Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: Hi, everyone. Welcome to the 233rd episode of the Atlas Society Asked. My name is Lawrence Olivo, senior project Manager here at the Atlas Society, the leading nonprofit organization introducing young people to the ideas of Ayn Rand in creative ways like animated videos and graphic novels. Our CEO, Jennifer Grossman has the week off, but I'm excited to have join me, Atlas Society senior scholar Richard Salzman and senior fellow Antonella Marti for a webinar exploring popul what it is, why it gains followers, and how it can appear in collectivist movements on both sides of the political spectrum. Richard. Antonella, thank you so much for joining me today.
[00:00:44] Speaker B: Thank you, Lawrence. Great, great to do this. Thank you so much. And Antonella, it's so wonderful to work with you again.
I agreed to start with an opening and then turn to Antonella, who has just written a wonderful booklet called how to Spot a Populist, which is fabulous. The subtitle, Understanding the Appeal and Dangers of Demagoguery. So Antonella and I talked and exchanged some notes ahead of time. What we were hoping to do, we have limited time, but first of all, what is it? What is populism? Can we define it a little bit, if we can, about the roots and origins of it, the effects of it? Antonel has written wonderfully on the idea that it seems to be right wing and left wing. So how does it relate to the space spectrum? Is populism like a separate type of ideology, like socialism or capitalism, or is it something different entirely? And then we did want to get a little bit, if we could, into actual history of it.
When did this first rear its head? Why is it rearing its head again? Is it different in Latin America versus America versus Europe?
I have a query of why don't we see it in Asia? But that's a separate question. So, Antonella, I thought I would just start not so much interviewing you, but since you've written on recently and so wonderfully, how would you. I know you start right off saying, what is this? What? See if you could briefly tell the audience what do you think it is, what populism is.
[00:02:12] Speaker C: Thank you, Richard. It's always great to work with you.
And yeah, when it comes to populism, I want to, and I like to define it as a political strategy, not as ideology, but a political strategy, a way to do politics. And I think populism has become a relevant phenomenon in the 21st century politics. I mean, we can see it practically every, everywhere. Here in Latin America, we can see populism. In the us we can See populism, in the case of Europe, we can see a lot of populist movements rising everywhere in every single country with this at some point, right wing and nationalist political parties. I think like during this decade, the, the, the thing when it comes to ideologies into populism is the right wing ideology using this modus operandi of, of populism, of doing politics. And if we, if we think about 10 years ago or 20 years ago, in the case of Latin America, for example, there was this phenomena of populism, but it was more related to a left wing populism. But I think that populism as a phenomena defines the 21st century politics. And I think it challenges the established conceptions of how power is exercised and how society bodies are even structured. I mean, its impact has been significant, reshaping the political landscape around the world and generating these intense debates about democratic values and institutions. So at the end of the day, when it comes to populism, we need to understand the importance of democracy and how these populist leaders that we can identify with some characteristics that they share in common when it comes to democracy, they see it as a threat, but they use democracy to get into power. That's something that most populists do.
So that's how I would identify populism. And that's why I think that we need to pay attention to concepts like populism to identify the problems and the visions of our politics and our society.
But what do you think? How would you define a populist leader?
[00:05:12] Speaker B: Well, appeal to the general will. We know that that is going way back in Rousseau, the idea of a general will. And well, who was supposed to identify and represent this general will or this popular will, you know, versus the Lockean view that we have individual rights and goal. Government's sole function is to protect individual rights. So I think it traces at least as far back as that, but possibly earlier. But one of the things I like in your booklet is you say it's not the same as popular.
You can have a politician or candidate who's pro freedom, pro liberal and popular. And so it's not that the general public is endorsing, it has that etymology, doesn't it? Idea of popular. And yet on the other hand, if it's popular will, if it's the idea that the sovereignty lies in the people, even the American documents start with we the people, you know, the Constitution. But it doesn't, it doesn't say whatever the people want is legitimate. It says that they are the ones that elect the elected, you know, and then the elected are you, as you, as you stress in your booklet, restricted constitutionally to protecting rights. So. But I think a populism as you can appeal, in medieval time, it was vox day, the voice of God. And then for that wonderful brief period in the Enlightenment, it was the voice of reason.
We were to appeal not to God, but to reason, to justify our actions and justify our governments. And I believe, and I think you stress this as well, with the decline of respect for reason and with the decline, as you said, in confidence, say in objectivity, people have to turn to something and they're not maybe, thankfully, willing to go back to medievalism, but the one that remains is the voice of the people, you know, and the phrase was vox populi. And sometimes they would put it together and say, vox populi, vox dei, the voice of the people is the voice of God. So I think of populism as I agree with you, it's a technique, it's a modus operandi. But it's also this idea that that is where my power comes from, and this is the populist leader saying this, and I'm legitimized because that's the only form of legitimation anymore. It's not based on reason and principles and rights and things like that. Actually, the subtitle of your booklet, demagoguery, and you mentioned democracy, maybe we should talk a little bit about, since democracy is considered the premier almost unquestioned form of government, not so much constitutionally limited government, demagoguery, democracy, demos, meaning the people ruled by the people. Demagoguery has a bad connotation, right? Isn't it? How would you put it? Like its appeal to the lower prejudices and the emotions and the fears and anxieties of people. Why do you think populists do that? Why don't they appeal to their more optimistic outlooks and things? Why does it seem to be on the downside?
[00:08:20] Speaker C: I totally agree with you, Richard, and I see that it happens a lot in Latin America, and I can say that I see that in the U.S.
right now.
But it's about people waiting for a messiah, people waiting for a savior, a politician to save the country, to save the society from, I don't know, always an enemy that will come and, and destroy the fundamentals of, of the perfect idea of society that they present, right? Because every single populace present an idea of what?
Or a moral vision of, of the ideal society or. Or so. So it's about people waiting for a politician to come and save them and save them from all these enemies that they create. Because sometimes they're not even real enemies. They even create these kind of ghosts that.
[00:09:29] Speaker B: Right, right.
[00:09:31] Speaker C: So, so, yeah, so, so when it comes to this booklet that I wrote and it has the forward written by David Kelly, I try to you know, list some features by the, the populous messiah. And like the first one that I always mention is this idea of paternalism and Macianism, like how this politicians are become this.
You know, they, they, many people think that they are like our parents or something like that.
And they, you know, they try to educate people or control people and tell you what to do and tell you what to think.
So that's one of the features that I would say we need to understand when it comes to identifying the, the, the, the idea of the figure of the populist messiah. Paternalism and, and, and this concept of the, the Messiah and then also the, the simplification of, of complicated problems of problems. I would say they always offer simple solutions to, to complex social, economic and political problems.
So then, then comes nationalism. Because I see nationalism as a trend right now in the world. I would say that that nationalism is a like the biggest threat, the biggest collectivist thread of, of in basically the entire, the entire world. So it' could be, it could have like different ideologies. It could be from the left or the right. When it comes to Venezuela, for example, I would say that, I mean, I don't, I don't define what's happening in Venezuela as, as communism. I would say that that is nationalism or a national populist dictatorship regime because you know, they, I mean Nicolas Maduro, he's always like he says homeland or death, which is basically the same argument or slogan, you know, this right wing leaders in Europe use. So, so it's, it's, I mean it's not that Nicholas Maduro is talking about Marx and Engels and you know, this communist concepts is, is not about that.
I mean Hugo Chavez used that the concepts of, of socialism in the beginning. But right now I don't see like, like, like communism in Venezuela. So I think is, is nationalism. Nationalism is the biggest threat and they promote this us versus them narrative. They keep dividing society into, you know, the pure and the corrupt groups or like the true citizens and the undesirable people. So this, this, this idea fosters, you know, isolation, xenophobia and it even you know, creates these enemies that we were talking about earlier. You know, it could be an immigrant, it could be different minorities. And in another thing that I see when it comes to populist is like, they always become bullies. Right?
So it's like, and I see it everywhere, like literally everywhere in Europe, in here, in Argentina, in Latin America, in the US it's like politics is about, it's not on. It's not about debating or having a, you know, civilized conversation and debates and, and, you know, sharing ideas, but it's about, you know, trying to identify the, the bully and when it comes to politics. So, so I see politicians fighting because they want to be, you know, practically bullies.
[00:13:41] Speaker B: And I think that point of, I think that point so fits nicely with the view which I shared. This is a technique, a modus operandi. Notice the, the bullying or the ostracizing of people, and both sides do it. So it confirms this idea that it's a technique. It's a, it's a nasty technique, the vicious technique. But, but it's used by left, right, and I guess we wouldn't say center here, but right, that, that bullying idea that is, and it could include censorship is, is a technique, isn't it? And deployed by the populace.
[00:14:16] Speaker C: Yeah, and even we were, I think you mentioned it earlier. But this manipulation of voters, emotions, they appeal to charisma, they appeal to this because they have some exceptional communication skills. That's, that's something every single populace have.
So they use this kind of direct language that resonates with ordinary people's concerns and emotions and they employ national symbols and emotional gestures and, you know, things to reinforce their image as leaders close to the people. So yeah, they often have a remarkable ability to connect with the masses through passionate, in this, through passionate oratory. So then you see this paternalism and clientalism and this, all these messiahs that have those exceptional communication skills. So that's another characteristic to identify this populace. And of course, the hostility toward established institutions. They, they are the enemies of, of the institutions. They are the, the biggest enemies of the rule of law. And, and, and that's when some concepts come, come like the idea of, of rule of law, because of course, populists are narcissists and they don't like limits. They don't like when you limit their power. They don't like what. They don't like when you limit the things that they can do and what they cannot do. So they will scream and they will, you know, get mad if you, if you, you know, try to, to limit their, their power. So, and they even tend to modify constitutional norms to ensure their perpetuation in power, you know, by changing the Constitution In Venezuela, they. They had 27 constitutions. And this is happening in countries like El Salvador.
It's happening.
[00:16:34] Speaker B: And the willingness to reject a key principle of liberty, which is the independent judiciary. So if you like, if you run through the major branches of government, they'll often say these unelected. That's the key for them, these unelected, robed jurists, or these unelected bureaucrats. Now, you and I, we don't like the bureaucrats either at their status. But this idea that unless you've been elected, unless you've been elected, popular, popularly, unless you're a populist, we don't trust you and we don't. And so didn't they also pack the court massively in Venezuela? This is always done. They just add. They add seats to the court. And that's a trend in the US as well. Antonella, I wanted to pick up on something you said, because the paternalism of this is so interesting. And. And I think there's also, you could say maternalism, because we've had ladies, right? We've had, like Maria Le Pen and Evita Peron, and it's not as if there isn't a history of women doing it as well. But that speaks to your point that it's more technique than anything. But I've always thought that political paternalism is so interesting and so sad because it's the society as family and the leaders of the parents. But that implies that the citizens are the children. And in many ways it's a distorted and inhuman type of setup, right? Because you should be able to mature beyond the family. You shouldn't, as a grown adult, feel the necessity of following politicians as father figures with the rules and telling you what to do and how you should obey, but also the Social Security aspect of it. You will take care of me, you will be my nanny, you know, you will provide a social safety net from cradle to grave. That's a big part of this, isn't it? Because paternalism is a separate issue. But the populism relationship to paternalism is interesting, isn't it?
[00:18:36] Speaker C: It is. It is interesting. And it's part of.
It's part of the, like, the basis of the core of populism. And it's great that you mentioned Marine Le Pen in France or we can even mention Giorgio Meloni in Italy. In Italy themselves, as, you know, the mothers that.
So there's always this idea of, like, the roles, what is the role of a mother, the role of a father, and they divide this and play with this. When it comes to, to politics and of course it leds to kind of a cult of personality because at the end it will, it will be a cult of personality because it has profound political implications and I even say psychological roots that reveal a lot about the, the nature of, of these, these leaders that tend to centralize power around themselves and then, and they, they blur the lines between leadership and, and institutions. They present themselves as, as saviors, as figures that, that, I mean like without them the country will fall into chaos. So this approach basically strengthens like their control as criticism or dissent is perceived as a personal attack on the leader. So then the cult of personality comes and again when it comes to rule of law, I think that's very important because they are parents. They don't like. I mean they are not the ones who, who are limited by others. They, they put limits on other people and other, I mean, in other people it's just, you know, citizens, it's us. So, so that's why they, you know, touch the Constitution. They don't like constitutions, they don't like limits, they don't like democracy, they don't like justice, they don't like, I don't know, the Congress. I mean even what, what happened in like January 6th, that was, that was something that really shocked me because that's something I would expect in, in like, I mean we, we, we got used to those attacks or, or movements in Latin America, but seeing that in a country like the U.S. i mean that's the heart of, of, of democracy.
So when I, when I saw that, I was like, like this is the, this is what populism do. Like, this is what, what, what happens when you, when you let a politician become the, you know, basically the leader of a cult. So they got power. So it's not, it's not like, I mean if they are the leaders of, of different cults or, or whatever and they don't, they don't have any impact on society or legislations or whatever. I mean that's another thing. But they decide for ourselves. They create laws, they propose public policy.
[00:22:04] Speaker B: So yeah, yeah, the American case is interesting because not too long ago the Tea Party movement, which was 2010 or 12 or so was, was a bit more intellectual. They appealed to the Constitution. They thought Obamacare and that whole scheme was overthrowing the Constitution.
When they gathered and, and hundreds of thousands did gather together in various rallies, they were usually polite, there was usually no violence. They even picked up all their trash. Afterwards, people remarked on how amazing it was and the, the fact that they use the Tea Party imagery, which dates back to the founders, I think is also interesting and different from the current right wing populism, which as you've said, it's anti intellectual, it's more physicalist.
But the right today would say something like, well, we get to revolt if we feel our liberties are being threatened. But if you look at the American Revolution, yeah, that was surely a revolt. But interestingly it was a revolt of aristocrats, you know, the Hamiltons and the Jeffersons and the Washingtons and even the Sam Adams. They were writing pamphlets, they were intellectual. Yes, there was a physical aspect to it, but so different from, you know, the kind of madness of crowds that you see in the. More in the versions of the last hundred years or so. I wanted to pick up on what you said earlier about the us versus them approach because anytime I hear us versus them, I realize it can go as far back as, you know, the peasant uprisings against kings and royals, but in a more immediate history, it's capital versus labor, right? It's, it's Karl Marx saying the capitalist should be overthrown violently by the quote unquote exploited laborer. So that's at least 1840s Communist Manifesto. And just as the history, I think you mentioned this as well in your booklet the History in Russia. How interesting. And America populist uprisings came in the wake of the Marxist argument. So we're talking 1880s, right? 1890s in Russia. I think Russia had populism. People advocating. You cite this a bit in your booklet. And in the US case, it began among farmers. So there it was farmers versus Wall street or farmers versus the big bad railroads, overcharging them, you know, so it, it takes different forms. And I suppose today this us versus them, today it looks like something like the common man or the ordinary people versus the elites. The elites defined as well this would be true no matter where the right, left or center, the elites would be. Well, they're credentialed, they have all these degrees, they have experience, long resumes experience in government. Right. But people look at them and they say, you got us in this mess to begin with. So do you agree that they make the error, I think of saying, well, elite, the best and the brightest, that that per se is the problem and we need to go anti intellectual. Whereas really isn't the problem that the elites and the intellectuals are not liberal in the good sense, they're not pro capitalist. Is this what people are resenting?
Yeah, go ahead.
[00:25:34] Speaker C: I think the elites, it could be anything, it could be anything the populists want, even if, I mean, that's why we were talking.
And I think it's very important what you said, because populism is not an ideology. Yeah, so, so populists, they, they do this kind of, you know, they, they pick the different aspects or concepts of, of ideologies or even different ideologies. Because I see many people, I mean even libertarians or classical liberals that nowadays talk about, you know, you can at some point identify some nationalist narrative when it comes to their, their speech, even theocracy. Like. Yeah, and you mentioned the Tea Party earlier. And, and I think it's very important to, to talk about this connection between religion and politics, which is something that we can see. Nobody's like everywhere, everywhere here in Argentina, Javier Milei talks about the, the forces of heaven. So whenever he wants to argue about something, he uses the, the Bible to, you know, to justify things. And he says that God talked to him and told him, told him that his goal in life was to become president. And then he goes and says that his sister Karina is, you know, some, like a, some, you know, person of, of the Bible and stuff like that. So, so they use the Bible a lot. They use the religion a lot. They, they want to become, you know, this kind of again, saviors. They want to be, you know, like a Jesus, like a Jesus politician. I, I remember when I saw the, the, the January 6th assault on the Capitol. I, I remember that I saw like this images with flags that, that said Jesus 2020 and stuff like that. And then we go and, and if we explore a little bit more, we can see the, the rise of this Christian nationalism basically everywhere, everywhere in this, in, in that, that movement, the right wing movement in the, in the US So then you see the Moral Majority and, and again it's politicians telling you what to do, telling you what to think, telling you how you should behave.
And, and they use these religious, you know, condiments to, to tell you what.
[00:28:42] Speaker B: To do in the case of, in the case of Trump, who was never known to invoke religion, you know, when he was a New York real estate developer or even in the first campaign, 2016 or so. But interestingly, I found after the assassination attempts last summer, he started saying that the hand of God had intervened to save him. And now I know he must not believe any of that stuff, but it, as you would put it, this is his chance to evoke. He knows a large part of the populace, yeah. Believes that kind of stuff. So he's, that's demagoguery in a way. Right. He's not saying soak the rich and kill the rich and eat the rich, but he is appealing to an emotional aspect, not a rational aspect of, and that he's the chosen one. And it's, it's kind of shameless.
And you reminded me of that. Now the other thing is in your booklet you say, this is interesting, Left populism versus right populism. Left populism, you said, focuses on the struggle between different economic classes. Yeah. So that looks, that's more like the Marxist approach, right?
[00:29:50] Speaker C: Yeah.
[00:29:51] Speaker B: Then, right, interestingly, you say right wing populism focuses on, say, competition among groups within the nation or competition among nations. Right. So this would be Trump saying, I'm going to have tariffs up against people who send too many things to America, too many goods or immigrants. The whole thing. We can be for legal immigration and we can be for free trade. But that wing of the party is using it, right, to say it's a zero sum game. If they benefit, we lose. If we lose, they benefit. And it's, it's a kind of a Marxist view of labor and capital, isn't it?
[00:30:28] Speaker C: Mm, yeah. And you said the, the chosen one. Right. So whenever these right wing political parties or, or populists create this us versus them, this division of, of society because they need to polarize society, because they need to create a monster that fight and that they will destroy.
So they divide the, the problem and they present themselves as the pure part of the society against the corrupt part of a society. And when they talk about corrupt and even when they talk about corruption, it's not only in, you know, when it comes to politicians, in bureaucrats stealing money and doing, you know, money laundering and stuff like that. No, it's a corruption of, of, of the purity of, of the society, of the idea of how like the, the they see the country as the chosen one too, is, is the country is chosen by God to be there, to leave the example. And it makes me, it calls my attention because I see many people, like even people that identify themselves as classical liberals or even when it comes to objectivism and many different ideologies and even philosophy and ideas, because when it comes to classical liberalism, we know that it was born fighting against conservatism. It wasn't like it didn't, it didn't start as a ideology to fight socialism. It started with these conservatives that wanted to, you know, have religion and politics together. So classical liberal basically divided that toxic, toxic relationship between religion and the state.
So right now I see Many people, many people wanting to, to, to have that, that, that toxic relationship back again like religion and the state. And we know that, that, that, I mean the biggest genocides and, and even, you know, seas of, of, of, of blood. It was because of, of, of religious conflicts and nationalism.
It has always been like that. And about that. So, so this.
[00:33:25] Speaker B: And we still, we still have. Yeah, yeah, we still have religious, Religious wars going on in the Middle East. Yeah.
There's a section. We don't have much more time, but I wanted to address these sections you have on solutions.
But the segue here being. This is a great section here where you're saying, just as there's no such thing as good versus bad dictatorships, so also with populism, it's important to realize there's not good populism and bad populism. So as you say today, there's the rise of right wing populism. I guess our message is.
Just because you seem to be succeeding electorally, dear right wingers, this doesn't make you pro liberalism. It's not making you pro capitalism.
That's not. And it's a technique for gaining office. But for those of us who care about the free society, right, Antonella, that this is not going to help. But the, but the pinpoint you put your finger on. I'm just quoting here selectively.
Where does this come from? A disoriented society, unquote, a society skeptical of objectivity.
Another quote. Vulnerable to appeals to tribal loyalties. Here's another one. Anxiety and discontent.
Lots of good stuff you write about. Vulnerable to conspiracy theories, to uncertainty. It's very interesting because here we're kind of talking about electoral success and politics, but you're naming epistemological and psychological aspects where the populace is disoriented, the populace is in a bad way, and that could be due to bad education policies, a whole bunch of things. Right. But here the issue is politicians cashing in on it.
Instead of bringing better knowledge to the populace. It's taking that, that disorientation, right. And that vulnerability and anxiety and in a way exploiting it, even if it leads up in the, in the case of Chavez, Madero ends up just with a totally illiberal result.
So the psychological and epistemological aspects you're naming here are very important.
[00:35:42] Speaker C: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Richard, for, for mentioning that. I think that instead of anxiety and fear and this conspiracy, conspiracy theories, we need more education, we need more critical thinking. We need people and even young, young students and, and, and, you know, understanding that that they don't have to run after conspiracy theories to explain everything, to explain stuff, because that's, that's, I mean, that's easy.
[00:36:12] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:36:12] Speaker C: And that's something that populists do. I mean, they, they, they know that people need answers. They know that people are craving for answers and to understand how things work. And of course, if they come and, and they tell you, well, so your problems are problems because there's a group of people doing this and they want to destroy you, blah, blah, blah. And it could be, I mean, we could, we can put any name you, we want to, to, to that group of people destroying you. So, yeah, I, I also want to thank you for, for quoting the, the good dictatorship and the bad dictatorship because that's, that's very important. I see many people defending, for example, Pinochet in, in Chile. Like, what was that, that dictatorship that he, he, I mean, he killed many people.
It was political repression, no rule of law. It even happened here in Argentina during the last military dictatorship in the 70s. My grandfather, he was killed by that military regime.
We never knew what happened to him.
We don't know where his body is, nothing. He was kidnapped in 1977 because he had different ideas.
[00:37:37] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:37:38] Speaker C: So it happens everywhere. It happens a lot in. And yeah, now we have democracies and we have rule of law in different countries. But I mean, it's not like we are vaccinated against dictatorships and nationalisms and populism. So we always need to be aware of, of this, of this threat. Right.
[00:38:01] Speaker B: Yeah. Let me end with a quote where you're very upset, upbeat about this. You say the real, this is a quote from your booklet. The real solutions to the problems lies in strengthening constitutionally democratic education, encouraging citizen participation, promoting civil, inclusive and respectful political dialogue, respecting individual rights, and educating new generations to embrace critical thinking from a perspective that offers proposals. Instead of being obsessed with attacking specific enemies, then you end with defend, propose, debate, don't attack, divide or seek to destroy ghosts or others, unquote. I love that. That's a you. It's not just a critique you have here. You offer solutions. It's a wonderful book that everyone should get it.
How to Spot a Populist. You can get it on Amazon and elsewhere. Written through the Atlas Society site as well. Right, Lawrence? Antonella, I love talking about it with you. Thank you so much for doing this.
[00:39:08] Speaker C: Thank you. Thank you. I, I always learn a lot about what, what about your ideas and in your teachings. So I, I also want to thank you for, for that and for you know, having this conversation with me and share all these topics and interesting concepts. So thank you.
[00:39:30] Speaker B: Great. We'll see you around. Lawrence, you want to close us out?
[00:39:33] Speaker A: Yes. Thank you, Antonella. Thank you Richard. A really great discussion. I want to thank everyone who's listening to this recording. We hope you enjoyed it. And just again, as Richard said, we encourage you to check out. There will be a link in the description section of this video how to Spot a Populist Understanding the Appeal and Dangers of Demagoguery. Available on Amazon in both Kindle and Paper Deck version along with the Atlas Society website. If you enjoyed this video or any of our other materials, please consider a end of the year tax deductible donation@Atlas Society.org donate and be sure to join us again next week on Thursday, January 2, where Atlas Society Senior Fellow Robert Drzezinski will be joined by our Student Programs Manager Abby Perry for a special 2024 in review. So for everyone watching this us, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and we'll see you again in2025. Richard Antonella, thank you again. Take care everyone.
[00:40:37] Speaker B: Thanks Lawrence. Thanks Anton. See you around.
[00:40:40] Speaker A: Take care.
[00:40:41] Speaker C: Thanks.
