Contemporary Populism has a bad reputation amongst those who care about public policy – justifiably so.  Complex problems are rarely solved by simple solutions.

A recent reading* suggests that populism has respectable roots.  The movement grew among late nineteenth century Midwestern US farmers who were fighting against rampant exploitation by the railroad monopolies, when capitalism had full reign.  Those monopolies had captured Congress through corruption and they had influence over many Presidents – so they were very hard to dislodge.  The populists of the time were not seeking magic solutions, just redress against the ravages of monopoly capitalism.

Populism is often the result of perceptions of injustice – real or imagined.  Where there are victims, there must be villains.    In the so-called golden age of American capitalism, the villains were easy to find: railroad tycoons and financial speculators.  In more recent times, it is more difficult to determine the identity of the villains.  There are still powerful capitalists characterised as villains, but contemporary populism does not often focus on them.  More often those who feel they are subject to economic or cultural injustice identify as villains the ‘elites’ who make policies and establish official cultural norms.  It matters not that the ‘elites’ include politicians elected in free and fair elections.  If they are in power, they are responsible for the injustice.

Perceptions of economic and moral injustice are often subjective, so there can be left and right wing assessments of victimhood.  Populist leaders can emerge from either wing, but right wing populists are more prevalent and popular.  By limiting critiques and ‘solutions’ to a few hot-button policy issues, adroit populist leaders can capture a significant core of support.  In the absence of a coordinated reply from a diverse body politic, the populist leader can leverage a minority position into government.

Despite the apparent enormous complexity of modern economies and society, there are many who believe in simple solutions.  A careful and nuanced approach to public policy simply doesn’t sell.  There is ample evidence of the harm ‘simple solutions’ can do.  Consider ‘Brexit’ or ‘Build the Wall’. 

Populists – whether from the right or from the left – often embrace:

• Isolationism.  Involvement with other countries or international organizations is rarely perceived as beneficial, and more often perceived as harmful.  US populist Republicans opposed the League of Nations in 1920, arguing that it would limit US policy options. UK populist Conservatives opposed the European Union in 2016, citing burdensome bureaucracy and too many foreigners.
• Racism or intolerance.  Those of different races, religious beliefs, cultures or languages are easy targets when the ‘elites’ are harder to identify.  Declaring pur laine Québécois to be endangered victims allows laws and rules so discriminatory that the Notwithstanding Clause is required to insulate them from constitutional challenge.
• Authoritarianism.  Democracy gets in the way of populist policies.  Not only does democracy require compromise (i.e., not a simple solution), but it is hard to argue that policies developed democratically create victims of injustice.  Thus Ontario requires strong mayors who can overrule the majority on municipal councils, or Alberta proposes that legislation can be amended by Cabinet order.  Leaders of populist movements are rarely from the group of those identified as victims: most often, they are already wealthy and popular in their own right.

Populism has little to recommend it in terms of democracy, human rights and public policy.  If that is fair, then it is reasonable to inquire why it is so popular, why so many democratic countries have populist leaders or populist movements.

For a part of the answer we can look to our politicians and ultimately ourselves.  In Canada, major policy issues – as examples: climate change, affordable housing, access to health care, income inequality, indigenous rights – are all complex challenges which cannot be solved by simple no cost solutions.  Yet even mainstream politicians shy away from addressing the challenges directly.  For example, an effective approach to climate change requires very much higher energy prices, which will reduce the standard of living for most Canadians: that’s not easy to sell to voters.  Affordable housing requires densification of neighborhoods and the provision of low income housing: again, these are not popular initiatives.  Improved access to health care, addressing income inequality, responding to indigenous rights – all require a greater role for government.  Yet political parties campaign on reduced taxes, or no new taxes, or smaller government.

Effective governance is about choices. There will be winners; there will be losers.  No politician wants to admit that, particularly when the losers might be the majority of the electorate.  In such an environment, it is little wonder that ‘simple solutions’ are so popular.

Political leaders face a choice.  They can continue to offer magic solutions, thus breeding disappointment, anger and more populism.  Or they can start to speak some truths – and perhaps lose elections.  Eventually, people will tire of populist pratfalls, and start looking for realism.

In our lifetime?

****

* “Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow: The Epic Story of the Transcontinental Railroads” by Dee Brown.  As obiter dicta, the actions of nineteenth century railroad tycoons and financial speculators make the Trump Organization look like a treasured model of rectitude.