Humanists: Populism: Peter Jones

Humanists: Populism: Peter Jones



so without further ado I would like to introduce you to Peter who's kindly come along Peter is the emeritus professor of Annex and amber ITA's professor of political philosophy from Newcastle University and I'm sure he's kept up-to-date with the latest developments in populism – you don't need this Peter right thank thank you very much Adil's can you hear me all right okay ask Mike to introduce me as a resident velocity which is what I am I'm not a political scientist maybe that means nothing to you but it means I know that ideas I'm not so honks long on facts so we'll see and we'll be heard awful lot these days about populism we're most aware of it I guess to the election of Donald Trump but of course also through brexit but poppers parties populist movements have become very widespread through Europe so there's a list of some of the right-wing populist parties in Europe and I not expect you to read that absorb it I just try to give some impression of how widespread it is in fact that list is far from comprehensive it was comprehensive it would be at least twice as long now those are right-wing populist parties but populism also has its left-wing variants so in in Greece Tsaritsa which came to power after the the crash in 2008 that's generally characterized as a populist left-wing movement similarly podemos which arose in 2014 in Spain following a protest that's also placing itself on the left and populism has a long tradition in national America but all the best known variants of that are also on the left now Juan Peron and his wife Evita very well-known and there is some controversy as to why they should be put on the right or on the left the truth is that the crude left-right distinction doesn't always capture people easily in the populist area but more recently in Bolivia the regime of Evo Morales in Ecuador rapper career and probably the best no.1 in Venezuela Hugo Chavez Chavez was president of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013 he described himself as a Bolivarian a follower a seaman Boulevard the liberator of Latin American from colonial rule but also as a Marxist now that gives rise to a puzzle about populism how can there be an ism populism that is shared by people that occupy such vastly different political positions and there's another puzzle and populism is generally a pejorative term it's a condom not return it condemns what it describes on the whole people don't describe themselves as populist there are some exceptions but usually populism is what other people call them now populist are concerned with concern for the power of the people hence the word but we normally consider the power of people to be democracy and democracy we think is generally a good thing so how do make sense of that and how can populism be a boo word I had liked fascist when democracy is an her a word and does it simply come down to this well so I let me preface for that by a quote Thomas Hobbes the play in the 17th century bit of loss where he describes tyranny as nearly monarchy this light so if you don't like a king you call him a tyrant but he's still a king well is it the case that populism is merely democracy this light or is there more to it now can I ask em did anybody here here Melbourne brags in our time this morning ah how many people well you had a treat yes yeah the program was on the populist party in America who were in America the very first populous they were very unlike what we come to think of as populism now they were a movement of grassroots movements of poor farmers in the south and the west of the United States in the period colonists civil war they had a really hard time of making a living are they blame their plight on eastern bankers who wouldn't extend them credit or would only high rates and often banks crashed to their disadvantage to the detriment they also blame their plight on the railroad owners who had monopolies on the railroads and of course the farmers were entitled to tanners upon them they get their food to market and so they formed alliances and corporate to try and improve their position and they call for the nationalization of banks and the nationalization of the railroads so what you really had in the first populist and in the people who is maybe eventually led to the People's Party was a radical agrarian movement and their interest and this is often a feature with with populism their interests were simply all had been simply ignored by the two big parties the Republicans and Democrats so eventually the movement gave rise in 1892 to the formation of their own party the populist party the People's Party and they didn't last for long as a separate party they couldn't compete with the two made bit and they did get some people into Congress but they were absorbed by the Democratic Party in 1894 an independent element remains so an element remained independent but the party was abandoned in 1908 so the People's Party was a fairly short listing although the movement that gave rise to it was much longer lasting but I think they're significant for populism in number of ways I mean first of all they were a genuine mass movement you know as a movement that arose from below from the bottom up was very unlike to kind of see the lead populism we got used to in our day it also arose out of ordinary people's grievances which they as were which separated them off from the establishment the establishment who ignored them and who existed to their gentlement but also of course it indicates that here in this case I think instead to say that and the origins that the People's Party populism in his origin was a left-wing movement of defense Nevada can use that term there was some discussion at this morning but from what I know about them that is the right characterization so that's one origin of poplars now the other one is the Russian now of Nietzsche usually translated populist that's a completely different kettle of fish it was a movement is that in the 1860s and became active in the 1870s but as an entirely intellectual middle class movement a bunch of intelligentsia implemented by Alexander Hudson wanted to overthrow the Zara system to establish a different kind of economy in Russia altogether and thought that the route to that was getting the peasantry the people to rise up an overthrow the system and so they followed Hetson slogan go to the people and off they went these intelligentsia into the countryside to the peasantry to try and get them to revolt against the system they got short shrift in the peasantry the Disco the peasantry were conservative they were acquisitive they were deeply suspicious of the students and they very often it idle over to the authority and those of them were actually these nor Aniki were arrested and in the end they just gave up on the peasantry and turned to terror instead so that's a very different movement but again you see a populist movement that actually is if anything in our terms left being in origin and they did have some ultimate influence on the Bolsheviks so that's where historians find the first origins of populism but in a way I've mentioned that because it is so different from what we now are now used to as populism so one had to go onto an offense answer my question what is populism let me say something first of all about the nature of pops ism as what people aren't quite sure what to call it let me just call it initially an ideology now if we do call it an ideology it's an ideology with a very thin content it's really not that substantial and I mean that in contrasting with things like Marxism or liberalism of small L environmentalism feminism those of other isms that have a very strong and varied substance to them there's not all that much to pops as you'll see it's also a phenomenon without hard edges it's often difficult where it begins and where it ends and so I think we need to think in terms of degrees of populism some people think it should be characterized as a style rather than idea ideology a way of doing or way of thinking about politics now the way I'm going to try and handle this is to think in terms of a moral case of pop ism what are its essentials what are the general Peters you find in it but I have to say that not everybody who get caught a pop is wood necessary subscribe to all but I'm going to put in front of you right now the first thing the word populist it comes from Assam populist leading people as I'm sure you all know so that's the first thing that the term is Fosdick a note but it doesn't mean people indiscriminately it means that people concede as an entity as their people a body of fittings in their political role and secondly is always used to refer to a particular people so American populist are concerned with the American people Hungarian populist with the Hungarian people Venezuelan polish for the Venezuelan people so sometimes not always you get an association between populism and nationalism you know it's very easy be talking about a particular people were people for that to turn into ought to be associated Bern nation though some populist avoid that term the cost of the pejorative connotations that nationalism required and podemos for example has absurd they use it to their patriotism instead and now there's nothing very remarkable is that I think we begin to see what is distinctive that populism when we see who are not the people in their eyes and that is the elite populist always contrast or counterpose juxtaposed the people to the elite that rules them but rules their society now how is that elite conceived sometimes its conceived in purely political terms so the elite of the political class the ruling class I think it always includes that group sometimes it's conceived rather more broadly as with the People's Party to include the economic elite bankers big corporations being very many populist and known anti-capitalist but what they are they're very much free marketeers some of them but what they don't like is where big people big economic units big economic actors who use their power to get control over the government or what things for their advantage and against the interest of the ordinary person and sometimes is where I think increasingly came to use also to mark of a cultural elite so American populace like Donald Trump of the Tea Party one of their hate groups is were is East Coast liberals as Young Liberals in America doesn't mean like liberal bitters here it means Social Democrats but it'd been in sort of a smart-aleck lefty types that live in New York something now they sometimes use the term I have grown up here bicoastal liberals bicoastal means the lot in New York and those people in California but in between you've got real people middle America and I like Sarah Palin's where cat tries nearly she says there latte drinkers who buy drive Volvos and that's supposed to contrast with people who drink real coffee and who drive real American cars I mean something else that goes along with it there is often in populism a strong anti intellectual element as a lot of emphasis upon the good honest common sense of the ordinary people as opposed to these fancy pointy headed intellectuals as George Wallace called applauded them but I think it means one manifestation of that is Donald comes simple dismissal of global warming oh I thought oh just a hoax oh just stunning ignorant bravado I don't I'm some people have good reason for doubting global warming but I'm damn sure Trump knows step two nothing about it but that doesn't stop him it's just digging this brush it aside so the Elise is not really different from distinguished from the people they're also building as opposed to the people so they're characterized very frequently as the enemies of the people typically in populist rhetoric linking the elite are characterized as privileged distant corrupt self-serving explosive pursuing their own interests and values rather than the people's and again our site Trump I think this very well-known operation you this captures that thinking or that idea very well he can I drain the swamp in Washington disinfected corrupt thing there is there and that was sort of anticipated by Ross Perot I'm old enough to remember him oh I think many other people are here – and who was independent independent to insist himself in a presidential election in 1993 but then pulled out like he always done did before so they're simply it's time to pick up a shovel and clean up the barn of all that manure that's the subtext of the dinner so here's a definition of populism from Edward shields it's just quite an old definition I think it still stands out quite well he says it's an ideology of popular resentment against the order imposed on a society by a long-established differentiated ruling class which is cleaved to have a monopoly of power property breeding and culture now let me say something about that in relation to representative democracy sit and since I'm in the academic trade I never sure how far the terms are generally known that we reuse because every no distinction between indirect and direct democracy we'll just let me just explain and direct democracy simply means the people governing themselves a referendum is an exercise in direct democracy what the ancient Greeks had was direct democracy they would go to the assembly themselves and vote on issues the same issues as a vote on Parliament that in the cabin and so on in our world we don't have that what we're said to have it is indirect democracy if that is we're not it's not the people governing themselves it's the people being governed by those they elect their representatives now in that indirect form of democracy and the role of parties is crucial because clinical parties provide a link between the people and the government who gets to be in the government a political party but it gets that by competing for the people's vote but that for those who maintain the link between the government and the people now given that you might say what is populist on about we have either two party of multi-party democracies and there isn't an elite they're competing elites but they would say that not a bit of it because you have ostensible competition but really if competition within the elite then they go back to shields with definition way speaks of a differentiated ruling class that is now our differences within on competition within the ruling class but the conception is it still within the ruling class they're still a ruling class as tweedledee and tweedledum although not so much in this last election they're actually controlling things now along with that castigation that hostage debate goes a kind of glorification of the people the people are conceived as pure and incorruptible here's Hugo Chavez is an example all individuals are subject to error and seduction but not the people which possess to an energy degree our consciousness of its own good and the measure of its independence notice the use of its not there the people's can see this kind of unitary thing because of this is judgement is pure its will is strong and none can corrupt or even threaten it but that goes along with the idea of the people as a homogeneous homogeneous entity a unitary entity with a single unitary will now here I want to mention jean-jacques Rousseau's idea of the general will because I think poppers often think in similar terms Reesa Reesa was an 18th century political theorist very influential very important in French revolutionary thinking and most famous for his idea of a general will which are now try to explain as briefly as I can and Rousseau said let's suppose we have a community he thought a small community that's reasonably homogeneous it is the common life and the people there are much the same in the community like that those people will share our common good now they're members of the same community they share the same thing as members of that community and what's good for that community must be good for them as members of that community now given you have that community with a shared common good everybody in the community must want that Kanaga because it's what they're good that would be nonsense but there common good that people didn't actually want or was Russo put it they will the common good now that's what he means by the general will a general will is simply a will general to the people for their common good okay how do we find out what this general will is well Rousseau said if you have democracy and he meant direct democracy under the right conditions we can rely upon the majority discern what the gender will is you have a vote it may be that people aren't unanimous ideally they would be but maybe they won't be you have a majority minority spit but you can rely on the majority to get the right answer and in those circumstances is not the minority have a different will a different wish from the majority they just made a mistake Dave honestly tried to judge the general will but they've made a mistake they really want the same with the majority so everybody falls in line behind the same general will everybody's happy now that's obviously a controversial idea but I won't same but much more about I just want to add one thing to that and that is reso recognizes the highly idealized notion and that in real life thing is the often corrupted and one possible corruption is that you have within the community a faction a group who pursues not the general will but their particular will their own factional self-interest against the interest of the people now I don't know how many populous have ever read boo so but it's a very influential figure even if they don't know every so of course people be capable of being influenced by his ideas because they pass on from thinking to think of thought to thought but what they share I think very often with with versus the SSID are the people as is homogeneous entity with a single will and of course populist leader claims to articulate that will and they also have this idea of there being factions who get in the way that corrupt the general will the people which of course is the elite now and of course what's wrong with that idea is as I said Rousseau was thinking of it as a small homogeneous community he was thinking of a city-state like Geneva in his own time where you could have a direct democracy you had a place more unified community he was not thinking of modernist States we have populations numbered in millions and which are very diverse I mean he in fact he said in a state as exerting his own time France for example or Britain democracy was impossible forget the gender will and and that is something which populism is often criticized for for deliberately ignoring the pluralistic character of modern society modern societies modern democratic societies of not of course homogeneous they're plural people have different identities differing interests different values different all sorts of ways and somehow a democratic system has to kind of cope with all this but it's simply false to pretend is a single homogeneous unit for the single will which just so that so that populism is not just Antony but also anti pluralist and rather more obviously vulnerable to attack because it's anti pluralist the danger and all that of course is that populism becomes exclusionary that is some people get Inc defined into the people other people are kept out of it here's an example we said aired on the president of Turkey who I think is particularly given to this addressing his critics we are the people who are you in other words his critics people who don't agree with him he speaks for people don't count us the people or Donald Trump in a rally in matey 2016 the only important thing is the unification of the people because the other people don't mean anything now I'm not sure who the other people were knows you those are the New York liberals but you know you get that very dangerous disposition and of course another manifestation the same thing is what's sometimes called nativism the people mean what can you get as the indigenous people but true people of the country outsiders asylum seekers Markinson don't count debt outside the people I mean as manifestation of that was McCarthyism that the ideas some people being just uh narrative and in some instances only some pop popularly gets associated with anti-semitism in Hungary and in Bulgaria some thoughtless of claims that the elite is really governed that governs their countries is governed by sympathy with Israel and by Zionist parties now that is populism in was in a model form I'm sorry I've not not any good I've forgotten something yes one other thing I think one other thing that comes out of that way of thinking is and a hostility to anything that gets in the way of the people and that means hostility to what we tend to call liberal democracy liberal democracy is a former democracy in which the will of the people or the will of the majority is constrained in various ways to secure people's that you secure certain rights to protect minorities I think that's clearest it's much clearer in the American system than a British system in America you had a written constitution where power is divided between the legislature and the executive the presidency unlike this country and there's very definitely a separate judiciary you have division between the two houses of Congress you have further division between the federal government and the state governments and in particular you have the Bill of Rights although of course we now have the European eventually and that Bill of Rights constrains what anybody can how anybody can use their to go back has given the constraint set by the Bill of Rights who interprets that Bill of Rights is typically the judiciary a court and you do find populist being deeply impatient with that kind of constraint upon the people you've already seen with Trump and his run-ins with the course now you know presence often fall foul of rulings by the Supreme Court but what I think is unusual is an attempt to denigrate the judiciary as a consequence of that you had the same thing with Berlusconi and who had his benefit and he pledged to make the necessary Palmas to guarantee that a magistrate that judicial judge will not be able to try illegitimately to destroy someone who has been elected by the citizens it's going to be the people over the judiciary something else that falls in the same category is rejecting the legitimacy of oppositional politics I mean we think of opposition criticism of government party competition as the essence of democracy but often in populism that is rejected because once you think in terms of the people and the enemies of the people and for the populace the people who disagree with them are enemies of the people they're not a legitimate opposition that kind of thing you get with order one and you get frequent attacks on the media again you've seen this with Trump unless of course it's their own media which the court was true of Berlusconi yoga herder and leader of the Austrian Freedom Party was very well known for the attacks on the media he attacked them leader repeatedly except one tabloids that have supported him well that M it's a very general sketch of Pops's and I think you can see now why it described as a thin ideology it really doesn't come down to a lot more the idea the people versus the elite the glorification of the people and the demonization of the elite it's also why you find popular and conjoined to other isms so people are very often populist plus something else the three things I've got there and although I don't think it's entirely an accident that pops ISM has become joined to these other isms let me make clear what I'm trying to say here I'm not saying that to be associate is to be a populist or to be your skeptics to be a published that is wrong but you can see why if somebody's populistic ly minded it gets cannot get deployed indicates of socials because a clear difference between as well the economic the elite that dominates and the older people are trying to get into power and to to displace that elite so they can live in a more egalitarian society similarly with nativism and nationalism or anti-immigrant parties and I think they're two things there's which would lead to the link between pops ISM and anti-immigration parties where in simple business that they're the people are something other than the migrants who want to come in and who are going to actually be very the culture of the people and actually devalued their economic conditions but also because of the evidence split there's been on immigration between the way the elites new immigration and the way ordinary people do immigration there's been this pattern across Europe that for many ordinary people innovation is an issue in a wage has not been for the elites who governed govern them and the elite that were simply dismissed the ordinary was thinking as Jennifer that can racist now a bit more about that later on again I think the lictors euro skeptism is no accident if you're a pops and you want the people to be sovereign to be dominant to in control their own affairs your debt are going to be hostile to external rule but a body like the European Union particularly when it takes a bureaucratic technocratic character and there – of course you get a same split between and only people thinking on this thing and the Elise which we saw and brexit now just a word on how pop ISM gets mobilized I've been talking at pops in a very general terms but but who does pop business or who gets it into operation well various units there's actors first of all leaders now prompt ISM has come to be associated with strong charismatic leading figures you know Peron chavez Morales here it will ders a pimple time third one Hugo Boss in the Northern League so there's a whole load of them and in a way that's a paradox he has something which is at third people and yet the most prominent actor it's just rather overbearing leader and of course the explanation for that is that if the people are going to get anywhere typically they may be organized they need to be led port a Goethe wrote Iran populism says that populism requires the most extraordinary individual to lead the most ordinary of people and I think that sort of indicates the trick that a populist leader has got to perform that it has to be extraordinary in a way to justify being believed of people claiming to actually speak for them on the other hand he has to be protecting to pretend to be ordinary and ordinary Joe like the common people so they claim to embody what they want to speak Pro for them so you get Sarah Palin for example within yourself as just your average hockey mom Chavez presenting himself as a poor kid the farm kid from a very poor family and claim to be exactly like you any of people in eSATA shoppers he was a poor kid from a poor background but what was hidden was lay harped on that too to establish credibility and yet but the other thing about this is there's above the the people who don't fit that I mean here you have Donald Trump the billionaire have claimed to be you know the people's chattering the poor sods and the bus bells were unemployed scratching to get by and people like Berlusconi in the media media empire owner speaking claiming to speak for the people one thing that some comics and notice that these leaders is there had their given to rather course behavior often bad language slightly prevention and be deliberately politically incorrect of course what that's all of that is trying to make themselves and like we ordinary people as they see it you also get populist parties of course you need more than just a leader to get continuity there we often have a populist parties the end of in the contemporary world of parties really built about around a single leader they're very monolithic parties they're very top-down parties I think pops the best example that this here will ders the young leader of the people's freedom party in the Netherlands and for some reason I definitely understand he is legally the only member of that party and all these deputies had just told what to do by him in a very kind of on populist way social movements populist social movements like the movement that eventually led to the People's Party are much rarer I think because they're much more difficult to kind of get to happen and to make work but there are some examples in the body the best example I think is the Tea Party movement in America which is a quite remarkable phenomenon which is associated with the Republican Party but not part of it and sometimes in opposition to it and that manages it exists as a kind of lease network rather than some organized hierarchies now an egg yolk I think for the most part populist parties have been challenger parties they've not got power themselves but they were such a established parties and of course they've often had considerable influence in that role just think of you kit its influence on putting the EU and migration on the agenda of course getting its way in the last referendum but there are sometimes populist regimes have people sometimes say that's a contradiction in terms if populism is about the people versus the elite helping the populace become the elite and still be a populist and I think there's two answers to that one is that sometimes populist parties ceased to be populist once they get control I heard just a few nights ago I heard Robert Peston described a DUP as a populist party I couldn't really make sense of that but I think you might have meant this that it is origins when Ian Paisley got to go you can conceive it as populist because arising of some of the all the problems and gets the establish of the union's party and eventually displacing it but I don't think you could say the DUP now is a populist party it doesn't fit what else do you think about it he doesn't fit that model the tech the same is true I understand a Tsaritsa now it's sort of in the governing coalition and caved into the troika's demands of the austerity increase it's really given up its populist rhetoric but the other kind of case is where in a sense the the populist takes over and goes on being a populist very often you have populist regimes taking the authoritarian form we're the leader is seen as implementing the people's or Chavez regime for example took that form so you pay wrong and they keep up this rhetoric of they're always been an elite out there and ending out there the oligarchy out there that threatens their position will now be the the final part of my question how far do we worry about this as I think because times going on I won't bother to point out what's objection about populism because I think it's fairly obvious from what I said I'll just be going over old ground but a lot of people think it's a production of democracy the homogeneous people is annoncer let me just say in qualification that I don't think the idea of there being a common good is always wrong evening large societies there are certain ways which everybody in Britain shares a common good living a secure society a healthy society employment and so on it's just too simple me to think that everything is not like that demonizing opposition threatening monologist and I should have had it I think really offering really attractive but submerged solutions to what are really complex problems but I think that's the more interesting question is is there anything to be said in defense of populism and I just want to suggest a couple of things that might be said in mitigation as well people like that and one is exposing issues within liberal democracy that a real issues and the other is indicating some kind of shortfall in the democratic system so let me take the first of those now one rifle partners in the Dutch biddable scientists cast murdered and said this populism has essentially become an in Liberal Democratic response to an undemocratic liberalism of what he really beans my dad is in global democracies sometime the seed bounces switched too much to liberal and away from the Democratic and you've had a Democratic reaction against that now I think that's a real issue I want to illustrate it by way of a Bills of Rights because I think it's just more easily explained in that way America has its Bill of Rights and we since 1959 in part subject to the European Convention on Human Rights all the 1998 Human Rights Act really changed was that of until 1998 you had to go to Strasbourg Sassoon for your Human Rights after 1988 you can sue in British courts although our Supreme Court in this respect is not supreme ultimately it's the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg now the Bill of Rights New York intervention lay down rights which give people certain secures the technical legal term for them is immunities because they make you immune from physical power in the matters on which you have rights they're often called minority rights but that's misleading typically their rights held by all citizens but they get called minority rights because within a democratic context you most need them when you're in a minority when yours were at the mercy of a Democratic majority now how those rights relate to democracy will summon a rightly court of democratic rights those ology the right to vote but the right to free expression you're up typical assembly because there that the very operation of democracy if a majority defies a minority of its right to vote the system would thereby become undemocratic but most the rights are non democratic in there they're nothing to do without the operation of democracy so think of rights like the right to a fair trial to freedom of religion the right to marrow the right to divorce the right to panda family the right to privacy the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment they're non Democrat none of that anti-democratic weather just not a bad democracy and that shouldn't surprise of democracy matters to us democracy I think is a good thing but it's not the only good thing and things awesome attitude I think any of us want to be pretty entirely at the mercy of political power including democratic political power but that does create issues is true just how far should the Dimas the people be shackled by these rights who's going to return what those rights are and perhaps more to the point who is going to administrate and interpret what they mean when you look at the European Convention what you find is rights that are very generally very vaguely formulated so that was a great deal who is going to determine what they mean typical cases and that is courts and that is why you constantly get conflicts arising between what the politicians wanted to do what they know is popular on what the courts decide which restrains them now that I'm not here arguing against rights I'm very much a fan of of human rights but there is a big issue there of how far we want or think and a system should shackle the demos by that in that kind of way and how far it should let the people decide and do what they want how far the people should another words be sovereign and of course you get the same kind of issue arising with the EU how far should a society cede powers to some supranational body outside itself so all I'm trying to say here is that I think pop there's more than just being literate us but it challenges liberal democracy is exposing things these are real issues within double democracy as the second issue is or the second point is rather difference and here I want to quote unity I'm not sure how pronounce name Donald the John or younger pop lism it is not a disease it is a symptom of a democratic system that is ailing there is nothing inherently undemocratic about populism in small doses it can act as a political corrective and the idea there is that we'll look if you get and populist leaders can only function properly just if they go to following if they tap into people's grievances and if you get those grievances developing and being exploited by populous that means they're not being noticed they're not being attended to by the democratic system so we may think Donald Trump as a joke but what about the people who voted for him we may just be dismissive of some of them Hillary Clinton called from the deplorable z– and to be fair theory she's called Heartland Lee probables the others weren't so bad but I worry about that dismissive attitude towards those people and the same thing with brexit that and obviously establishment was taken aback by the vote for breakfast and I think that just did disclose we've got their wars between the elites thinking of math exam the EU and so many all new people's thinking and I think the elite has been at fault increasing ordinary people's thinking on things like migration of wanting to recapture sorbitol that kind of thing of dismissing that with contempt as just sheer ignorance and I think that is a mistake I think maybe if they attended a little more carefully to that and taking a little more account to that it may have been we hadn't it wouldn't end up with brexit that I think the sun's Thunder the fault the referendum yourself perhaps there's stems from those the EU itself but also from the British clinical class just in to dismissive of too many people thinking so there are I finished thank you how closely is Donald Trump tied to the air libertarian movement in America if at all and do you consider that movement to be populist in any way shape or form thank you this is why I began by saying I'm physical philosopher not a political scientist I can't claim a you know an academic knowledge of America I mean my impression is that it is logically Trump is a very kind of gadflies figure I don't think he has strong convictions of that kind I'm a libertarian would only breathe at amongst other things a kind of free-market type I think with figure Trump's opposition to the effects of globalization is promise to do things for people in the Rust Belt and so on or imply protectionist measures which will go against a libertarian position I'm the true libertarian would also be libertarian on social issues I don't think those things bother drunk very much but I don't think you people libertarian on drugs I just don't I was going to say sexual issues but you know that's a second that's things that I keep off that and I much of the tea party is made up of true libertarian people who want small government who don't who don't oppose capitalism but or again it's kind of capitalist being being patronized by the government what start of the Tea Party movement was the government bailing out banks and various other institution that the insurance industry the car industry and so on I don't think Trump is necessarily opposed to that kind of thing so I actually don't think there's much of a connection you know do you know the name Robert note sick I mean he's it was righted back in the early 70s but there's been the best theoretician of libertarianism and he he that he is the truth and true articles were I just don't think for a moment Trump has really has any kind of principled commitment of that I think he saw an opportunity he digs managed to identify people's concerns he tapped something which other people including in the in the Republican Party didn't recognize and got to power that way but I think he is as well as sort of acting disrespectfully political quit it's probably also contemptuous of it but I I don't think really do as much of a elector I think he's very much a political opportunist frankly thanks that's really interesting and I think your last sentence that kind of link to the question I wanted to ask and how much do you think populist leaders in general actually believe their own position and their own rhetoric and how much do you think it is and seeing an opportunity to come to tax I think in your talk you mentioned that often if power is actually gained things change yes yeah the question was really how far the populist leaders as well being what they say and how far they rhetorician zazz were saying the right thing is to gain themselves critical power of course you might ask that any politician not don't click the populist I guess it because populism is kind of associated with demagoguery with whipping up feedings and so on sometimes would that be the less savory feelings among humanity and I find it difficult to answer in a in a general kind of way I mean take something like Chavez you know again I cannot pretend to know a great deal about Chavez even less about other Latin American regimes my impression is he was somebody from a double background made his way through the army got fed up with the way with the club use of physical power in Venezuela staged a coup with a bunch of other people that fail but actually managed to get back and had another and then got power legitimately an youzhi position to use the larger the oil wealth of Venezuela to really help the poor out increase equality diminish poverty and so on in Venezuela and I find it hard to believe that he did that for anything other than his beliefs that yeah that was a better society that was a better Venezuela and his antipathy towards the United States international capitalism again I think we generated by a genuine belief that was an obstacle to to improving a lot of Venezuelan people and now the question is how you go about that and I think here's you a lot of the rhetoric probably was a means to an end so I think he believed in the end whether all that he said is a means of getting that end I'm not sure and of course it did go along with a lot of things that people criticize you know reading a bit about this people divide very much on a character like Chavez and as some people think he was the real deal of true such and so on I really good as we were thought he was authoritarian he was really you know quite cares if he not cares the wrong word quite dismissive of human rights times concerned he perhaps villainized on little classes more than was ever justified and so on again you wonder how far that was it was a means to an end but I didn't take a character like Nigel Farage and again I I really think Nigel Frances the true believer I don't think I mean he never got to the power and it wasn't very much really liked to do it but you know what motivation would he have had if he hadn't wanted to get out of the EU and all that he thought that involved I mean I suppose one might say well he did it for the buzz and you know uninteresting subject is the psychology of politician you know most of us don't become politicians so why do those who become politicians do so and other like the rest of and there are people have elaborate psychological theories are all sorts of energizing people are pushing them on again as we skeptical about that yeah I didn't get a carrot like Berlusconi I mean within his case I really do think it's for the glory of the office I would say that Mardan book or simile about Trump I think you know opportunities just politicians just like the idea of being in charge and like the idea of having power so I think it's a variable story but I'm not sure that there's any reason to those any greater in sincerity amongst populist politicians and perhaps all new politicians even though in some cases in sincerity is a rather unlikable card you know some of the populist leaders in Europe are pretty unsavory characters it builds for example or Viktor Orban in Hungary and so on but I'm pretty certain they believe what they say I guess it kind of follows on from what you just said that's a because I'm flabbergasted and some of the things that you're attributing to Trump in the ability for him to actually believe he's better we can go ahead without without without really discussing the manipulation of hidden by people around him like Bannon for example and I was going to ask clearly what where in your model is the place for the puppet and that figurehead at the front end who's actually being controlled by people behind him I'm not sure the puppet is the right don't forget is Trump who chooses the people who he puts around him I definitely get their own influence but I don't I'm not persuaded that Trump is just and of vulnerable doll but it just does what people tell him to do like you know it was a child king being ruled by a regent that's not to say the circle around and isn't important about where I would see a clear example that is George Bush and the neocon kiss around him I think Bush really was much more of a rather rather unintelligent individual who who was pushed around by people around him and something that was of course again he selected the people he could sublet turned himself with but I think it was more their mercy because you have less great matter then let's say somebody like Barack Obama or Clinton I mean my impression of these populist figures is they they don't strike me as I mean far as I know about them as people who are those sort of wet dummies who just get certainly they'll be hangers on partly because they just think in the same way and perhaps because they've got to get something out of it but you know the best of them don't seem to me to fit this model of somebody they're just suckers who have been used by other people but I'm sorry that's just very just I think it's what we would need to do to answer that question properly it is look at a whole series of figures and in detail and see what was the case and I'm just not in a position to do that let me take Nigel Ferrari we all know rather better I just don't think he was a lap dog at all nothing and the others around him for a reason may I'm not sure though she's not steady not populist but and I think she was well but in a sense in a way the kind it was Rome fault she made herself a victim of her own advisers but but identity gets particularly well I'm sorry I can't say anything usefully beyond iving really in your ways do you see the media in all its forms sorry in what ways do you see the media in all its various forms actually sort of influencing the way that populism you know develops and and operate I think it can be very important sometimes the media is more sensitive than politicians we're going got to sell their newspapers so I'm talk about the print meat at the moment yeah I'm the print media I've got to sell their newspapers and therefore they want to say things there we just want to read this is one of the problems with it the papers and their readers chicken-and-egg and does the Daily Mail for example shape what if we just think and the Sun but also the Guardian or is what the Sun and the mill or the Guardian right to turn by their readers because the readers want so it's it but and it does seem to me I mean papers can be all gung-ho and pursuing the populist cause I think politicians they often a give far more circumspect I think with the electronic media in this country where we're fortunate I'm you can't say that the BBC nor I think of ITV but you think of Fox News I've only seen limited out of that in America but it's diabolical social media I'm afraid that I'm just too old to comment I mean all honesty I just have come along too late to get into all that sort of stuff I don't tweet I don't I not even Facebook I'd read blogs and various thing as I get on the internet but I'm just not I'm completely but the world of the young particularly I have in the last election that's completely an unknown world to me and I just know about it see what it said on the radio on radio forth on CPUC well as I did but I get out you can see how it would have massive potential I've been given that you know I think but you know again we're back to something so the argument of does the populist leader create his following because he cortical thinking the way he or it could be she does or is it working the other way around I've said you know there's very few genuine blossom that boot pops movements they tend to be leaders and making them happen but with social media I think you have more and more potential for that bottom up Flynn and I believe the tea part of the socially as in quite a portent in the emergence and they continue to the Tea Party so and it was very important in the Occupy movement which is sometimes such as does kind of grassroot recent their left-wing phone populism so I think potentially it could could be yeah it could be very important well actually my question was going to be about that very thing the influence of the press and television arm on populism Nigel Ferrara wouldn't have got anywhere near what he did without the support of certain newspapers I'm quite sure of that and as for social media I can tell you older though I am that it did in this last election make a huge difference and I don't think that you could think of Jeremy Corbyn as being a populist leader because people papers and television to a certain extent kept telling everybody he wasn't a leader to which my answer is Ian Duncan Smith yes I'm like I don't know I said hard to talk in generalities all the time I mean I don't descend from what you say social media at all I mean I don't know otherwise and people have been saying this so you know the world is going beyond these it's just very hard to know how much influence the newspapers have but I they must have made that you if you take what you might call the establishment the establishment in terms of politicians leaders leaders of the industry the intelligence and so on they were so very much on the side of remain I think when you compare that with the press by contrast wasn't so if if the brexit ear has got support from anything of themselves I'm sure that the press did make a difference it's very difficult to inquire how much difference it made I'm not I will be skeptical saying that Faraj was tremendously important in this and the press is well they made people think in that way I think people just aren't that passive and I I think what they did was tap into a grain of discontent to concerns that have been around for a long time and and caught the stablishment by surprise surprise but it's just this is the kind of thing where you really need to do empirical research but it's a subtle empirical research it's very hard to be how earth do you find out how much influence the best actually had is extremely difficult to know this is a card thing that social scientists do I want to be social scientist quite like to but it's very very hard to pin your standard jected Lee so I'm sorry the best I can do can i by the way invite people just to express views as you did and I don't want to pretend to be the only person who's got an opinion or worth hearing on YouTube hello I've got a humdinger of a question for you have no idea whether you're going to be able to answer it but I'm going to ask it anyway in your view can the rise of populism in the modern Western world ever help to create the right circumstances for the end of neoliberal capitalism it's going to be a hard job I think it's it's very hard to see it doing that I'm Neal liber ISM is such a dominant economic forum in a Jag global pretty much ISM and it's hard to think of a global there being a global populist movement that couldn't match it and there were on that globe there were these global protests weren't there I forgot what they were called now the global activist some some years ago and they just seem to remember that they don't report now they don't seem to be about in the same kind of way but why the kind of populism we've had has been very nation based as that mission in the case of Chavez and some of the Latin American countries it's been very anti-american and and of course in a way as I said before some of trumps ideas are anti neoliberal leaving things just to the market but then you've got the European Union which is self on the whole a neoliberal driven institution and you have yet populist I mean your skepticism is to summer sent driven by an reaction against that particular you in the case of Greece and Spain those countries which suffered it wouldn't the crisis in the euro I suppose the short answer is no I can't see how the hell that's going to happen but none of us can see the future and the way the world is going to change I mean that exactly what you know that really is the big problem I think of our age that you know we're living in now in in the global village to use a cliche yeah our world is affected by things outside of our four Shores all the time now there's this stuff about you know multinationals having much more control than most governments and so on but we don't have political institutions that match nagging like the EU is there but it's it's just just Europe it's not you all of Europe there's you end that the UN is hopeless tanks on that score because quite necessarily because the UN is a club of nation-states and they're all jealous of their power they're not willing to allow the UN to become this kind of cosmopolitan government in my Soviet areas been an awful lot of talk of global democracy cosmopolitan democracy but it is mainly talk and it's very hard to see how the hell you could ever get that to operate I mean could you really think of the entire population the world's acting like a kind of democratic assembly and when you think of the differences our heart in the world between different society how differently they think could you ever have some kind of majority rule I mean could you see Iran being governed by what we decide in the West and couldn't you be see the west of income by what's the time to buy Iran or the country release so it's as though it sort of marches worst nightmare I expose in a sentence that you had this sort of international economic system that's that nobody can properly control and it's very it's very difficult to see how you have digital institutions that are workable that could ever do that but so I'm afraid that's what I love dark answer thank you this is the last question I guess it makes sense can you give us some examples of how populism ends as it always don't fizzle out from internal contradictions or do external circumstances changes change that stops this you know a liberal thing from bubbling up thank you actually em I think I guess there must be a variety of things I think of Chavez well well the poor man died of a heart attack in 2013 but by that stage all polite prices already going down and the thing collapse and that brought to an end and he you still have a his successor in power to gotten his name now nope that's Oh does matter but that brought Chavez is socialism I'm crashing down and poverty now is worse than it wasn't it took over so I think sometimes still can't answer take over I think sometimes these things just lose momentum a new clip obviously has on the other hand you might say well that's because it's achieved its goal but that daddy's rare I think also I think Patsy's populist parties they do depend very much on a sense of crisis a sense of popular concern and if the sense of crisis goes then as well they're relevant thinkers disappear as well I mean sometimes it can be that they take they do get power and they're as it were detained by power I mean I don't know how far Trump would be tained well I mean there is some already in some measure he's stepping back from what he said and I do not see how he's going to deliver on some of the things he promised and if he fails he'll be voted out so I think there a variety of things I think maybe it's in the nature of populism this evanescent that it depends upon you know passing anxieties passing concerns it's not you know the things are very thin ideology it's just about the people against the elite and therefore it's not sustained by a body of belief and the way that things like branches are more liberal them or whatever are sustained so I think it is very prey to circumstances rats test that's the answer [Applause] you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *