Simple solution or recipe for disaster: Observing populism
“The water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up” famously said Xun Zi, an ancient Chinese philosopher who witnessed the disintegration of the empire of Zhou into a dozen smaller states due to many peasant uprisings. There is a very close relationship between the water and the boat, digging too deep or lifting 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 the population into “the pure people” and the “corrupt elite” (Mudde 2004). Many are to be blamed for this dichotomy, including globalization, which “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). This widening wealth gap causes the people’s resentment toward the elite. To make the matter even worse, the increasingly overlapping policies between the mainstream parties and undemocratic practices of bureaucracies eliminate an outlet for the people to express their resentment through policies (Liddiard 2020). Although the mainstream parties may have a more nuanced explanation for the homogenization of policies, the people simply view the act as an attempt to suppress their voices while also lowering their standard of living as more wealth flows toward the top 1%.
As a result, these citizens turn to a populist approach that embraces passion and usually promises to represent the voice of ordinary people. Advocates of populism argue it can “invigorate political engagement by inviting participation from people who otherwise shun politics” (McCutcheon 2016). The obscure language of institutionalized politics creates a barrier for ordinary citizens, while by nature, populists position themselves as outsiders and similar to “the people,” therefore are more accessible and comprehensible.
In fact, as members of “the people,” they use the tactic to dumb down complicated policies and provide straightforward solutions. Professor McLennan from Meredith College argues populists say the solutions are easy “once the political system is changed and the corruption removed” (McCutcheon 2016). Positioning themselves as the outsider of the corrupt political system, they promise to cut through the gridlock of bureaucracy and solve everything. However, although populism seems like the fastest way to change the status quo, it is ultimately hindered by the irrationally chosen populist leader because they lack good governance and are unfit for the job.
Especially in a changing time like now, rather than going through all the intertwined root causes of the problems, people want to seek 1-time-fix-all sort of solutions. A lawyer in North Carolina observing the working-class American’s life quality drops due to manufacturing jobs plummeting for two decades said, “you just want to win again, whoever the victim, whatever the price” (McCutcheon 2016) The passion to win is good for democracy, however, it also emphasizes on the self-centered path of populism, which is at odds with-listening to both sides of the story-how democracy works.
Yet, the yearning for a simple solution in this complex age is exactly in line with the tactic of the populists. There are no simpler solutions than putting all the problems to a leader that people trust to solve all the problems. Trump “offers no idea beyond himself, the leader who can reverse the country’s decline by sheer force of personality” (Packer 2015). The showman nature of Trump hides his real identity as a rich businessman or the top 1% elite and appeals to the public because he chose to speak and act like working-class Americans. In fact, he stood for a much asked for change from the sophisticated politicians who are detached from ordinary working-class whites. Looking back at the history of populism, Trump wasn’t alone. From Andrew Jackson, a military hero to Huey Long the “Kingfish”, the populist leaders were portrayed as outsiders with real personalities compared to boring politicians. There is nothing wrong with a strong persona, after all, some of the most influential presidents such as FDR and Lincoln are charismatic and amiable. However, underneath their persona, FDR and Lincoln present a clear logical approach toward existing problems and possess a thorough understanding of political issues and commitment to democracy, which is often absent within the populist parties due to their only focus to win people over by packaging a charismatic leader.
As a result, people in charge of the most sensitive, most nuanced politics that could change many perspectives of the society, have little knowledge of the issue. 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. This survey reveals the populist leaders’ lack of responsibility toward the people they represent, which is very ironic considering the only reason they got elected is people trusted them. The focus on building their profile at the expense of a solid party structure yield the party useless at generating real policies.
Yet these incompetent populist leaders possess the most power-the backing of the people. If they succeed in politics, they simply deny the legitimacy of the opposition by framing them against “the people.” Indeed, Liddiard views this sidelining of opposition by using the flag of “the people” as problematic because it “denies a pluralistic society in which reasonable people can disagree elevates politics to a moral contest, in which populists’ formulation of the ‘will of the people is correct and infallible” (Liddiard 2020). This would not present such a problem where populists embrace everyone’s will. However, because of the inherent differences among different citizens, it is not possible. The political incompetency of the populists makes the matter even worse, that in the end, they will only represent a small portion of the people if they represent any at all. Therefore, I agree with Liddiard because populists put on the mask of “the people” to achieve the moral high ground. Once in power, despite their actual exclusivity of the majority of the people, they simply have no check or balance because they had already proven in the election that they represent the people.
Put together their weakness in policymaking and their unlimited power, it is not difficult to see a potential for disaster. What we see here is a small group of people who are ignorant to listen to any different opinions due to their unfettered authority yet do not possess the capability to make policy work.
Without a clear strategy and motivation to present durable policies, they are especially susceptible to outside influences. 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. In most circumstances, people would not hear about this corruption. But even if they did, it would result in other populist leaders starting a new cycle of populism to overthrow the current populist, known as serial populism, which eventually drains a country of economic and political resources.
Eventually, people’s voices must be heard. The rise of populism certainly raises a red flag that the current democracy is not working well, perhaps burdened by the string of bureaucracies. However, although populism aims to cut the bureaucracy by eliminating the middleman-the institutions-it also destroys the basis of modern democracy-check and balances of power-which leaves great power of the people on the hand of a small group who claims to be the one-time-fix-all solution to all the existing problems. As much as we are tempted to opt for the simple solution, we must keep in mind to never leave the power to one person, no matter how much we believe they have the capability to be a good leader.
Mudde, Cas. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition, vol. 39, no. 4, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 541–63, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44483088.
Liddiard, Patrick, “Is Populism Really a Problem for Democracy?” Wilson Center, 2020, www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/populism-really-problem-for-democracy
Accessed 6 Oct. 2021.
McCutcheon, Chuck, “Populism and Party Politics: Is the populist movement good for democracy?” CQ Researcher, 9 September 2016,
Packer, George. “The Pros and Cons of Populism.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 30 Aug. 2015, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-populists
Accessed 11 Oct. 2021.
