Technocratic vs. Elitist Right: The closing thought about a shift toward "Silicon Valley elitism" is a fascinating prediction that deserves its own standalone piece.
The problem with the concept of populism (and the main theories around it) is that it somehow presupposes that the duality of “people vs elite” is taken at face value, whereas in reality it is a mere ideological instrument. Trump, Farage, Bolsonaro etc were *already* in the (badly defined) “elite”, they didn’t join it once in power. And I’m skeptical about the notion that they were elected because “people” thought they would improve things for “the people” (thereby losing on that ground now). Celebrating the promise of relentless cruelty with the hope that they will not be at its receiving end appears more likely in my view and remains a central attraction. Even in a context of higher gas prices.
I definitely agree they were all part of an elite, but when they first came to public attention as candidates, I think they could at least present themselves to their target audiences as outsiders to the established political elite–distinct from the Hillary Clintons of the world. Sometimes this was more in the realm of presentation than content, which is why I think the “clownish” part is so important: sometimes populists are distinct from establishment parties only in communication style, aesthetics, etc. I definitely think the cruelty part is real, but also that a populist’s target voters genuinely see themselves as the authentic “people” (whether by virtue of race or nationality, perhaps even gender), and that the cruelty you mentioned would help restore “the people” to their rightful place in society that they had “lost” due to “elite reengineering” (DEI, immigration etc etc) or whatever. So the utility of the populist label, to me, is not to take at face value this binary of elites vs “the people”, but rather to understand how a populist’s supporters conceive of themselves–as the authentic “people” who’ve been wronged by the “conventional” (let’s call it) political elite.
Yes, I agree. The pretense of being outside the established elite was entirely performative. It is pretty obvious that someone must have tremendous levels of cognitive dissonance to even entertain the thought that someone like Trump does not belong to the elite. Or, otherwise said, one must have a profoundly distorted definition of what 'elite' means. The problem is that most theories of populism are forced by their own framework to present this performative and ideological semblance as an actual fact - precisely because their approach is structured around the dichotomy of 'people' vs 'elite'. The moment this false dichotomy collapses, there is not much left of populism (in theory or practice). And yes, absolutely, the same problem arises with the concept of 'the people'. The only functional definition of such a concept is one structured around national identity, with citizenship being the pathway for claiming access to state protection. Whether left (welfare chauvinism, blue labour types, national sovereignty defenders) or right (explicit nationalism, racism etc), this approach *presupposes* the exclusion of 'non-citizens' (which essentially means large parts of the proletariat of each country) and the strengthening of the nation-state (against 'neoliberal' globalists for both left and right). Yet, the illusion that a non-conventional (and clownish, this seems to be obligatory) elite will gear state resources towards protecting its own citizens is actually impossible to sustain in reality - something visible, for example, in the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the victims of ICE's brutality were in fact US citizens. Rather than a glitch in the Palantir-based data collection, this is the very essence of ICE and the weaponisation of state institutions against the 'domestic enemy' (as Trump promised). In my view, this realisation (tacit or not) is a crucial factor behind the weakening of the framework of the populist decade.
This is a really important point that needs to be written about more–the way repression and violence supposedly meant for "foreigners", whether at home by ICE or abroad in US wars of aggression, always ends up being directed at ALL of "the people" (whether in the right-wing populist's conception or in a more realistic meaning, i.e. the non uber-rich and powerful). And I agree that's a really effective way of explaining it to weaken its destructive grip!
Technocratic vs. Elitist Right: The closing thought about a shift toward "Silicon Valley elitism" is a fascinating prediction that deserves its own standalone piece.
You're right! I will have to address that one soon.
Thoughtful analysis - thank you.
thank you for reading!
The problem with the concept of populism (and the main theories around it) is that it somehow presupposes that the duality of “people vs elite” is taken at face value, whereas in reality it is a mere ideological instrument. Trump, Farage, Bolsonaro etc were *already* in the (badly defined) “elite”, they didn’t join it once in power. And I’m skeptical about the notion that they were elected because “people” thought they would improve things for “the people” (thereby losing on that ground now). Celebrating the promise of relentless cruelty with the hope that they will not be at its receiving end appears more likely in my view and remains a central attraction. Even in a context of higher gas prices.
I definitely agree they were all part of an elite, but when they first came to public attention as candidates, I think they could at least present themselves to their target audiences as outsiders to the established political elite–distinct from the Hillary Clintons of the world. Sometimes this was more in the realm of presentation than content, which is why I think the “clownish” part is so important: sometimes populists are distinct from establishment parties only in communication style, aesthetics, etc. I definitely think the cruelty part is real, but also that a populist’s target voters genuinely see themselves as the authentic “people” (whether by virtue of race or nationality, perhaps even gender), and that the cruelty you mentioned would help restore “the people” to their rightful place in society that they had “lost” due to “elite reengineering” (DEI, immigration etc etc) or whatever. So the utility of the populist label, to me, is not to take at face value this binary of elites vs “the people”, but rather to understand how a populist’s supporters conceive of themselves–as the authentic “people” who’ve been wronged by the “conventional” (let’s call it) political elite.
Yes, I agree. The pretense of being outside the established elite was entirely performative. It is pretty obvious that someone must have tremendous levels of cognitive dissonance to even entertain the thought that someone like Trump does not belong to the elite. Or, otherwise said, one must have a profoundly distorted definition of what 'elite' means. The problem is that most theories of populism are forced by their own framework to present this performative and ideological semblance as an actual fact - precisely because their approach is structured around the dichotomy of 'people' vs 'elite'. The moment this false dichotomy collapses, there is not much left of populism (in theory or practice). And yes, absolutely, the same problem arises with the concept of 'the people'. The only functional definition of such a concept is one structured around national identity, with citizenship being the pathway for claiming access to state protection. Whether left (welfare chauvinism, blue labour types, national sovereignty defenders) or right (explicit nationalism, racism etc), this approach *presupposes* the exclusion of 'non-citizens' (which essentially means large parts of the proletariat of each country) and the strengthening of the nation-state (against 'neoliberal' globalists for both left and right). Yet, the illusion that a non-conventional (and clownish, this seems to be obligatory) elite will gear state resources towards protecting its own citizens is actually impossible to sustain in reality - something visible, for example, in the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the victims of ICE's brutality were in fact US citizens. Rather than a glitch in the Palantir-based data collection, this is the very essence of ICE and the weaponisation of state institutions against the 'domestic enemy' (as Trump promised). In my view, this realisation (tacit or not) is a crucial factor behind the weakening of the framework of the populist decade.
This is a really important point that needs to be written about more–the way repression and violence supposedly meant for "foreigners", whether at home by ICE or abroad in US wars of aggression, always ends up being directed at ALL of "the people" (whether in the right-wing populist's conception or in a more realistic meaning, i.e. the non uber-rich and powerful). And I agree that's a really effective way of explaining it to weaken its destructive grip!