A Populist Dynamic: Rebellion against Complexity

• In Event: Populism in Comparative-Historical Perspective

Abstract

A Populist Dynamic: Rebellion against Complexity
David Plotke
Department of Politics, New School for Social Research


There are many populist movements and themes across countries and time. Among the populisms in American political and social history, a powerful dynamic often arises: political forces and movements with a populist and popular inspiration take on increasingly authoritarian and racist forms. This dynamic often appears to produce results at odds with the founding spirit of populist efforts. The authoritarian and often racist turn cannot be understood as anyone’s secret aim. Instead, it arises partly from a key populist theme – a rebellion against complexity.

This rebellion begins as a strong resistance to perceived political, economic, and cultural injustice. The populist critique of complexity charges elites with dishonest and mystifying accounts of political and other relations. It calls for a simpler and more direct approach to urgent problems – this simplicity is crucial for fairer and more decent results. Following this path can lead populist forces toward political disappointment when the complexity they reject turns out to be more than an elite rationale for shaping outcomes and keeping power. Rejecting complexity will not clarify the problems and unfairness that populist forces aim to address.

I focus on American cases, including the original Populist movement, the populist upsurges of the 1930s, George Wallace, Occupy Wall Street, and Trumpism. My aim is not to include every major case of populism in the United States – much less in comparative terms. I mean to specify and analyze a dynamic that is widely present, politically significant, and theoretically interesting. Its political importance is evident in the surprising victory and damaged governance of the current American administration. The theoretical issues concern how democratic polities can reach fair and decent decisions on daunting problems in multiply divided societies.

Why does a populist rebellion against complexity tend to take an authoritarian turn? This is rarely the initial aim of protagonists. In assailing complexity, populist forces often encounter large obstacles that can make an authoritarian response appealing. First, the call for simple solutions collides with a representative and administrative system based on multiple inputs, numerous decision points, and difficult estimates of the varied policy choices. One populist response is to reject or limit the representative system in favor of presidential domination by a leader who can recognize and impose preferred solutions with minimal interference.

Second, the populist rebellion against complexity presumes that people of good will can come easily to agree on evident solutions to tough problems. The implication can easily be that those who resist proposed solutions are dishonest and oppose the interests of the people. If good solutions are simple and evident, opponents stand on very weak ground and may well be illegitimate.

Third, if elite claims about complexity are mystification, professional and technical knowledge cited in the service of such claims should be viewed with great suspicion. The populist rebellion against complexity rejects such knowledge claims in favor of relying on the authenticity and political virtue of populist leaders.

These tendencies reduce the chances that populist solutions will be viable, if populist forces get far enough to put them seriously on the political agenda or implement them in partial ways. Given the likely gap between populist promises and results, it is very tempting to blame political and policy shortcomings on groups who are charged with blocking the path to renewal. Given the large role of racial and ethnic antagonism in American politics and history, populist forces may readily identify relatively small and recognizable groups as the source of their political troubles. Renewal and the enactment of simple solutions would be possible but for the corrupt and self-interested efforts of religious, racial, and other minorities. Various groups can emerge as the target of populist antagonism, on grounds that they impede progress and the expression of the people’s will. Sometimes racial and ethnic antagonism move front and center, as with George Wallace and Trumpism.

This line of analysis has several political implications. First, it highlights a distinction between the antiliberal and nondemocratic trajectory of many populist forces and the initial aims of their members. This distinction matters for engaging supporters of authoritarian populist projects who are not committed to the worst results. Second, it implies that hopes for a robust and durable ‘left’ populism are apt to be disappointed whenever the rebellion against complexity remains a primary populist theme.

Author

• David Plotke, New School for Social Research