The topic of populism has been coming up a lot lately, in a variety of contexts, and there were a couple of interesting discussions around it in the Canadian context over the past couple of days. One is an examination by Frank Graves and Michael Valpy that looks at some of the demographic factors in Canadian populist sentiment, and digs out some interesting things like broader support among male millennials, and even some immigrant communities (though I would note that it’s not that difficult to get immigrant communities to turn against other newcomers – particularly asylum seekers – a technique that Jason Kenney tried very hard to exploit when he was federal immigration minister. The piece is worth digging into, and I had to read it a good two or three times before I started to appreciate a lot of what was contained within.
Another interesting piece was a look at the construction of Alberta conservatism, which goes beyond fiscal and social conservatism – indeed, when polled on values, much of the province actually skews toward fairly centrist values – and yet they disproportionately gravitate toward conservative parties out of a sense of brand identity, which is particularly curious, though one should note that political parties have been losing their ideological bases in favour of left-and-right flavoured populism over the past number of years. And populism is very much a factor in the Alberta voting populace, as the examination shows, which includes the distinction of populism as something that appeals to the “pure” homogeneity of a “people.”
To that end, here’s a good thread that digs into what sets populism apart from democracy, and why it’s something we need to pay attention to as this becomes an increasingly important part of the Canadian discourse.
Populism sees "the people" as a homogenous group who is inherently good fighting against "the elite" or "the establishment" seen as corrupt and self serving /2
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018
Populist movements are often xenophobic, nationalistic, nativist, and racist while imagining a pure homogeneous morally good "people." /4
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018
Scholars disagree about populism having to be a racist movement but most acknowledge the common threads of xenophobia, etc even if it's theoretically possible for the movement to be more diverse. Here @CasMudde says most populist movements are xenophobic or at least white /6 pic.twitter.com/X3H5fFmvs0
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018
Populism isn’t the political expression of a pre-existing working class…it’s how individuals use a grievance to identify themselves as the authentic embodiment of “the people”—unlike those other people, the group they are blaming for that grievance /8 https://t.co/znGKjBOJ2Y
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018
A defining populist movement in the US was the People's Party (or populist party) in the late 19th century which was focused on farmers and workers and was anti modern as well as strongly nativist. The Progressive movement was also nativist and racist /10
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018
Historian Richard Hofstadter in particular saw the 19th century populist movements as racist and nativist. He connected the anti-elitism of the 1890s to the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s /12
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018
Historians and political scientists can debate and disagree about the necessity of populism to include racism/xenophobia. However the link is widely accepted as a reasonable interpretation and understanding of populist movements /14
— Dr. Mia Brett (@QueenMab87) December 12, 2018