First Thoughts

One thing that immediately jumped out at me was the consideration of left-wing populism. It was Brexit in the UK in 2016 that first got me interested in politics, followed shortly by all of the Trump stuff — with similar forces circling in France, Brazil etc. along the way — so I felt myself extremely familiar with right wing populism and the detrimental effects it can have — but never really considered the fact that someone like Bernie Sanders had quite a similar approach, just from a different perspective. I thought that Miller’s article in the Guardian was interesting in its position that the sort of vehement, “rage against the system” mentality which I perceive to define most populist movements, is actually fundamental and essential to proper democracy. This really struck me because I, like many others (including Anna Grzymala-Busse) saw these movements as damaging to the inherent sanctity of democracy that the west holds holy, looking to destroy the values that built our societies. What caught me off guard was how logically chained together Miller’s argument was that these sorts of revolts are as democratic as it gets, linking it all the way back to the idea’s inception in Ancient Greece so long ago. The Stanford article highlights some important points that have shifted my own perception a bit. As mentioned, I had quite a knee-jerk opposition to populism, largely moulded by my perception of it as a right-wing tool — but it was welcoming to see the objections put in more formal terms. For example, the fact that populism, despite being ‘for the people’ can actually prove to be incredibly marginalising was not something I had given much consideration to. The interesting interaction between these articles is the fact that one argues populism damages democracy while the other argues that that is kind of the point. I’m not sure if I’m too much closer to figuring out where I come down on the issue as it relates to the question we have to answer. I think that populism definitely has some solid grounding in its rhetoric — long established systems are broken, and representation needs to become more representative etc. etc. but there are massive problematic holes when it comes to its execution, be that presenting it in a way that is unpalatable to the average person or being outright dangerous. I am nestled somewhere in this middle ground of theory vs. practice — and I think that is likely the chain of argument I will pursue.