Populism, the Moody Mistress

It's been some time since really tapping away at this keyboard to ponder something that weighs on my mind, but lately I've been chewing something over that I feel I must address. It's not necessarily something that angers me, but it's something that I feel I must discuss. That something is my deep and murky annoyance with the concept of political populism.

I realize that some of you may read that and be surprised that I have decreasing patience with the wave of populism that has become such a huge part of political and electoral discourse for the past decade. I seem to be anti-establishment. I supported Brexit. I support smaller, more efficient government. I still support Brexit. I still support smaller, more efficient government. I still support an end to the war on drugs. I still support a less interventionist foreign policy. I still support free speech that stops short of incitement to violence or criminality. I still support fundamental individual freedom. I still deeply, DEEPLY oppose government regulation of peoples' lifestyles. As much as I flirt with populism, it inevitably alienates me in the end.

Here's why. Populism strikes as being big on noise, big on posture, big on the narrative, and frustratingly empty on governmental ideas and policies. Populist politics, especially of the classically liberal brand, tickle my sentiments and manage to rile me up in a fervor for liberty. However, once the noise dies down, once the clouds clear on the political field and I can examine a party's ideas, I fundamentally want a constructive, detailed package of policies that genuinely affect peoples' lives. And this is where populist movements and parties tend to fail quite spectacularly.

Some good examples include the Tea Party movement in America, or UKIP in Britain, Front Nationale in France, AfD in Germany, the Occupy Movement in America, etc. They're loud, they're proud, big crowds, get used to it.

My main problem with parties like UKIP (though I supported it for some time because of opposition to the EU) and Front Nationale is that aside from lengthy opposition to things like political Islam and mass immigration, there's little there explaining what a government led by such a party would look like, or do. UKIP's policies were very fluid, over various elections drifting between Conservative-friendly and Labour-friendly policy frameworks, but without meat added to the frameworks. Front Nationale could very well pull out of the European Union and stop mass immigration, but then what? What would their tax systems look like? How would they pay for it? What about infrastructure? Healthcare reform? Business environment? The actual environment? They tend to reduce such subjects to bumper sticker politics because it's easy to understand, and easier to pander to whatever populist wave hit at the time. Hell, UKIP suddenly shifted into more of an Old Labour kind of party over just a few years because they felt that there was a deeper pool of voters able to be tapped among the Labour base. Populism embraces popularity through harnassed anger, rather than the conviction of ideas.

Here in Canada, populism blew up with Rob Ford's landslide election as Mayor of progressive cosmopolitan Toronto in 2010. Ford didn't really have any concrete ideas of where to take the city, but tapped into the anger of the suburbs having to pay increasing tax rates to fund downtown liberal progressive projects. Once getting into the Mayor's chair, he privatized one section of the city's garbage services, but that was about it. Ford largely did nothing of note, because once he became Mayor, he couldn't rage against the establishment anymore. He now was the establishment, and didn't know what to do with it.

Populism was still alive in 2014 when Doug Ford ran for Mayor in his ailing brother's place, and still secured a respectable 34%, losing to John Tory's 40%. Again, Doug Ford went after the overall resentment of the heavy taxpaying suburbs against the pampered apartment dwellers of downtown...without actually proposing much of anything more substantial than akin to his brother vowing to end the gravy train in 2010. In 2014, concrete ideas won, because "on the fly" populism tends to win elections only once, with the only exceptions being populists that actually develop coherent policy proposals after winning elections.

I have many close acquaintences back in my hometown; a goodly group of factory workers. They believe that somehow, some way, a government should be low taxes, high quality services, the government to keep out of everyone's business, yet somehow constantly intervene to enforce their always-changing ideas of what's fair. That's the kind of voter that naked populism appeals to. The voter that wants and demands completely contradictory things. And it's why populist politics tend to disintegrate and factionalize, and most of the time fail to become a coherent force for governance.

Realistically, populism is not the answer. Participation is the answer. You're a conservative, and you think your party is drifting too far left? Renew that membership and get involved. Answer survey. Participate in local nomination votes. Attend a convention once in a while. Actively try to make your voice heard to change your party institution. Institutions are not the enemy, they're a vehicle of political will. Don't mindlessly shout and protest the government institution, you join it and add your voice to what it does. Get involved in your democracy, for fuck sakes. Make your party of choice better, rather than embrace the politics of empty blowhards.

I think, in a way, populist politicians are like a moody mistress. Their wants change too much, you're attracted to the allure of something exciting and new, and once you leave your family for them, you quickly discover that once the freshness and excitment fades away, it starts to feel a lot like to the wife you just left.

That's just my opinion, and just some food for thought.