Populism

I would hope that those that respond would read this in its entirety. It is a bit long, but I think -- even if you disagree -- it is food for thought.

I'll even leave out the somewhat inflammatory title of the piece

Politics has a math of its own. Whereas a scientifically minded person might see things this way: One person who says 2+2=5 is an idiot; two people who think 2+2=5 are two idiots; and a million people who think 2+2=5 are a whole lot of idiots?political math works differently. Let?s work backwards: if a million people think 2+2=5, then they are not a million idiots, but a ?constituency.? If they are growing in number, they are also a ?movement.? And, if you were not only the first person to proclaim 2+2=5, but you were the first to persuade others, then you, my friend, are not an idiot, but a visionary.

Of course, idiocy and its distribution in the population isn?t the point. You can build a movement out of true observations?i.e. 2+2=4?as well. The point is that political power flows from numbers and, more importantly, that such power becomes self-justifying for those who enjoy its effects. Passion becomes more ?legitimate? as more people share it, no matter what the content or object of that passion is. Any unified field theory of politics would have to include this basic law of the political universe. It is true in democracies and dictatorships alike. Like the laws of gravity or thermodynamics, it can be exploited or minimized. But it cannot be repealed. It is a constant of the human condition.

A QUALIFIED GOOD

I bring this up so you know where I?m coming from on the issue of populism. All political programs and movements derive some of their legitimacy from the fact that some number of people are behind them. Even kings depended on popular support to some extent. But only populism in its purist form derives its entire agenda from ?people power.? Indeed, the word basically means ?people-ism.? It does not pretend to privilege objective truth or the best arguments or even justice?if by justice you mean an objective system of judgment which might rule against ?the people.? For populists, ?justice? is defined by the giant baby getting its bottle.

It is for this reason that populism is inherently anti-intellectual. William Jennings Bryan, that towering figure of American history beloved by the American Left right up to the point where he argued against evolution in the Scopes Trial, was a man with little tolerance for arguments. A champion of free silver, he unapologetically admitted that he didn?t know much about economics. ?The people of Nebraska are for free silver and I am for free silver,? he proclaimed. ?I will look up the arguments later.? This is not say that Populists can?t be smart or have good arguments on their side. But Bryan?s formulation has the causation exactly right. What ?the people? want comes first, period.

Well, as small d-democrats in good standing, you might ask, ?What?s wrong with that? Does not the Constitution begin with ?We the People???? ...