Politics

هل بدأ مد الشعبوية بالانحسار ؟

Feb 4, 2019 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

ستانفورد — ان السياسات المعيبة لبريكست في المملكة المتحدة وردة الفعل في انتخابات التجديد النصفي في الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ضد الرئيس دونالد ترامب قد أدت الى مراجعة لمد الشعبوية والذي اجتاح ديمقراطيات العالم في السنوات الاخيرة وفي واقع الامر فإن هذه المراجعة كان يجب ان تحدث منذ فترة طويلة.

إن الشعبوية هي مصطلح غامض ينطبق على أنواع مختلفة من الاحزاب والحركات السياسية ولكن القاسم المشترك بينها هو ازدراء النخب القوية ففي الانتخابات الرئاسية سنة 2016 شهد الحزبان السياسيان الرئيسيان في الولايات المتحدة الامريكية ردة فعل شعبوية على العولمة والاتفاقيات التجارية كما عزا بعض المراقبين انتخاب ترامب لردة الفعل الشعبوية على النظام الليبرالي العالمي خلال السبعة عقود الماضية ولكن ذلك التحليل مبسط للغاية فلقد كانت هناك عوامل كثيرة ساهمت في تلك النتيجة والسياسة الخارجية لم تكن واحدة منها.

إن الشعبوية ليست جديدة وهي امريكية مثل فطيرة التفاح الامريكية . ان بعض ردات الفعل الشعبوية –على سبيل المثال رئاسة اندرو جاكسون في الثلاثينات من القرن التاسع عشر والحقبة التقدمية في بداية القرن العشرين- قد أدت الى اصلاحات عززت من الديمقراطية . ان ردات فعل شعبوية اخرى مثل حزب لا ادري المعادي للهجرة والكاثوليكية في الخمسينات من القرن التاسع عشر أو عضو مجلس الشيوخ جو مكارثي والحاكم جورج والاس في الخمسينات والستينات من القرن العشرين قد عززت من العداء للاجانب والاقصاء. ان الموجة الاخيرة من الشعبوية الامريكية تضم هذين العاملين.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 17 Comments on this article

matias i Feb 23, 2019

¨Professor Nye is always insightful and acute. Nevertheless, and despite correctly assessing that the populist trend might be experiencing some setbacks, I consider it is still to soon to call it a full-fledged retreat. Populist regimes either from within or out of the Western Hemisphere lasted longer than the few years that Brexiteers and Trumpists have been in power. Thus, these could be isolated retreats instead of a broader withdrawal. Trump's chances of being reelected are high. Those of Brexit happenning, with or without deal, are also of importance. Populism is here to stay for a longer period, and better ways to face it have to be envisaged in order to strenghten democracy worldwide, as well as multilateral cooperation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Lloyd-Jones Feb 13, 2019

All politics is about the shiftiest three percent of the population at any given time. For the last little while, that sliver has been the old farts left over from the post-WWII baby boom.

The salient fact about that group is, we have a death rate somewhere north of seven percent a year. Of the cohorts of Americans who voted 70-30 for Donald Trump, a third will be dead by November 2020.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Janos Nagy Feb 12, 2019

The usual statement that technology kills jobs is a globalist propaganda.I have not seen a product that was labeled made by robots.
The USA has about 30 million jobs deficit just with China trough trades.
And thats what matters mostly not the dollar amount.
Of course the trillion deficit by the federal government plus deficit by the states compensates for these job deficits from trades.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Patrice Ayme Feb 11, 2019

"Populism" is opposed to "democracy". Yet the latter means "people power". That's logically incoherent. The so-called "democracy" we have is neither of the people nor really who rules: it's rather a plutocracy. Real democracy means people vote laws directly, not "elected" "representatives": after all, barbarian kings used to be elected...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Parsons Feb 11, 2019

Populism is not so much a new 'fore' as what emerges as the power of liberal and international ideology crumbles in the processes of history and the demands of nationtal existence. I hope 'democratic elections'(always a isgn of oligarchy) run as they must be by big money and influence, are replaced by direct votes of the people on issues, like the brexit votes that upset the cosy elites and broke their dominance on that issue. It is high time parliament, that instrumentof the elite that stole the land from the English people by 'enclosures' was abolished and democracy established.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jefford Hilder Feb 10, 2019

My personal opinion is the rise in populism' that we have been seeing globally goes hand in hand with the rise of New Media, particularly Social Media and high-velocity News Cycles that change minute to minute, being published and broadcast, often before all the facts are in and without proper reflection.
History shows us that at such times when new media rise to popularity that we also see a rise in populism'.
One only need to look at the history surrounding Luther and the printing press or the early Twentieth century with the rise of radio plus news reels and in the case of the Nazis even the invent of television.
At these times in human history we have seen that those who have best mastered these new media have been able to readily disperse their opinions and agendas and particularly those who have sort to pray on the Human frailty of a tendency to pessimism and believing the worst have regrettably been most successful.
While such people are undoubtedly Bad actors we must remember also the day do not act alone and that all too often perfectly normal and even reasonable people get swept along in a rising tide of belief that what they are hearing factual and true even if only by the sheer weight of repetition of falsehoods reinforced and legitimized the fact the others in familial or social groups surrounding them also have heard similar falsehoods, fake news or alternative facts whether those others believe them or not.
Regrettably history also shows us that avoiding embarrassment and a desire to please create an enormous impediment to admitting that one may be wrong.
So change for those infected with such falsehoods often comes slowly, but we should take heart in the fact the democracy more often than not inoculates societies from the rise of such bad actors and provides constitutional limits to such demagogues becoming autocrats and allows for correction in that elections only require small swings to create great change via simple majorities rather than requiring unanimity or absolute majorities.
We should also hope that the same media changes that brought recent Bad actors into the ascendancy shall also provide for the solution in disseminating true facts that give rise to the small shift that is required that will continues the correction we are hopefully beginning to see.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
edgyinchina Feb 10, 2019

With all due respect, I don't see how this piece constitutes answering the question posed in the title. It talks about the vagueness of the term itself, and points to a poll about taking part in global affairs, but offers only minor evidence of the claim that populism is retreating.... I would think the respected Mr Nye would offer greater proof than I see presented in this piece....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brinkley Feb 10, 2019

Many more jobs have been lost to technology than to trade.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
john zac Feb 10, 2019

Transparency is probably the beginning of the road of the the real fix,, but I doubt we'll ever get there. One thing I would really like to know from professor Nye : Does he consider Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Warren? populists?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 5, 2019

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. seems to believe that Trump’s disruptive presidency would not have a huge impact on America’s political system in far-reaching ways, thanks to its resilience. Trump’s hostility to immigrants reflects the views of Stephen Miller, his 33-year old far-right senior policy adviser. On the whole, “attitudes toward immigration improve as the economy improves, but it remains an emotional cultural issue.” Trump taps into the country’s psyche and divides the nation when it serves his purpose.
The author says, although Trump embraces economic nationalism and “America First” in his foreign policy approach, some “65% of Americans thought that globalization is mostly good for the US, despite their concerns about jobs,” according to a September 2016 poll. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has been asking Americans yearly since 1974, “if the US should take an active part in, or stay out of, world affairs.” The number of “isolationists” has been declining constantly. In a 2018 poll, some 70% Americans supported the US playing an active role in global affairs.
Trump’s win was partly a populist reaction to the liberal internatonal order that stands for globalisation and free trade for much of the post-war year. The author says, “one should not read too much about long-term trends in American public opinion into the heated rhetoric of the 2016 election or Trump’s brilliant use of social media to manipulate the news agenda with cultural wedge issues. While Trump won the Electoral College, he fell three million short in the popular vote.” No doubt Russia’s disinformation playbook lent him a helping hand too.
In fact populism has a long and durable tradition in American politics. It is in many ways an appealing doctrine, and “as American as apple pie.” Trump’s campaign rhetoric echoed the 1892 platform of the People’s party – known as the Populists – from its denunciations of media and “imported pauperised labour” to its insistence that the nation had been “brought to the verge of moral, political and material ruin”.
Trump won because he was told, that many of the “plain people” – a phrase from the Populists’ 1892 platform – felt ignored and despised by the elites of both parties. An increasing numbers of citizens believe that the economic and political systems of their country are rigged against them. Trump had the ear of many union members who felt threatened by free trade and globalisation.
Historian note that many successful presidents, from Franklin D Roosevelt to Reagan to Bill Clinton, have been populists to some extent. But leaders of both parties have also been wary of populism’s tendency to slide into demagoguery. History has shown that populists find it difficult to resist scapegoating minorities and outsiders, offering simplistic and unrealistic solutions for complex issues and destroying trust in social or government institutions.
Trump in many ways resembles previous populists who ran for presidency, such as Patrick Buchanan – who also campaigned on the slogan “America First” – and Alabama governor George Wallace. But there has never been a vigorous populist in the White House, with the exception of Andrew Jackson, whose portrait now hangs in the Oval Office, because Trump cites him as his hero.
Trump also reminds of Barry Goldwater, the rightwing Arizona senator who was the Republican presidential candidate in 1964. Like Trump, Goldwater was an anti-establishment firebrand with a habit of making extreme statements on sensitive subjects, such as race and nuclear weapons. After presiding over a divided party convention, the prickly Goldwater refused to pivot toward a more measured, level-headed “presidential” posture. Like Trump, he had no interest in reaching out to groups that were sceptical of his candidacy, such as minorities and college graduates. He also appealed to the less-educated voters in the white working class who had not previously taken much interest in politics.
The author says “the lesson for policy elites who support globalization and an open economy is that they will have to pay more attention to issues of economic inequality as well as adjustment assistance for those disrupted by change,” both at home and abroad. While “strong support for immigration and globalization in the US sits uneasily with the view that populism is a problem,” one can be hopeful that “support for the political forces it attempts to describe seems to be on the wane.” It remains to be seen whether this development is universal.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Feb 5, 2019

As usual, yours is a nice little column, worth reading. It is full of insightful observations. Congratulations !
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Robinson Feb 4, 2019

Michael, I would also like to add to this discussion that this talk is often filled with "straw men" and stereotypes – words like "populist" and "elite" (to me ...) definitely qualify. I suggest that we should therefore try to put our conversation's boots firmly on the ground at all times – talking about definite incidents, definite objectives, and definite problems or issues. We mustn't find ourselves talking about, and with, clouds.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Robinson Feb 4, 2019

Dr. Nye, I think that one critical mistake now being made by the "globalists" is that they very simplistically regard it as a way to tap into a cheap(er) source of labor – even if this de-facto brings back some things that were outlawed in the -nineteenth- century: slavery, and "involuntary servitude," a.k.a. "indentured servants." It is transparent to all that this is the true and only impetus between Europe's "immigration" and the USA's equally euphemistic "non-immigrant visa" and "guest worker." This is not the time to look the other way.

Also lost in all of this is the notion of sovereignty, national autonomy, and the need for redundancy in robust international economic systems. Instead we commit John Ruskin's famous error and "consider price alone." We reflexively call it "protectionism" when a national leader argues that the leaders of every nation should, without exception, put "their country first" in everything that they do ... ignoring the fact that the person who said this made billions of dollars in personal wealth for himself, chiefly as a negotiator. His experience, unprecedented in the entire history of politics, gives him life-lessons to teach us all, even if he is not gifted in tact.

What we get for it is international "sole sourcing" – e.g. a United States that is now -incapable- of building telephones, computers, underwear, shoes and socks. Something as natural and predictable as an enormous typhoon in the Pacific had downstream implications that lasted for months because companies had nowhere else to turn.

In the end, it is a question of balance. International trade is a valuable and positive thing, but not if it is done at the expense of your own country. Global awareness and global perspectives are desirable things, but not if only one nation wins. In the debate that you discuss in this piece, both sides have valuable and important points which, in fact, are not contradictory nor exclusive of one another. Both perspectives need to listen carefully to one another to identify a forward path in which both sides benefit and truly prosper. The "prosperity" we speak of now is hollow, empty, fragile, and un-sustainable. We must do better than this. And we certainly can.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Feb 4, 2019

The populists rightly distrust the elites because they act in their own interest. However, the populists have no ability to rule. I want the best of both - capable and trustworthy leaders and I think we can get it if we change the way leaders are hired and fired.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/8ZO62FYar

هل بدأ مد الشعبوية بالانحسار ؟

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

هل بدأ مد الشعبوية بالانحسار ؟

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification