12-17-2018 12:30:12 PM -0800
12-17-2018 09:31:43 AM -0800
12-16-2018 07:57:15 PM -0800
12-16-2018 10:25:25 AM -0800
12-15-2018 03:54:52 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Eek, I'm a Populist!

When I first heard the word "populist" bandied about in the early days of election 2016, my immediate reaction was "Ugh!"-- back we go to Father Coughlin and a bunch of guys with pitchforks.  Not promising.

Then, when I began to support Donald Trump, first grudgingly and then more enthusiastically, I discovered that I might therefore be a "populist." Heaven help me.

According  to Daniel Hannan -- British member of the European Parliament and contributor to the forthcoming (November 28) anthology Vox Populi: The Perils & Promises of Populism -- that assignation is not likely to make me popular, at least in, er, Belgium (and undoubtedly in a lot of other places).  Hannan writes:

The vilest slur in Brussels, the insult to end all insults, is "populist."  Eurocrats spit out, rather in the manner of a teenager at a party who mistakenly takes a swing from a beer can that was being used as an ashtray.  Yet, monstrous as the word is an a Eurocrat's vocabulary, he is surprisingly vague about its meaning.

Now I have little sympathy for those tedious elitists known as Eurocrats, but I must say the guy has a point.  I'm rather vague about the meaning myself (though I suspect in his case it may equal "Trump supporter" or, lately, supporter of those "boorish" renegades now leading Poland, Hungary and, most recently, the Czech Republic and Austria).

Even historian George H. Nash, after beginning the above-referenced essay collection with a brilliant tour d'horizon of the conservative movement, seems a little confused by what this new populism really is.  Some of the other contributors, however -- notably James Piereson, Roger Scruton, Victor Hanson, Andrew McCarthy and Conrad Black -- have more precise theories.

I will leave them to the reader of the anthology, which I suspect will be a touchstone for a necessary discussion as conservatism moves into the future, and try to come to grips with the question for myself.  What in the Sam Hill do I think, or maybe hope, this populism is?

But before I do, let me say that political terminology in general does not turn me on.  On one level I think it's all a bunch of hooey. Following in the tradition of E. M. Forster, who only gave two cheers for democracy, I only give two cheers for ideology, sympathetic as I may be to some.  As was expressed so well in My Fair Lady, "Sing me no song, read me no rhyme/ Don't waste my time, show me."

Which of course leads me to what I think is the first pillar of the new populism: pragmatism. Just get it done already.  In the "Deplorables" and in Donald Trump there's a little bit of Chairman Deng Xiaoping, whose famous watchword in overcoming Maoism was "I don't care if a cat is black or white, I only care if it catches mice." Donald and the "Deplorables" (sounds like a sixties soul group, doesn't ?) are in some way Dengists -- without realizing it, I assume, in most cases.  But to my mind Deng was the most revolutionary figure of the twentieth century, having brought the world's most populous country into modernity and in the process probably having saved millions of lives.