Reason and Passion: Considering populism
“The water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up” famously said Xun Zi, an ancient Chinese philosopher while witnessing the disintegration of the empire of Zhou into a dozen smaller states with many peasant uprisings. There is a very close relationship between the water and the boat, digging too deep or lifting up too high both results in a capsize of the boat, insinuating a nuanced utilization of “the people’s” power by those who govern the state. Although spoken two thousand years ago, this philosophy is applicable today in the aspect of populism, where essentially the population splits into “the pure people” and the “corrupt elite” (Mudde 2004). Many are to be blamed for this dichotomy, including increasingly overlapping policies between the mainstream parties and undemocratic practices of bureaucracies (Liddiard 2020). To make the matter even worse, globalization “unintentionally delivered considerable wealth and power to a small elite while reducing the number of high-paying jobs available to lower-skilled workers” (McCutcheon 2016). Indeed, the wealth gap grows exponentially while the mainstream parties fail to address it. As a result, many turn to a populist approach that usually offers extreme solutions to the existing problems. Although populism provides an outlet for people’s frustration toward undemocratic practices in existing institutions, it actually breaks down democracy because populism favors passion over reason.
The ability to reason is essential to modern democracy because it allows participants to acknowledge the existence of adversaries. In fact, the existence of a peaceful low stake competition is what distinguishes democracy from authoritarianism. Through reasoning between opposing views, and thus protect the freedom of religion and press as well as the civil rights of minorities, modern democrats create representative institutions that “both express, and tame, the will of a sovereign people” (Miller 2018). Without this reasoning, people lost critical thinking and will adhere to mob mentality.
Populism lacks the ability to reason. In fact, populism is extremely narrow-minded. The dichotomy nature of populism allows people to crown their own opinions “people’s opinion,” while ignoring the others or even condemning equally popular opinions as from the corrupt elites’. This problem extends to who should have labeled “us” versus “them,” which not only marginalizes corporate business and lobbyists, but also minority groups (McCutcheon 2016). In fact, Mueller points out the populists totally disregards the rights of individuals not considered the people (Liddiard 2020). Anyone with a different interest than the populist would be labeled the elite, despite how reasonable their interest is. This majority tyranny stood against the value of inclusion of democracy. Although some scholars argue that those values of exclusivity are specific to far-right populists, that is not the case because when it comes to blind trust or discontent of the policy without acknowledging both sides, the left is just as bad (Lemieux 2021). The pure act of blindly trusting the government when it presents favorable policies to one group exhibits the lack of logic.
Actually, the populists’ blind trust or hate toward the government makes sense due to the nature of populism being a simplification of problems. “Populism appeals because it promises simple solutions to complex problems,” said a report by two economics (McCutcheon 2016). However, when confronted with undemocratic practices, most people don’t search for the root causes of the problem because usually one social problem is intertwined with several. As simple as the populist leaders claim the problem is, the truth is there are no simple solutions to social problems. But people often believe there is because they could not bear the thought that they possess little power to solve problems. Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology at New York’s Stony Brook University explains “Populism is more an emotion than it is an ideology. And that emotion is anger” (McCutcheon 2016). The people felt cheated by their own government who they view as working with the elites, exacerbated by events such as the economic crisis of 2008. With anger dominating society, people tend to think without a critical lens and adhere to the activity of a larger group unconsciously. Because of that, they want to elect a leader that seems more out of place at the office than the normal politicians. Someone like themselves, who has a strong personality and promises to change up the game.
This passion translates to the charisma of the populist leaders. Looking back at the history of populism, there wasn’t a single dull populist leader, from Andrew Jackson, a military hero to Donald Trump, a self-made billionaire, they were portrayed as outsiders with a real personality compared to boring politicians. Whereas this persona will win them votes, the job requires a thorough understanding of political issues and commitment to democracy, which the populist parties often underestimate at the expense of party building. As a result, people in charge of the most sensitive, nuanced politics have little knowledge of the issue. In fact, a survey given to the Sweden Democrat councilor who are the non-mainstream populists shows that they are “considerably less likely to have traits associated with good governance or democratic durability: motivation for public service, honesty or humility, or trust in others” (Liddiard 2020) Put simply, they are unfit for the job. In addition, the focus on building their own profile at the expense of a solid party structure yield the party useless at generating real policies. Put together their firm belief that they represent the will of people and their incompetency, it is not difficult to see a potential for disaster. Without a clear strategy, they could easily impose unreasonable policies. Their opponents will take advantage of their incompetency when the populist leader turn to their adversary for help, even more, it would easily make the country subject to foreign influence as shown in France’s right-wing populist Marine Le Pen’s statement on the Ukraine conflict directly following a member securing the 9.4-million-euro loan (Liddiard 2020). This trade between the populist and foreign power is against everything the populist stood for. A similar situation might be avoided were the people were less hyped up and actually have all the checks and balances for democracy in place rather than simply chanting and focusing on Le Pen’s personality.
The essential problem with populism lies within its dismissal of reasoning, which generates a loophole for opportunist demagogues who do not qualify as a good leaders, thus creating a recurring disastrous populism throughout the country with no real progress of social or economic gain. Although there certainly are loopholes in the current democratic system, populism is not a shortcut. Instead, the government needs to focus on how to expedite people’s request and transfer them to actual policies rather than being lost in the bureaucratic processes.
Lemieux Pierre, “Is Populism the Savior of Democracy?” Cato Institute, 15 June 2021, www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2021/populism-savior-democracy. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
“Is Populism Really a Problem for Democracy?” Wilson Center, 2020, www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/populism-really-problem-for-democracy. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
“Cas Mudde — Populism in the Twenty-First Century: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism | the Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy.” Upenn.edu, 2020, amc.sas.upenn.edu/cas-mudde-populism-twenty-first-century. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
“Five Views: Is Populism Really a Threat to Democracy?” EUROPP, 24 July 2017, blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/07/24/is-populism-really-a-threat-to-democracy/. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
“Populism and Party Politics: Is the populist movement good for democracy?” CQ Researcher, 9 September, 2016,
Miller, James. “Could Populism Actually Be Good for Democracy?” The Guardian, The Guardian, 11 Oct. 2018, www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/11/could-populism-actually-be-good-for-democracy. Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
