The media, academics, and politicians often create a great deal of confusion because of their inability or unwillingness to clarify the meaning of the words they use. Within this context, a wise friend reminded me that in a conversation, or when we read or listen to someone speak, we ought to know how terms are being defined. As most people are not aware in which manner keywords are used, it is not surprising that we talk past each other while exchanging views on political issues, a condition that unnecessarily divides us.
Populism: what does it mean?
Often, political terms can be distorted in so many ways that their meanings become insignificant. Take, for example, populism. Populism may be regarded as a pejorative or a complimentary adjective. It has been used to describe ‘Left-wing’ authoritarian leaders such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, as well as ‘Right-wing’ leaders such as Alberto Fujimori in Peru, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Donald Trump in the US. In Argentina, Juan Perón was unique. He has been referred to as a nationalist-populist, a socialist-populist, a fascist-populist, and even a Christian-populist.
So what does it mean to be characterized as a populist? In general, the term stands for appealing to people, either all people or specific sectors of the population. As used in countries where the democratic (electoral) system prevails, we may assert that all candidates who run for office exhibit traces of populism insofar as they must address people if they expect to win. The term people, however, gets us into trouble, for who are the people? The word itself, perhaps along with the word love, is among the most abused and distorted in today’s culture. Do the people refer to all the people or to the majority, in which case is the majority of the people fifty-one percent or seventy percent? In the US, candidates running for office constantly refer to the people as if speaking for all or a decisive majority, say sixty, seventy, eighty percent even though political divisions nationwide between Republicans or conservatives and Democrats or liberals are only within a 3-5 point margin difference.
Populism is also defined by its opposition to elitist ideologies that regard ‘the people’ as uneducated in socio-economic and political matters, thus in need of guidance by others who claim to know best. The term elite is usually defined (often pejoratively) as individuals in positions of power (liberals or conservatives) whose views have a predominant influence in society, such as politicians, educators, corporations, the military, the media, or the scientific community. As populists claim that elites do not represent the people’s values–only their own– they go on to assert that only they (populists) are the true representatives of ‘the people’s values. Hence, a more precise definition tells us that populism is anti-establishment and anti-elitist.
Nonetheless, insofar as populist leaders claim to have their own answers to people’s problems, they become elitists too. Acting as counterparts to the elites they claim to oppose, populist leaders (liberals and conservatives) incongruously become ‘the people’s’ elites.
Being even more precise still might not get us anywhere. Populists–liberals and conservatives–seek to ally themselves with a segment of the population they view as being victimized by the establishment. (Note: we must be mindful that stereotyping social groups is somewhat inevitable when explaining terms.) Therefore, we may say that liberal populists tend to appeal to groups that believe are being left out of their version of the American dream or groups that feel discriminated against; for example, low-income people, middle-class groups that feel their status is eroding, Jews and Islamists, Hispanics, African-Americans, LGBTQ+ groups, and even women (who comprise fifty percent of the population) when they face discrimination based on their sex.
On the opposite end, conservative populists seek the support of people they believe have been kept out of a different American dream. These include specific sectors within the white populations, conservative Christians (Protestant and Catholics alike), some white middle-class groups, and groups opposed to ethnic immigration and other liberal causes such as abortion. This view suggests that liberal populism tends to be more inclusive of minorities than conservative populism, a stand the former takes pride in and one conservatives detest.
Lastly, populist leaders also have been characterized by demagoguery, making promises they cannot deliver to attract political support. In the US, candidates in both parties tend to create unrealistic expectations regarding problems that are not in their power to solve. As a result, many voters ignore that there is not much a president can do, for example, to control the price of oil, increase employment, reduce inflation, end drug addiction, restore the economy’s manufacturing preeminence, or even build a wall and have a foreign country pay for it. However, that does not stop citizens from supporting a candidate based on the allure of false hopes.
Moreover, another negative aspect of demagogic populism occurs when candidates appeal to ignoble sentiments by making offensive remarks that stir fear and hatred in society. Socio-cultural issues are legitimate themes for discussion. Stirring ignoble behavior among citizens, however, debases the candidates’ character and poisons the political culture.
Altogether, it is difficult and perhaps pointless to rely on populism as a term through which citizens can learn about their politics except, perhaps, one aspect: societies tend to be divided over the values different groups support. This struggle to make values predominate is the essence of politics. When the gap between conservatives and liberals (or progressives as they like to be called nowadays) becomes so great that it cannot be narrowed, a break in the political fabric may soon follow. It is worth remembering that the American Civil War did not start when the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. The military conflict occurred following over two decades of political bickering over the values that would guide the American Republic from then on. Populists on both ends of the spectrum did not contribute to narrowing the gap; instead, inevitably perhaps, they divided people even further. Nowadays, we see a similar political climate being replicated through what is being labeled as the culture wars.
Socialism – a complicated and puzzling word
Likewise, socialism is another deeply misunderstood term. Perhaps no word elicits more passion when being discussed. Conservatives–primarily the older generations–are extremely disturbed, to the point of showing hostility, towards socialism. They find support among Republican candidates who have called for the eradication of Marxist socialism in society and the people in government who support such policies.
On the opposite end, various polls in the last decade have shown younger generations, so-called millennials, favoring socialism, while politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unabashedly refer to themselves as socialists. Are they all referring to the same terms? Could Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Republican candidates be talking past each other out of ignorance or willingly using the term to gain political attention and garner votes? How do we make sense of what each is saying?
For example, Donald Trump is on record as saying that he does not like using the term socialism because half the people do not know what it means, yet he attacks Democrats as being Marxist and socialists. Ron DeSantis abhors communism and its victims to the point where he asks rhetorically, “Why would somebody flee across shark-infested waters, say leaving from Cuba, to come to southern Florida? Nonetheless, signing legislation to teach students that communism is evil does not stop DeSantis from unwelcoming people from Cuba and Venezuela that are escaping from these countries. He also refers to ‘woke culture’ as ‘a form of cultural Marxism.’ Nikki Hailey believes the 2024 election is about the conflict between “socialism and freedom,” while Chris Christie is critical of “President Joe Biden’s socialist policies.”
In contrast, Senator Sanders says he favors the type of socialism that prevails in Scandinavian countries like Denmark despite these countries not calling themselves (or being) socialists. And Congressperson Ocasio-Cortez calls herself a democratic socialist even though no such system exists except as a political and neo-utopian, i.e., unrealistic ideology, or as a movement that favors limited social reforms. Moreover, could the type of socialism millennials favor be the same one that conservatives loathe? Even Pope Francis has been accused of being a Marxist and espousing socialist and communist views. Such confusion calls for much-needed clarification.
In its most generic form, socialism refers to the social or communal ownership of the means of production or elimination of private property and a free market system that operates according to the laws of supply and demand. Philosophically, Plato’s Republic offers a blueprint of how this system would be enforced. In practice, it can be accomplished in only two ways, either through a forceful overthrow of the government or as a freely adopted lifestyle such as the first Christian community described in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:44-46).
Often, we ignore that concern for the poor as a social philosophy is not an original Marxist sentiment. The aspiration to reduce wealth inequality emerged (not within Christian doctrine) as a philosophy during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries period known as the Enlightenment. Among the most notable socialists were Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Louis Blanc. An exception to their views was François-Noël Babeuf, a French radical that visualized a forced communist society. Nonetheless, due to their social and political impracticality at the time, their views became known as utopian or dream-like social blueprints.
Many people also overlook that the common denominator in these movements is that they are not rooted in Marxism or Leninism; all of them are practically unrecognized in the US. As a result, the most renowned form of socialism, and the one that has created the greatest uproar and protest among conservative sectors in the US and western democracies, is Marxism-Leninism as implemented in the Soviet Union. This type of socialism recalls the violent imposition of an atheist, centralized economy that does away with liberal rights and liberal democracy. This system reminds us of the ideological struggle between capitalism and socialism/communism throughout most of the twentieth century. There is little doubt that the memory of Marxism-Leninism as an oppressive socio-political system lingers on.
In general, the essence of Marxism-Leninism (as implemented in the Soviet Union and its client nations) rests on opposition to a capitalist system it believes is responsible for creating human inequality and driving many people into poverty. Marxist-Leninist socialism, as with utopian socialism, favors poor and low-income groups. As a consequence, many conservative-oriented people tend to believe that anyone who defends the poor or speaks about inequality is liberal, Marxist, Leninist, or socialist.
This conclusion, however, is troublesome as it would ignore Jesus’s concern for the poor centuries before Marx. Although Jesus kept friendly relations with wealthy individuals who were sensitive to the needs of others, he was harshly critical of greed and selfishness, behavior he regarded as sinful. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that conservative (Christian) capitalism today defends ‘trickle-down’ policies (increasing the rich class’s wealth to allow it to trickle down as a means to elevate the poor from their condition). It is often disregarded, however, that in the Gospels Jesus was harshly critical of this approach as an insensitive attitude on the part of the rich. This is vividly illustrated in Jesus’s parable in Luke in which a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores … longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table (Luke 16:19-31).
In time, non-Marxist and Marxist views on socialism created a Western sentiment that sought to eradicate poverty. Such sentiment raised human awareness that led to a host of socio-economic laws today that have moderated the workings of our capitalist system. For example, laws protecting labor unions, antitrust legislation that promotes competition, regulations that protect workers’ physical well-being, social reforms such as Medicare, Social Security, and various welfare programs seek to aid those who are economically disadvantaged, despite that they are not rooted in Marxism. Even the Affordable Care Act Provision, better known as Obamacare, is also mistakenly referred to as being Marxist-socialism notwithstanding being run by private insurance companies.
In contrast, modern versions of socialism that have appeared in Europe and are associated with the various European political parties,or the Nordic model in Scandinavian countries hardly meet the Marxist-Leninst concept as they are based on a large private sector operating under liberal democracies.
The socialist fear
It is important to outline the main features of the Marxist-Leninist system implemented in the Soviet Union (that still exists in some countries),because it is its memory that still creates consternation among a sector of the population. A Marxist-Leninist system,
- is based on atheism, as it views religion as human alienation.
- it attains power through the violent overthrow of existing social conditions, thus, it is undemocratic.
- it seeks the forcible expropriation of all private means of production, the end of a free market, and the forcible end to all independent media.
- it relies on an authoritarian form of government with a centrally planned economy, a single ideology, and a single political party.
Practically, the only way Marxist-Leninist socialism would come into the US is through a violent overthrow that would include the military–perhaps the most traditionally independent and conservative institutions in the country. In American politics no one in his/her right mind (other than dictatorial personalities) would vote to eliminate all political parties, have their religions eradicated, their businesses taken away, all sources of information abolished, and their freedoms eliminated, all while being indoctrinated by a single system of beliefs. It is not only a conservative electorate that is fearful of such consequences; liberals fear them, too.
These indicators tell us that when millennials say they favor socialism, it is not a Soviet-style, Marxist-Leninist system they have in mind. Instead, they refer to socialism as specific social programs or limited reforms that in their view would make society better (whether true or not). It is the same way with the Bernie Sanderses and the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the political world. Despite their self-ascribed labels, they do not advocate features of a Soviet-style system but reforms that aid the disadvantaged or curb existing inequalities.
There is another feature indicating that social reforms in our country are not socialist or Marxist-oriented: these reforms become laws through the democratic process with the support of the majority of the electorate rather than through an authoritarian and undemocratic party. Notwithstanding, conservative politicians continue to use the ‘Marxist/socialist/communist’ threat against their opponents to instill fear among people of an imaginary communist menace to gain support from the electorate. These politicians use the Marxist/communist threat willfully as an ideology to deceive voters, or else they do it out of ignorance. It must be remembered that ideologies are oversimplifications of reality that political parties use to accommodate their beliefs. Ideologies tell people what to think instead of allowing them to reason.
Liberalism and its diverse meanings
Lastly, we come to another confusing term, liberalism and liberal. Traditionally, we tend to equate these terms with people aligned with the Democratic Party, just as conservatism or conservative refers to those who consider themselves Republicans. It is not wrong. However, liberalism has neutral, liberal, and conservative meanings that often are ignored. The term liberal (also known as progressives), as it relates to the Democratic Party, stands for the belief that some measures of social progress may best be attained through government. Republican conservatism, on the other hand, is more concerned about government interference in the lives of people. Hence, they believe that less government is better, even when they, too, rely on the government to advocate policies that define their version of social progress.
But liberalism is also used to describe the type of democracies that prevail in the United States and other parts of the world. Liberal democracy (whose origin goes back to John Locke–who today would be a conservative Republican) is the common term used by Republicans and Democrats to describe a system where there is more than one political party, separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial), a system of checks and balances, and specific individual rights that have the protection of the law.
Adding to the confusion, it is worth noting that the term liberalism originated to signify a type of economic system based on free markets, private property, and individual entrepreneurship. Thus, in contrast with Marxist socialism, or even Democratic party ideology, a liberal economic system is radically conservative (as Adam Smith, the father of economic liberalism, would be too) insofar as it calls for little or no intervention in the private market. In essence, ‘liberal’ Democrats and ‘conservative’ Republicans would have no objections to referring to the American economy as a liberal capitalist system.
Lastly, there is also a neutral use of the term liberal that describes a philosophy of learning that remains open to all kinds of ideas–old, new, radical, extreme Left, and/or extreme Right. The liberal method of learning presumes that citizens ought to be critically educated, that is, able and willing to listen to and reason about any type of views, values, ideas, or ideologies before supporting or showing their opposition to them. Hence, liberal arts colleges, at least in theory, tend to educate students alongside this philosophy without there being a reference to liberal or conservative ideologies.
Ultimately, when discussing the above terms within the context of American politics, people need to realize how citizens and politicians use these terms. It is safe to say that in political debates, the Left and the Right tend to distort their views. It is up to an educated electorate to separate truth from fiction. As my friend said, it is better to learn what the terms mean when we read about them or before engaging in personal conversations.