Tag Archives: libertarianism

Will the Real Populism Please Stand Up?

Eugène Delacroix - Le 28 Juillet. La Liberté guidant le peuple
Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863). Source: Wikipedia
Writing at The American Conservative, Mike Lofgren tears into the guts of Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump, the latest book by Republican political commentator Laura Ingraham.

Lofgren’s two key points — that Donald Trump is no populist, and that conservatism is not populism  — are well-made. “A cynic,” he writes, “would conclude that the term populism, when applied to Republican politics in 2017, means this: keep the rich up, the poor down, foreigners out, and everybody else distracted by scapegoats. Meanwhile, line your pockets at the public trough … and fill your top posts with enough billionaires to make George W. Bush’s cabinet look like a Soviet Workers’ Council.” The piece is a rewarding read.

Despite his best efforts, however, Lofgren misfires on the most basic question involved. What is populism? He surrenders — it’s “hard to define” — citing various figures left and right to whom the label has been applied but whose ideologies are wildly incompatible one with another.

In fact, populism is quite easy to define. It is the separation of people into two warring classes. Let’s call them “the righteous masses” and “the power elites.” The populist, of course, sides with the righteous masses. It’s as simple as that. But the devil is in the details of defining those two classes.

“Right-wing populism” defines the classes mendaciously. It attempts to split the righteous masses against themselves by defining (as per Lofgren above) civic, ethnic, sexual and gender minorities out of the group and the politically connected wealthy in. It’s the righteous white working class and Donald Trump versus immigrants, blacks, Latinos, and the LGBTQ community.

Since it’s difficult to make a case that traditionally oppressed out groups are the “power elite,” they’re instead portrayed as mere pawns, robots in harness to the real villains. The media. Academia. And, although the message is usually offered in dog whistle code (“the bankers,” “Wall Street”), Jews.

It’s a jalopy held together with intellectual baling wire and running on fear and bigotry, but Trump’s presidency is far from the first time it’s carried a right-wing “populist” where he wants to go.

What would a real populism look like? French writers Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer answered that question in the 19th century. The two classes that matter are the productive class (the “righteous masses” who earn their livings through voluntary labor and exchange) and the political class (the “power elites” who steal their livings through control of, or favors from, the organization of plunder, aka the state).

Race, national origin, language, sexual orientation, gender identity — none of these personal characteristics are relevant to a true populist orientation. The only truly meaningful class distinction is the state and its hangers-on versus the rest of us. Even Karl Marx (who stole class theory from Comte and Dunoyer then mutilated it into a form that murdered millions) understood that the state is “the executive committee of the ruling class.”

Real populism is two things: It is left-wing, and it is libertarian. Trump is neither.

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.


Pan Fascism: Mussolini was a Piker

English: Benito Mussolini and Fascist blackshi...
English: Benito Mussolini and Fascist blackshirts in 1920 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

California’s Senate unanimously approved a bill proffered by Sacramento Democrat Richard Pan on May 18. The bill “would allow so-called beer bikes to operate on streets, but leaves cities to decide if alcohol is allowed on board.”

Why are “beer bikes” so important to Senator Pan?  If you guessed “because he likes freedom,” you’re wrong. According to the Associated Press, he’s concerned that “current state law does not include a definition for this type of vehicle, creating legal uncertainties.” Pan may or may not like beer bikes, but he’s deeply worried that something, somewhere, might be happening sans the supervision of Richard Pan.

This is just today’s example. I come across stories like it on a daily basis. A kid cited for running a lemonade stand without a permit. A traveler robbed of his cash by “law enforcement” on the claim that unless he can explain it to their satisfaction, some crime must be involved. And so on, and so forth.

Somewhere, some politician gets a bee in his bonnet and a law gets passed. Not in response to some clear, present, actual danger, but to ensure seamless regulation of all matters, large and small, such that nothing, anything, ever goes unaddressed by the political process.

This attitude, which drives modern American politics, stems from the doctrines of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, founder of the political ideology known as fascism. As he put it: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Mussolini only had a couple of decades to implement his ideas before World War Two and death interrupted him. Unfortunately, a more slowly moving version of those ideas took root in America around the same time under other names (“progressivism” being the most popular and enduring).

Today’s politicians surpassed Mussolini’s control fetishism long ago. We’re fast approaching the “progressive” ideal embodied by the ant colony in T.H. White’s The Once and Future King: Ubiquitous signposts reminding us that “EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.”

Not that today’s “conservatives” are any better. They’re every bit as keen on controlling others as “progressives” are; they just have different notions concerning which strings to pull on their puppets (all of us who aren’t politicians, that is). As Richard Nixon might say, were he still alive, “we’re all progressives now.”

Well, maybe not all of us. If you prefer freedom, look for the “Libertarian” label when next you vote.

Thomas L. Knapp 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.