Left-wing populism?
The current Left often succumbs to a romantic reading of democratic moments of the past, in ways that lack any consideration of the problems that might arise, such as the "tyranny of the majority".
It is disappointing how much the current political Left seems committed to a romantic aesthetic that ignores most of the concerns of both older political analysis as well as the more rigorous findings of modern political science. For instance, despite the obvious risk of a populist movement establishing a “tyranny of the majority” many on the Left continue to advocate for populist politics. Despite the historical fact that some of the most populist USA presidents were also the worst in their treatment of racial minorities (Andrew Jackson and FDR both established concentration camps, for Indians and the Japanese) somehow these Left leaning writers think “Next time will be different, we won’t commit the atrocities that we know this kind of leader committed last time.” Maybe this is why the Left needs to be lead by women and non-whites; the white males just don’t seem to take “tyranny of the majority” concerns seriously, and they seem especially susceptible to romantic readings of the history of the Left.
This is John P. McCormick celebrating left-wing populism:
I am indeed an advocate of populism — left-wing populism. The difference between left-wing and right-wing populism is simple. Progressive populism is a chauvinistically majoritarian movement that challenges the unfair advantages enjoyed by a wealthy and powerful elite minority. Right-wing populism, on the contrary, is a chauvinistically majoritarian movement that challenges the imaginary privileges enjoyed by vulnerable immigrants or religious and ethnic minorities. I think that Machiavelli’s writings anticipate left-wing populism because he encourages plebeians to challenge elites and demand from them an ever greater share of economic and political power.
Machiavelli’s writings anticipate left-wing populism because he encourages plebeians to challenge elites and demand from them an ever greater share of economic and political power.
Machiavelli demonstrates rather convincingly that popular governments are the constant targets of (although he didn’t use the term) “vast right-wing conspiracies” — at all times, in all places, and at every moment. From this perspective, plutocratically generated systemic corruption is simply a constant, existential threat to any civic polity that is not already a naked oligarchy. The only way to halt or roll back this corruption is for common people to mobilize and use any leverage they have — military service or labor power, for instance — to extract concessions from elites who would prefer to expand rather than relinquish their disproportionate authority.
Of course, the ancient republics that Machiavelli analyzed never had to deal with “right-wing populism.” Socioeconomic elites in such republics could invoke patriotism or anti-tyranny to thwart reformist demands on the part of the demos or the plebe; that is, they could prioritize the necessity of war against hostile foreign enemies or invoke the danger of populist leaders accruing royal power while championing the plight of the lower classes.
The Roman Senate masterfully exercised both strategies, frequently diverting the plebeians from tumulti at home to war abroad, and often getting away with killing popular champions, from Marcus Manlius Capitolinus to the Gracchi brothers, as “aspiring tyrants.” But such oligarchs could never fully mobilize large segments of the common people in a sustained movement against popular reforms and popular reformers. They eventually had to resort to violent repression to do so, as exemplified by the tyranny of Sulla.
On the other hand, contemporary right-wing populists have a powerful weapon to wield against both center-left parties and left-wing popular movements: namely, the charge of disloyalty, or national betrayal. Because modern democrats and socialists are motivated by the universalist principles of the Enlightenment, they are perpetually susceptible to charge that they are not really dedicated to the well-being of “the people” within their own countries. They are too easily accused of caring ultimately for “humanity” (for the people worldwide), or for subaltern domestic minorities. Hence, the effectiveness of right-wing populists in smearing center-left politicians and left-wing populists alike as treasonous “globalists” or as anti-majoritarian adherents of “identity politics.”