{"id":4881,"date":"2019-06-05T11:13:38","date_gmt":"2019-06-05T15:13:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/?p=4881"},"modified":"2019-06-05T11:13:38","modified_gmt":"2019-06-05T15:13:38","slug":"john-finnegan-dont-fear-the-people","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/john-finnegan-dont-fear-the-people\/","title":{"rendered":"John Finnegan | Don\u2019t Fear the People"},"content":{"rendered":"

By John Finnegan<\/strong><\/p>\n

I left Praxis 9\/13, \u201cLeft Populism,\u201d wondering where the Left in America should go. The panelists had largely spoken in a \u201cchorus,\u201d as Seyla Benhabib put it, against the dangers of \u201cleft populism,\u201d (although there was much disagreement over the definition of this term, as Bernard Harcourt rightly points out<\/a>). Yet, at the same time, the panel had been further adamant that a rejection of the political project advanced by Chantal Mouffe need not<\/u> entail a return to the status quo of the \u201cThird Way\u201d of neoliberalism (another contested term)<\/p>\n

But what path, then, should the Left take? I don\u2019t mean to suggest the false dichotomy of populism or neoliberalism, but, as perhaps is common among sessions focused on critique, after leaving the room I wondered what viable strategic alternative would evade the pitfalls described. A few gestured at where the Left should turn instead\u2014for example, Didier Fassin closed his remarks with his belief that \u201cthe left does not need populism. Instead it needs two things that are definitely missing in many contexts\u2026 ideas and courage.\u201d Similarly, Jedediah Purdy\u2019s audience intervention concluded by arguing that \u201cwhen the new left politics is most interesting, it doesn\u2019t need the language of the people\u2014it needs the language of the horizon, of political possibility.\u201d I don\u2019t disagree with either of these statements. But what puzzles me after this panel is why left populism\u2014as defined by Mouffe, not as construed by others\u2014is incompatible with those visions, why we must necessarily jettison \u201cpeople talk,\u201d as Jan Werner M\u00fcller put it, to instantiate a left political project that contains both ideas and courage. In much of the discussion at the table, \u201cleft populism\u201d was defined in a manner that included many examples of left populism that veered towards authoritarianism\/clientelism (e.g. Chavez\/Maduro, the Kirchners, Correa), but excluded other movements\/figures that are widely considered to be \u201cleft populist\u201d and yet did not devolve into such dire straits.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m particularly perplexed by this rejection of left populism given the recent electoral context in the United States, where several candidates ran on a platform that many (though perhaps not all of the panelists) would characterize as left populist and took office. I\u2019m thinking here most obviously of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose viral campaign video \u201cThe Courage to Change<\/a>\u201d mirrors much of the left populist playbook as laid out by Mouffe.<\/p>\n

The ad begins with Ocasio-Cortez laying out her connections to the district, and, more importantly, to the people. \u201cI wasn\u2019t born to a wealthy or powerful family\u2026 I was born in a place where your zip code determines your destiny\u2026 I\u2019ve worked with expectant mothers; I\u2019ve waited tables and led classrooms.\u201d<\/p>\n

It then transitions to defining the challenges facing the people: \u201cWho has New York been changing for? Every day gets harder for working families like mine to get by\u2026 It\u2019s clear that these changes haven\u2019t been for us, and we deserve a champion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then, in a classic left populist move,[1]<\/a> she defines the adversary, Joe Crowley, as an opponent of that people: \u201cThis race is about people versus money. We\u2019ve got people, they\u2019ve got money. It\u2019s time we acknowledge that not all Democrats are the same. That a Democrat who takes corporate money, profits off foreclosure, doesn\u2019t live here, doesn\u2019t send his kids to our schools, doesn\u2019t drink our water, cannot possibly represent us.\u201d<\/p>\n

And it ends with a clarion call to vote in a candidate who has both the \u201cideas and courage\u201d that Fassin alluded to: \u201cWhat the Bronx and Queens needs is Medicare-for-All, tuition free public college, a federal jobs guarantee\u2026 we can do it now. It doesn\u2019t take a hundred years to do this. It takes political courage.\u201d<\/p>\n

The same threads of left populism can be traced in Bernie Sanders\u2019 ongoing presidential campaign, whose signature slogan appears to be making use of the kind of \u201cpeople talk\u201d warned against during Praxis 9\/13: \u201cNot me. Us.\u201d A quick glance at his Twitter page reveals rhetoric similar to what Mouffe calls for in defining an oligarchy whose interests\u2019 conflict with that of \u201cAmericans.\u201d[2]<\/a> Who is the \u201cus\u201d Sanders places himself among? Which \u201cAmericans\u201d does he include in his statements? Is he not doing exactly what this panel warned against\u2014constructing a \u201cwe the people\u201d and claiming to speak on their behalf? And, in doing so, propounding ideas that were until very recently in the United States considered \u201coff the wall,\u201d thereby expanding the horizon of political thought to allow for new possibilities in American politics?<\/p>\n

I see little worrisome at present with the strategies Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have used to advance their movements, and in my mind (and Mouffe\u2019s, at least with regards to Sanders),[3]<\/a> they certainly qualify as \u201cleft populist\u201d strategies. It may be, of course, that with time both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez take on the authoritarian tendencies of the left populists left out of Mouffe\u2019s genealogy (such as Chavez\/Maduro). But, I think we should hesitate to make such claims solely on the basis of the rhetoric identified and its \u201cfamily resemblance\u201d to other, more authoritarian figures. In my mind, it seems unlikely that the construction of the \u201cpeople\u201d Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez claim to represent will necessarily draw them towards that end, were they to achieve the kind of power right populists have in Europe, Brazil, and the Philippines.<\/p>\n

Yet, until they do display such authoritarian tendencies, it seems neither will be acknowledged as left populists by the panelists who critiqued left populism. Hence M\u00fcller\u2019s response to the question of \u201cwhat to do with the hard cases\u2026 is Bernie Sanders a populist?\u201d with the response: \u201cObviously not.\u201d The same can be said for Cohen\u2019s construction of left populism, where she distinguishes the \u201cpeople talk\u201d of someone like Sanders from her definition of left populist regimes: as she stated, \u201cevery political party claims to represent the people, that doesn\u2019t make it populist.\u201d In doing so, the panelists directly contradict how Mouffe herself sees Sanders as fulfilling the left populist framework that she outlines. Thus, as Harcourt points out, the definitions of left populism wielded here seem to clash with Mouffe\u2019s more minimalistic description;[4]<\/a> resulting in parts of the panel ascribing characteristics to Mouffe\u2019s left populism that she has disavowed.[5]<\/a> This enables the descriptive claims advanced of left populism\u2019s path dependency to remain intact, but only because those examples that might contradict such claims are excised from the sample.<\/p>\n

Regardless, I would argue that rather than focusing upon whether a particular left movement calls itself populist or not (or, more likely, is called populist or not by its adversaries), we should instead focus our attention upon how that movement\u2019s actions compares to its professed ideology. If Sanders does, somehow, manage to become elected in 2020, and in doing so constructs a political demos that excludes \u201cthe parts of the population unallied with the populist party-movement who may be stigmatized as outsiders or as undeservedly privileged population segments,\u201d[6]<\/a> then such moves as they occur should be called out as M\u00fcller warns in The Rise and Rise of Populism.[7]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>But unless and until such behavior unfolds\u2014and it seems unlikely in my mind that it will, given the express value commitments that left populism entails\u2014why should the Left worry itself over calls to construct a \u201cpolitical frontier between \u2018the people\u2019 and \u2018the oligarchy\u2019\u201d?[8]<\/a> As Jedediah Purdy pointed out at the seminar: \u201cWhile we are worrying about the pathologies of reducing democratic sovereignty to the will of the present majority, which indeed we should do, we might also try it for the first time.\u201d It seems to me that the worries that the panel dug into derive not from Mouffe\u2019s specific construction of left populism, but from the inherent majoritarian dangers that accompany democracy in all its forms. Left populism, as constructed by Mouffe, not as arguably instantiated by Maduro, seems to me less worrisome in its impacts on liberal democracy than the neoliberal hegemonic order in which we currently live, which has already done so much to hollow out our institutions. Rather than shrink from a threat that has yet to materialize, why not\u2014in the context of the United States, at least\u2014focus more on confronting the actually existing adversaries that have already compromised our democracy?<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> See<\/em> Chantal Mouffe, For a Left Populism 36 (\u201cWithout defining an adversary, no hegemonic offensive can be launched.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> See<\/em> Bernie Sanders, (@BernieSanders), Twitter (May 13, 2019), https:\/\/twitter.com\/BernieSanders\/status\/1127956304855744512 (\u201cThe economy is doing well\u2014for billionaires and Trump\u2019s Mar-a-Lago friends. Meanwhile:<\/p>\n

-78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck<\/p>\n

-34 million have no health insurance<\/p>\n

-3 families own more wealth than the bottom half<\/p>\n

We need an economy that works for all, not just the 1%.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See<\/em> id.<\/em> at 81 (referencing \u201cthe politics of Bernie Sanders, whose strategy is clearly a left populist one\u201d).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See<\/em> Harcourt, Disambiguating Populism<\/em> (distinguishing \u201cpopulism (minimalist description)\u201d from \u201cpopulism (authoritarianism)\u201d).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Compare<\/em> Mouffe at 62\u201363 (\u201c[T]he leader can be conceived of as a primus inter pares<\/em> and its is perfectly possible to establish a different type of relation, less vertical between the leader and the people.\u201d) with<\/em> Cohen, What\u2019s Wrong With the Normative Theory (and the Actual Practice) of Left Populism?<\/em> (arguing that \u201c[t]he strongly personalistic and vertical character of leader\u2019s agency is the crucial and indispensible element in populist party-movements in and out of power\u201d).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Cohen, What\u2019s Wrong With the Normative Theory (and the Actual Practice) of Left Populism?<\/em><\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> See<\/em> M\u00fcller, The Rise and Rise of Populism, at 17 (\u201c.\u201d However, when populists reveal themselves as specifically populist \u2013 which is to say: when they try to deny the legitimacy of their opponents or the membership of certain citizens, or when they fundamentally question the rules of the democratic game\u2014it is crucial that other politicians draw the line.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Mouffe at 5.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By John Finnegan I left Praxis 9\/13, \u201cLeft Populism,\u201d wondering where the Left in America should go. The panelists had largely spoken in a \u201cchorus,\u201d as Seyla Benhabib put it, against the dangers of \u201cleft populism,\u201d (although there was much… Continue Reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2166,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38981],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-resources-9-13"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2166"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}