The Need For a Populist Pluralism

After my last newsletter about America’s Brezhnev years, a friend who actually lived in Brezhnev’s USSR noted that the real political issue at stake right now is whether the United States is to remain a pluralistic society or not. He’s right, and this is a global question, not just an American one.

For the past seven years or so, illiberal nationalists have been on the march worldwide. Xi has used it to solidify his hold over China and to attack minority groups. Modi has been putting Hindu nationalism into practice and attacking Muslims in India. British nationalists managed to pry the UK out of the EU. Macron maintained the French presidency but he did so by echoing nationalist rhetoric while his party got drubbed in parliamentary elections. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is motivated by dreams of reestablishing the Russian empire. With the collapse of the Draghi government in Italy, it looks almost certain that right-wing nationalists will win the next election in September. Orban has maintained control of Hungary, turning it explicitly against liberal pluralism and becoming the America Right’s poster boy in the bargain.

All of these various manifestations of illiberal nationalism have been categorized as “populism.” However, populism is not an ideology, but a political rhetorical key. The left can sing in this key as much as the right can. Bernie Sanders, for example, rose to prominence with leftist populism. When running for reelection in 1936, FDR told his audience that the major financial interests were “unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred!” Progressives need more of that spirit.

We are living in a time when populist messages are resonating especially strongly. Public faith in institutions and elites is cratering. There’s a lot of anger and resentment in the air to be exploited and the Right has benefitted tremendously. If the forces of pluralism are going to win, they need to devise a fighting pluralism that can strike some populist chords. They also need to repudiate the canard of some on the left (who not surprisingly tend to be white and male) that the only way to win “working class” votes is by dropping “identity politics.” (I put working class in scare quotes because they’re really only talking about white people.) A populist stance can be maintained, and I would argue enhanced, by directly addressing race, gender, and sexuality, instead of avoiding it.

It’s still not going to be easy. As another friend of mine points out, anti-pluralism is a simpler message to sell. Most people are not cosmopolitan in the least. They do not like to have their racial prejudices questioned or their assumptions about gender and sexuality undermined. They often instinctually fear or look down on people who are different from them. It is very easy for demagogic figures to point the finger at marginalized groups and whip up resentment against them. This is especially the case in times of economic scarcity, when native born workers can be told that immigrants are stealing their jobs and “replacing” them. If you look into US history you will find this tactic used time and again. The election of 2016 was just the most recent successful manifestation.

Crafting a populist pluralism will also be difficult because illiberal populists have ingrained the notion that “woke ideology” (scare quotes very loud here) is an elite project. For broad-minded people, the messages of “the woke elite are oppressing you because you can’t tell racist jokes anymore” and “woke corporations like Disney are trying to push homosexuality via a Buzz Lightyear movie” might sound silly, but they work. With these narratives reactionaries perform a strange alchemy whereby advocating that each and every person deserves rights and respect is somehow only for the benefit of an elite few.

We also need to acknowledge that many advocates for pluralism are doing a poor job of messaging.Supporting pluralism can feel like something that requires special knowledge and vocabulary. The obsession with language reflect’s social justice activism’s close association with academia, something that is poison for appealing to a broader audience. (I say this as a former academic.) This spills over into the culture of diversity and equity professionals who can project an exclusionary vibe and judgement of anyone uninitiated into the vocabulary and rituals of their sect.

Pluralism is not an elite project, but it can feel like one when you hear Vassar and Amherst alums mock someone for using the phrase “Third World.” (Yes I witnessed this.) You can see this filter down to the world of social media as well. At times social justice advocacy can feel less like an effort to better society, and more like a way for people to pat each other on the back over how much enlightened they are. That is a surefire way to scare off potential converts. (And “I’M NOT HERE TO EDUCATE YOOOUUUU!!!! definitely doesn’t work.)

Advocates of pluralism can also come across as just plain smug and preachy. My liberal town is dotted with “In this house we believe…” yard signs. Another friend of mine calls these “credal statements” and I think the religious analogy is absolutely correct. They feel more like a secular Virgin Mary statue or ichythus symbol than anything else. Like those symbols the point is not to draw others in, but to set the bearer apart. When the message is pluralism, that’s not very helpful.

I am not an expert in political rhetoric, but I think pluralistic populism can be deployed in all kinds of current political battlegrounds. Take for example the attacks on teachers and local school boards. A good message here is “I trust my local teachers, not the outsiders giving you your talking points. Those outsiders get all their money from billionaires who don’t care about people like us.” “People like you don’t have the right to push your ideology on the rest of us. Raise your kids how you want, leave ours alone.” “Why do you want the government to ban books?’ “Our children have the right to learn our full history, not the censored version endorsed by politicians and billionaires.”

It can also be applied to anti-trans pushes. “Can’t you just leave people alone?” “Why do we need the government to say who is allowed to compete in sports?” “Family decisions should be made by families, not by the government or by busybodies like you.” “What kind of sicko is so concerned about inspecting the genitals of children?” “Trans kids have a hard enough time without bullies like you around.”

In many cases the ways that Orban-types go Soros crazy can be flipped. “Your movement gets money from Thiel/Mercers/dark money sources. You represent extremist rich people, not regular people.” The real elite in this country, after all, are not school librarians, it’s the wealthy. In general, liberals need to get over their skittishness over pointing this out, and their general aversion to acknowledging social class.

We are in a fight over the continuation of democracy in this country. This is no time for preaching to the choir, or for couching pluralism in impenetrable academese. It’s time to fight and to appeal to people’s populist instincts instead of holding them at arm’s length. It is something that can and must be done.