Populism and polarization:
Both things definitely exist, but the people that always use them first, or really only use those analytical frameworks no matter the situation, make me slightly suspicious, like they have something to hide.
Both things definitely exist, but the people that always use them first, or really only use those analytical frameworks no matter the situation, make me slightly suspicious, like they have something to hide.
It seems that a really common move these days is to carefully look at developments (in international politics) through the lenses of polarization and populism, with the unwritten (or written) assumption that more of either is bad, and less of either is good.
So I think it's worth asking what that implies. What, for example, is the exact opposite of polarization and populism? It seems to me that it is a society 100% united behind a technocratic elite.
For example. Which societies had more "polarization" - Chile and Brazil in the 70s under dictatorship, or USA in the 70s with Nixon and Carter? Which society would you rather live in
Class - Race - Gender - Inequality - Democratic Representation - Poverty. These are all real things too, and useful conceptual frameworks. Who ignores them, every time something happens, to pull out a microscope and say, is this MORE or less populist than before? More polarized?
There are all kinds of things that might be very good for democracy, or advancing the cause of freedom, that might increase polarization in the short term. Like a strike, or protest, or even, voting in the first place
Populism is a real tradition in politics, as well as a political style that any leader can draw on to varying degrees. But it's very far from the concept with the most explanatory power. An obsession with this concept seems to me to imply love for its opposite:
And it seems a political movement with NO populist moments or populist impulses, its exact opposite, is full agreement that the current elites have earned their position and don't abuse it, should not be subverted. Basically stasis in the existing power structure.
It may not be coincidence that the state I described above - "100% unity behind a technocratic elite" also happens to be the best of all possible worlds for international investors, for global capital, the group to whom the best-funded foreign reporting is meant to speak directly
Nothing wrong with that, really. Some of the best publications, those I love and have written lots for, often have the explicit goal of informing investors. I just have been wondering what other analytical tools have been pushed aside by the dominance of populism / polarization
