Populism, X: The imperative of freedom

It is curious how certain words accumulate a nimbus of positive associations while others, semantically just as innocuous, wind up shouldering a portfolio of bad feelings.

Consider the different careers of the terms “democracy” and “populism.”

Do you know any responsible person who would admit to being opposed to democracy? No one who does not enjoy a large private income would risk it. But lots of people are willing to declare themselves anti-populist. The discrepancy is curious for several reasons.

align=”right” It was not at all clear, Madison thought, that democracy was a reliable custodian of liberty.

For one thing, it is a testament to the almost Darwinian hardiness of the word “democracy.” In the fierce struggle among ideas for survival, “democracy” has not only survived but thrived. This is despite the fact that political thinkers from Plato and Aristotle through Cicero and down to modern times have been deeply suspicious of democracy. Aristotle thought democracy the worst form of government, all but inevitably leading to ochlocracy or mob rule, which is no rule.

In Federalist 10, James Madison famously warned that history had shown that democratic regimes have “in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” “Theoretic politicians,” he wrote—and it would be hard to find a more contemptuous deployment of the word “theoretic”—such politicians may have advocated democracy, but that is only because of their dangerous and utopian ignorance of human nature. It was not at all clear, Madison thought, that democracy was a reliable custodian of liberty.

Nevertheless, nearly everyone wants to associate himself with the word “democracy.” Totalitarian regimes like to describe themselves as the “Democratic Republic” of wherever. Conservatives champion the advantages of “democratic capitalism.” Central planners of all stripes eagerly deploy programs advertised as enhancing or extending “democracy.” Even James Madison came down on the side of a subspecies of democracy, one filtered through the modulating influence of a large, diverse population and an elaborate scheme of representation that softened (Madison said “excluded”) the influence of “the people in their collective capacity.”

“Democracy,” in short, is a eulogistic word, what the practical philosopher Stephen Potter in another context apostrophized as an “OK word.” And it is worth noting, as Potter would have been quick to remind us, that the people pronouncing those eulogies delight in advertising themselves as, and are generally accepted as, “OK people.” Indeed, the class element and the element of moral approbation—of what some genius has summarized as “virtue signaling”—are key.

It is quite otherwise with “populism.” At first blush, this seems odd because the word “populism” occupies a semantic space closely adjacent to “democracy.” “Democracy” means “rule by the demos,” the people. “Populism,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary, describes “A political philosophy directed to the needs of the common people and advancing a more equitable distribution of wealth and power”— that is, just the sorts of things that the people, were they to rule, would seek.

Read the rest at The New Criterion.

Content created by The Center for American Greatness, Inc is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com


About Roger Kimball

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and the president and publisher of Encounter Books. He is the author and editor of many books, including The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press), The Rape of the Masters (Encounter), Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse (Ivan R. Dee), and Art's Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity (Ivan R. Dee).

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

3 responses to “Populism, X: The imperative of freedom”

  1. Those “safe spaces” are Law-Free Zones. They don’t want to keep out White People per se. Its the White preponderance of Law and Order, and Right and Wrong they want to keep out. Those “black fraternities” are havens of crime. All that “rape culture” is blamed on White Guys, but all the real Rapists seem “diverse”. As diverse as the One Million Years of Evolution they keep out BY LAW through the shill and sham called “Sybil Rites”. White Men and Western Civilization go together and CANNOT Co-exist apart. The West is falling down…

  2. A “unilateral suicide pact” would not really bother me all that much. Not my business; those who wish to destroy themselves are free to do so.

    It’s the fact that the Left’s ‘suicide’ takes me and mine with it. That bothers me, horrifies me, horrifies all of us.

    Nail bombs do not distinguish political affiliations, one from the other. Pools of blood and body parts are not separated, conservative from liberal, vetted borders from open borders — no, it all is horrendously mixed. And the continued vociferously adamant refusal, by the Left to even acknowledge that the problem is Radicalized Islam as practiced by Radicalized Muslims, themselves almost always a part of unassimilated, radicalized Muslim communities (contained & nurtured as cancer in the body politic) — that refusal is reprehensible & must be reversed.

    Yes, absolutely, close the borders, control immigration rates, vet the immigrants, require assimilation, refuse the establishment of Sharia Law (even & especially within so-called ‘closed’ Islamic communities), expel the dissident, expel the criminal, surveil the questionable — profile, profile, profile. 87 yr. old grandma’s from Chagrin Falls are not carrying suicide vests or beheading infidels.

    All this is only the rigorous application of common sense. Unfortunately we seem to be direly in need of both.

    But it begins with the recognition of who it is that is trying to kill us….who is seeking to destroy us…and why they’re doing

  3. Excellent essay. Problem I have is that the more of these I read, the larger becomes the question of what to do about it? It isn’t going away by itself…