If there’s a single global through line to  the politics of the last decade, that through line is the continuing fight over something called, by both its supporters and opponents, “populism.”

Donald Trump (the US). Narendra Modi (India). Viktor Orban (Hungary). Giorgia Meloni (Italy). Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil). Boris Johnson (the United Kingdom). A cast of thousands, a few still enjoying their 15 minutes and then some, many others at least temporarily out of the limelight.

The negative reactions, usually postured as defenses of “liberalism and democracy” against “illiberalism and authoritarianism,” are just as plentiful and, in places, at least marginally as successful … but not quite so big on cults of personality.

Rather odd, don’t you think? The “populists” pose as “the voice of the people” but center their efforts on backing individual leader figures, while their supposedly “elitist” opponents emphasize “the people” over particular representatives of same.

In reality, both sides are fake versions of “populism.”

The core underlying claim of populism is this: There are two classes of people, the “exploitative elites” and the “righteous masses.”

That claim is true as far as it goes. The falsehood — or, being generous, error — is in identification of those two classes.

Today’s self-described populists identify the exploitative elites as those who either belong to, or pretend to support, particular easily scapegoated “out-groups” like racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities. They identify the righteous masses as whoever falls for the scapegoating and flocks to Dear Leader’s banner.

Today’s self-described anti-populists identify the exploitative elites as the populists, whom they also identify with easily scapegoated “out-groups,” especially anyone who has more money than you. They identify the righteous masses as whoever falls for the scapegoating and flocks to the Leader Party’s banner.

In reality the two classes — as identified in Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer’s “libertarian class theory” in the 19th century — are the productive class (everyone who earns a living by producing and exchanging valuable goods and services — the righteous masses) and the political class (the exploitative elite who use government to exercise power and parasitically rake off a portion of the wealth the righteous masses produce).

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, as members of the US political class, have a lot more in common with each other than either has in common with the average American.

Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, as members of India’s political class, have a lot more in common with each other than either has in common with the average Indian.

And so on, and so forth.

So why the fake “populist” versus fake populist “anti-populist” posturing?

Because it WORKS.  Any given political class faction may be on top or in waiting to get back on top at any given time, but those factions cooperate to ensure that the productive class remains in thrall to their various schemes and scams.

Politics is about power.

Realpolitik is about acting to maintain power, moral and ethical considerations be damned.

Real populism — libertarianism — rejects political power, not just one political class faction.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On September 13, the Biden administration announced a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to “protect American consumers, workers, and businesses by addressing the significant increased abuse of the de minimis exemption.”

That’s a pretty bland way of saying that Biden and Friends are opening up a new front in the US government’s war on your ability to find and purchase the things you want at a price you find attractive.

The current targets of opportunity in that war: Chinese e-commerce outfits like Temu and Shein, which use the “de minimis exemption” to ship goods directly to American consumers at low prices.

Under the de minimis exemption, items worth less than $800 aren’t subject to the tariffs Donald Trump and Joe Biden have increasingly leaned on over the last few years as a way of rewarding  American business donors and organized labor supporters at your expense.

How things used to work: A US importer would order, say, $10,000 worth of, say, motorcycle helmets. They’d arrive in a big shipping container and if the tariff was 10%, the importer’s cost (passed on to retail customers, of course) now became $11,000 — and the customers’ cost came to that higher price plus the wholesalers’ and retailers’ markups.

How it works now: You find a motorcycle helmet you like online, priced with no tariff and fewer “middleman” markups. You click. You pay. It arrives. It’s not as quick as going to a local shop or ordering from Amazon, but it’s usually MUCH cheaper.

American customers love paying less for what they want or need.

American producers, wholesalers, and labor unions hate that you’re able to pay less for something you want or need … because they’re not getting their cut.

Domestic retailers, meanwhile, are increasingly eyeing the whole thing as a new supply chain streamlining opportunity. With so much commerce taking place online now, why not just drop-ship individual items directly from China to consumers instead of paying tariffs on bulk purchases that then require additional shipping and take up expensive shelf space until they’re bought  with the assistance of paid store staff?

Biden’s hoping Big Business and Big Labor will notice he’s ripping you off for their benefit and support Democrats in November. He’s also hoping voters won’t notice their lighter wallets.

Don’t buy Biden’s malarkey about “national security,” fentanyl, and “protecting” you from “abuse.” This is about paying political allies off with your hard-earned money, and that’s all it’s about.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The best form of organization, Samuel Edward Konkin wrote in  1980’s New Libertarian Manifesto, “is a Libertarian Alliance in which you steer the members from political activity (where they have blindly gone seeking relief from oppression) and focus on education, publicity, recruitment and perhaps some anti-political campaigning (i.e. ‘Vote For Nobody,’ ‘None of the Above,’ ‘Boycott the Ballot,’ ‘Don’t Vote, It Only Encourages Them!’  etc.) to publicize the libertarian alternative.”

But wait, replied Murray Rothbard: “Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so.”

SEK3: Poppycock! “Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the ‘underground railway?'”

That debate — can voting be an effective activity in pursuit of liberty? Is it even morally acceptable? — outlived Rothbard and Konkin, continuing among libertarians to this day.

Thomas Paine thought “it would be strange indeed if so celestial article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated,” but it’s just not on offer in the electoral marketplace. We may never get it, and if we do get it, we won’t get it by voting for it.

On the other hand, history irrefutably demonstrates that most people will indeed “[sit] around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates” rather than risk the overseer’s whip by attempting to flee the state’s plantation.

Voting’s not really good for much if freedom is the criterion, and not even especially effective at lightening our burdens — we’re each more likely to win the lottery than to cast the deciding vote in any sizable election.

But that doesn’t make voting immoral.

Voting is the expression of a preference among limited options within a political system shaped and constrained by force.

The system is immoral.

The options within that system are usually mostly immoral (though voting against a new tax might not be).

Your preferences from among those options may be immoral too.

But stating your preferences (even between equally immoral options) is not, as such, immoral. It’s just … speech!

If I hold a gun to your head and a knife to your throat and ask you how you want to die, the immorality is mine for forcing that choice on you, not yours for choosing.

Vote, Or don’t. Your call. I support your right to express your preferences (and maybe “send a message” with a third party vote), or remain silent. But either way, don’t fantasize that you’re really accomplishing much.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY