Thread by @JayWeixelbaum

Here's a thought: Nobody owns progressivism. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For my part, I don't think we separate populism from progressivism enough. I see them as competing, not complimentary.

If someone is trying to impose their definition of progressivism or leftism - and especially if they try to tie to specific individuals, I usually see that as a red flag. These concepts have pretty broad definitions.

I know I've tweeted about this before, but let's reiterate some broad definitions:

Leftism is about solidarity with those who have less power in society.

Progressivism is about building coalitions to do the greatest amount of good for the largest group of people.

Liberalism is defying traditions - particularly defying the structures that consolidate power around those who already have the most privilege and power.

All of these concepts get turned into pejoratives, of course. But that's exactly why we should spend more time just thinking about what the basic concepts mean. Because that can help us think critically about the political rhetoric we encounter.

It bothers me when folks try to make progressivism this ideologically rigid thing. Because that really defies its core concepts. Progressivism is, at its core pragmatic. Because it's not about ideology but *outcomes* Progressives ask, what can we do to get to the better outcome?

When you see progressivism as about outcomes - then it's easy to see when something might not be progressive. If outrage is the primary outcome and no one was helped, what you're probably looking at is populism.

I know there are scholars who disagree with me, but I'm sticking to my definition of populism for now.

Populism is primarily about experiencing outrage. Everything else is secondary. All references to ideology, left or right are justifications for the outrage.

Intent ultimately doesn't matter; outcomes do. And that's how you can parse what's progressive or populist. Is there a specific plan and coalition to substantively improve lives? That's progressivism. Is it about labeling people true allies or terrible enemies? That's Populism.

It isn't hard to see what I'm subtweeting here for the highly politically engaged; but what I'm trying to say is that we are often confused by the rhetoric. Ultimately the rhetoric doesn't matter. Watch what people do.

If I see someone calling whole groups of people evil, I see populism. If I see a candidate who is focused on specifics to actually improve lives, I see progressivism.

Ultimately, I don't care what names the populists use. None of it is in good faith anyway. If we keep focusing on building coalitions to demonstrably improve lives, then we can be satisfied that this is progressive; that it is leftwing; that it is liberal.

Anyway, I'm already belaboring the point but let me round this out on where I started: progressivism and populism are not complementary. They work against each other.

As I've said repeatedly, progressives are all about *outcomes* - that requires some coalition building to get stuff done to actually improve lives.

Populists are against coalition building. You're either with them or against them. This is why you see so many people who you thought used to be in the group suddenly get labeled as the ultimate enemy.

This is because populists are all about the outrage. It's about emotions not subtlety, sober analysis, or critical thinking. It's about scratching that anger itch. They need an enemy.

And the problem is, you might need some of those enemies to, you know, actually fix some of the really hard problems we face in society.

That's not to say we should side with fascists. I think most can agree there's a very reasonably line we can draw with bad faith, destructive groups (who are also just extreme populists, by the way!)

But yeah, if you're always in enemy creation mode to get the anger fix, then you're not working toward helping people. You're just indulging emotions. The tell is watching the reaction when you start asking questions. Populists are usually vague because emotions are the priority.

Some folks say populism is useful. I see it more as a poison. Sure it might be the hit that turns some people out, but over time it's killing us.

And these days, that's literal. The outrage loop is blinding many of us from basic survival.

Anyway, where am I going with this? Progressivism isn't supposed to be emotionally fulfilling. It's about the work. Improving lives is hard. Coalition building is hard. Our emotions isn't what this is about. Working toward the *outcome* of improving lives in progressivism.

Thanks for listening. I appreciate all the folks out there doing the work.

Hello again, friends! Because so many people responded to this thread, I thought it was important to add this short piece I wrote in April 2020 on Populism. You'll find the themes familiar and I add more historical context for you. jason-weixelbaum.medium.com/populism-is-a-…