Matt Welch: What's Wrong With Populism?

Matt Welch discusses the Iowa caucus results, the 2024 election, and the resurgence of "libertarian populism" on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Matt Welch: What's Wrong With Populism?

Matt Welch, editor-at-large for Reason and podcaster on The Reason Roundtable and The Fifth Column with Kmele Foster and Michael Moynihan, joins Reason's Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions to discuss the recent Iowa caucus results and talk about what it means for the 2024 election going forward.

They also talk about where libertarians and independents are leaning in the presidential race and some of the increasingly glaring divides within libertarianism that have led different factions to pursue very different strategies and hold widely divergent views of political candidates like former President Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or on the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.

Sources referenced in this conversation:

Iowa caucus results: The GOP presidential field narrows as Ramaswamy and Hutchinson drop out | NPR

Matt Welch at Reason: Vivek Ramaswamy Really Wants You to Know He Thinks January 6 Was an 'Inside Job'

Rand Paul announces he's "Never Nikki" on X.com

Libertarian Party of Iowa poll results

Dave Smith on libertarian populism on Just Asking Questions

Comments

[MWAocdoc]

Well, the main problem with "populism" is that it doesn't really MEAN anything! Politicians - in the sense of lawyers who are tired of trying to eke out a living writing wills and brokering divorces - can usually rely on kowtowing to the whims of the local voters being successful at getting them into cushy official positions and making their career switches for them. Populism is not a set of policies but, rather, a set of promises by sincere-sounding charlatans.

[MasterThief]

I know Reason wants to give populism a negative connotation, but to me it only describes the population advocating for their own priorities. That is how a democracy is supposed to work and a republic would operate the same save for certain limitations. It can be good or bad for numerous reasons based upon what the popular sentiment is.
I won't bother listening to this, but curious whether Welch suddenly flips and says positive things about populism or just continues his tirade against "right wing populism"

[Square = Circle]

to me it only describes the population advocating for their own priorities

That's what it means to most people, but MWAocdoc's point, I think, is that "populist" politicians are not that. Almost invariably they are elitists who put on an effected mantle of "populism" in order to get power.

[sarcasmic]

I'm not a fan of populism because the politicians who appeal to populist voters tend to put economic fallacies into law. Things like trade wars and industrial policy at the higher level, and things like rent and wage controls at the local level. In other words they make problems worse.

[Ersatz]

Thats a fair point.
There is that it can also undo some of the worst excesses of an entrenched elite.

to everything there is a season...

[Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)]

I’m not a fan of populism because the politicians who appeal to populist voters tend to put economic fallacies into law.

You oughta see what happens when the experts are in charge!

[Mother's Lament]

Top men know what's best for you, just ask Jeff. Goodness knows appealing to the people you're ruling is racist or something.

[JesseAz]

But they control you in good faith. Individuals don't act in good faith.

[MWAocdoc]

I agree that BOTH are bad. The only good option is to put NO ONE in charge!

[JesseAz]

It is amazing how dumb you actually are. Globalism is nothing but managed and negotiated trade wars. Every one of those trade bills you support is a set of tariffs, restrictions, and regulations. And they even go further on choosing what you can even buy.

[sarcasmic]

Trade bills, while not ideal, are still better than the trade wars and corporate subsidies you defend.

[sarcasmic]

Except you don't. You defend them when Trump does it. But when Biden continues and expands on those policies you can't bring yourself to give him credit. That tells me that you're dishonest, unprincipled, and full of hate. If anyone who criticizes Trump and who also gives him credit where credit is due is deranged, then you're waaaaaay beyond that with regards to Biden.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

Welch is in no way a libertarian anymore. If he ever really was one.

[MWAocdoc]

Once again: America is not now and has never been a democracy. It is a constitutionally-limited republic. The people have always been able to advocate for their preferences, but when politicians promise to grant those wishes using government power, taking from some to give to others, it starts us all down the slippery slope to tyranny and chaos as shifting factions struggle for control of the government in order to try to impose their preferences on everyone else.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)]

Well, the main problem with “populism” is that it doesn’t really MEAN anything!

I disagree with that.

What I also disagree with is that populism is automatically ‘bad’. It’s not. Depending on the context and the circumstances, it can be good or bad. There’s a 3000 word comment here which I’m not going to make, but in the current context in how it’s playing out in the West, I consider it to largely be a force for good, at at least a force leaning us towards improvement. As James Lindsey said, “there’s been a little too much “expertitis” going on” in the West. And when that “expertitis” has been leading us to increasingly disastrous consequences, and “the people” who hail from outside the expert class have had enough– especially when they’re the ones who have to live with the consequences of expert opinion, there’s going to be a backlash. Again, it is my opinion that the backlash as it’s currently playing out, appears to be generally a force for good. It’s time to put these hacks on notice.

[Mother's Lament]

Well said.

[MWAocdoc]

As a trend against “expertitis” it may be a good thing. But you have to narrow your focus way down to get there. Just because the experts are wrong – or worse they’re right but too powerful – doesn’t mean that The People are right. Free Silver was an historical example of a populist reaction that was wrong in opposition to the almost-as-bad gold standard. The central monetary authority had too much power; the people who were hurt by that authority fought back with an even worse monetary policy; and opportunistic demagogues made political hay out of it.

[JesseAz]

Populism these days means disagreeing with your unelected betters.

[TJJ2000]

Don't own it... It's just another leftard self-projection tactic.

Throughout all of USA history "populists" were the leftards just like "socialists" are the leftards. Since they've been busted praising [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] while calling Republicans Nazi's now they've had to change words.

What the USA needs is USA patriots willing to honor the US Constitution not Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] trying to call everyone else names that they themselves fit the definition of.

[JFree]

Libertarian Party of Iowa poll results

This is exactly why LP should not be nominating their Prez candidate in election year. No one gives a shit which nonames win an LP caucus. Not in Iowa - not in the US - and prob not in the LP. The timely opportunity now is to sell libertarian ideas/agenda to DeRps who may be disgruntled at this point but are paying attention. Not to sell a horse race.

[creech]

Getting the nomination early (let's say Sept. 2023) would give the LP candidate that much more precious time to fund raise, build a campaign team, and give those speeches to sell LP ideas.

[JesseAz]

Ideas like being actively anti racist and promoting CRT? Or ideas like bake that cake? Or ideas like forced speech in pronoun use isnt that bad?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)]

Apropos of my comment above, I think it might be fair to ask when populism is necessary vs unnecessary and I think it comes down to rather simple principle: If you live in a government where your representative leaders begin to get increasingly out of touch with their constituents, then populism is going to be expected result.

And that, in a nutshell is what we've been seeing over the last 50 or so years. It doesn't happen over night. It happens by a long series of nicks and cuts... long marches on institutions etc., and then one day, suddenly you realize that the people in charge are so completely divorced from the daily concerns of the non-political class, that populism is the only realistic response.

What we have now in the first world, is a situation in which our leaders are now comically divorced from reality in a way that would be hilarious if it weren't so shocking and having real-world consequences. You can't simply throw tens of millions of people out of work and keep screaming "trust the science" in their forcibly-masked faces. That kind of thing can't go on forever.

The other side of it is not only have our leaders become divorced, they've also become incredibly entrenched-- and one probably has something to do with the other. It's reasonable to conclude that the more entrenched your power, the more likely you are to become divorced from people... from whom you ostensibly derive that power.

What are the five essential rules of a functioning democracy?

o What power have you got?
o Where did you get it from?
o In whose interests do you use it?
o To whom are you accountable?
o How do we get rid of you?

If any one of those questions either can't or is even difficult to answer, that means your leaders are entrenched. And it seems clear that the West is now saddled with too many powerful people who have powers that are vague, shifting and lacking restraint, we don't know where they got it from, they don't seem to be wielding it any voters' interest, they're wholly unaccountable and there's no clear way to get rid of them.

[5.56]

Hey Matt, how does it feel to get out-qualitied in your own comments section?

[Brandybuck]

Libertarian Populists: Still unclear on libertarianism.