Populism - Preaching Strength Through Weakness

We find ourselves thrust into the middle of a resurgence of populism in the early 21st century. People around the world feel lost in an increasingly global society with less barriers and less perceived security for themselves, their identities and what they believe in. Still a minority, albeit a very vocal minority, they feel that they and their cultures are under attack and they do not feel in control as the world moves forward through history into uncharted territories. The populism of the 21st century offers the classical approach of easy answers to hard questions, and confirms for people that what they believe in and what they value really is great. But what is strange about this approach in the present day is how much more energetically and successfully it is pitched tied to the idea that the individual, or group, is currently so very weak. They champion the greatness of their identity and culture through the idea of their very weakness and incapacity to affect real change. This change is then only possible through the figure who steps up to champion the cause. This is classic populism as we saw it in the 20th century, with a perceivedly homogeneous group being threatened from the outside, but with the 21st century twist of basking in the idea of their own complete impotence, to the degree that they make it a virtue.

Their weakness becomes the identifier for their strength. It can be seen almost everywhere in the world, the would-be or elected leaders speaking of a people gone astray, who they will restore to greatness. Being downcast is the good part, the palpable part that people can relate to, with the greatness being the thing which is out of reach, the thing one is not, the admittedly non-existent, but that one is promised that can be achieved in the future. This, of course, means that they are currently far from great. The election of Donald Trump, Brexit and the rise of populist movements and parties, as well as leadership styles such as Putin, Erdogan or Duterte all fall in line with this approach. They call on some vague greatness and promise its return, though it is not really clear where it might be returning from and what form it is going to take. Nebulous enemies exist in one’s own society and very clear ones are to be found in every corner of the global stage. The basis of this view is the schizophrenic attitude that one’s own weakness is the evidence of one’s own right to strength. Yet now it seems that there is a very strong, very intentional association to the fear that one’s group is far too weak. On the surface, it can be quite amusing to watch Russia, Turkey, US  and all the other groups stamp their feet, puff out their chests and essentially draw on the idea that they are all basically ineffectual and they’re now tired of losing all the time. This could serve to amuse if the effects of this posturing were not associated with arrests, military campaigns and the ensuing dead that go with it.

A more important aspect is the case, well known in history, of the problems connected with basing ones identity and movement into the future around a negative construct. If one is defining oneself through a negative event or struggle one has the disadvantage of having to create a positive from a negative. If, like the populists, one is defining oneself through negativity, be it one’s own deficiencies or the outward attack against enemies, one carries a basic foundation of negative self. One has to first overcome the deficiency or “conquer” the enemy before a positive structure can even be built. In actuality, it takes hard work, intense introspection, strength and will power to build a long-lasting productive construct, all the more so on a complex, societal level. One could be inclined to wonder if today’s populists have those qualities within them and are able to put together long-term strategies that have the depth and conceptual agility to take on the complex problems they say they want to tackle. The binary breaking down of problems, at least as they espouse them in public, does not seem to show them moving in this direction.

What then of the people who are supporting these movements, or more importantly, who make up these movements? It seems that the success of these ideas is based on them resounding with the people because the concepts are a mirror, or window, in which the people see themselves and their fear, and through which one is able to view the underlying impulses of the individuals. The people feel weak, small and useless in this expanded world and are happy to shout this from the roof tops. They can post about it on Facebook, pointing to what others have, meaning how much better the lives of others are and, either virtually or in real life, form angry, aggressive mobs that gather and attack the people they feel are in a better position than them or are getting a better deal. Their first step is to admit their own perceived inferiority so that they can then strive to be superior through virtue of the value of their identity. However base that might sound, it is intrinsically human and the phenomenon is not an exclusively right-wing one; the left engage in a perhaps more sanctimonious underdog story, one which may not have the mob-like aggression tied to it, but one which is part of its DNA going back to worker’s rights in the factories. They, for their part, look to the future where the corrupt class-based past will be cast off. The idea of the status quo being wrong and the need for change echoes through all spectra. In this way, a good argument can be made that Obama was the first populist president of the U.S., it was just that he also had a Harvard education and came with some experience, but he too promised to right wrongs and raise people up. Though his message is decidedly different to Trump’s and should also be seen as such, both left and right can lay claim or be blamed for the rise of the populist rationale in our time, be it through indifference or opportunism.

The failure of liberal democracy to deal with the sudden shifts and the ensuing strains of the early 21st century has led to mass insecurities among all people and has helped destabilize people’s ideas of themselves to the point that they have become susceptible to this new populism. Yet, as in personal life and the many positive things one can hope to have – meaningful relationships, friendships, family, creative and vocational fulfillment – any possible or plausible solutions are those which do not have easy solutions, ones which take work and are put into effect in the long term. For a society, education and a slowly adjusted perception to the realities of our world as they exist, and not how we would like them to be, would seem to be a way to counter the immediate highs of populism. There are no immediate answers that are not themselves vulnerable to the populist slant and knee-jerk outbursts; these short-term, satisfying approaches evaporate quickly and achieve little more than affecting a backlash or ultimately self-sabotage. In this way, and in much the same manner as the negative self-definition, the populist approach dooms itself to failure in the long run, as it can only end up destroying itself from the inside for lack of long-term solutions. This is not something to gloat about or even hope for too much, as this usually goes hand-in-hand with bloodshed and societal destabilization. But to establish a healthier society that can prosper in the long run and which can build strength through knowledge and experience, thereby becoming the truly strong choice, one has to swim with the current no matter how uncomfortable, slowly readjusting oneself so as to take up position for the future. Understanding one’s own personal or societal weaknesses and shortcomings is a foundation for understanding one’s own character and self, which allows for the building of healthier structures, as opposed to a foundation for scorning the other and laying blame for the current state of affairs on outside forces. That approach, the populist approach, is effectively an exercise in self-denial and self-defeat.

Image credit: "Blind Pioneer, Kaunas, 1962" by Antanas Sutkus