In these days of Trump and Farage we hear the terms Populist and Populism a lot, but even political scientists find it hard to define, although they do agree on its characteristic of a belief that the people know better than the so-called elite. Basically it's anti-establishment, best summed up by Trump's dictum of 'draining the swamp', which, perversely, has resulted in a swamp of truly magnificent proportions.
Populism purports to give the people all they want, free of consequences; however, what the people want frequently carries with it dichotomous propositions - such as low taxes but a high-functioning social sector, including free healthcare and public transport; the two propositions are mutually incompatible.
It can safely be said that populism has a poor track record of success and populists tend to seek power for the sake of it - no one person has all the answers. It can also safely be said that the people do not generally know better than the elite, or experts, as the people have competing priorities and varying levels of knowledge - they rarely act in the interests of something larger than themselves, such as the state.
An antidote to Populism needs a term, and I believe that is Consequentialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment