and Nazi Germany's Lebensraum, than a prospect for governance reform.
Charles Kindleberger, in contrast, thought that a "benevolent hegemon" was necessary to ensure the peaceful operation of a multilateral trading world. With Trump's America now clearly abdicating that role, and China ideologically and economically inadequate to the task, it's a stretch to think a new regionalism could full the void.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/u2On5KJ/ar;

احتواء عدوى الشعبوية

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Saving Italy From Itself

Illiberal Democracy or Undemocratic Liberalism?

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Climate Code Red

A War of Words Fought over Women’s Bodies

Ukraine Gets Its Chance

The Last Days of Netanyahu?

Asia’s Multilateral Balancing Act

The Economic Consequences of Automation

The Return of Fiscal Policy

Jerome Powell’s Dilemma

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register