The Difference Between Populism and Conservatism

Yuval Levin offers a useful way to understand the difference.

In a recent interview with Ezra Klein of the New York Times, Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute offered a useful way to understand the difference between conservatism and populism.

One way to think about the difference is about whether your politics begins from what you care about most — what you love — or whether it begins from what you fear and what you hate. To me, as a young person, conservatism was appealing, and has remained appealing, because it's fundamentally rooted and begins from what we love in the world. It is a defense of what I take to be best about the world.

What is best about the world is always threatened. It's always challenged. It's challenged just by the realities of human nature. Sustaining it requires work. It requires moral formation and political action. And that's the work that conservatives at their best do — we conserve the preconditions for a flourishing life in a free society.

But if the reason you have for entering politics, first and foremost, is to combat the left, to oppose what you don't like, then your politics are going to be different than that.

Now, look, to defend what you love means fighting people who oppose it. And politics is argument, and it's always contestation.

But I think it matters a lot whether fundamentally the reason that drew you in is itself the fight or whether the reason that drew you in is a commitment to something you love, is fundamentally conservative, is about wanting to preserve the good.

Unfortunately, as Levin notes, populism seems more dominant on the political Right than conservatism at the moment.

The larger issue, exploring the extent to which Donald Trump has accomplished anything lasting during his second term, is worth a listen or a read. As is usual, Levin is filled with valuable insights.

Comments

[Martinned]

I don't know about that. I would think that conservatism, well understood, is Chesterton's fence. It's a tendency to keep things the same unless there's a very good reason to change them.

Populism is an inherent indifference to facts and evidence, and a desire to set things on fire out of, as the OP says, a sense of fear, hatred, and resentment. Things like Brexit are profoundly un-conservative.

[dwb68]

"Populism" is simply whatever happens to be popular at the time.

Strange thing about conservatives: they believe in free markets and "the miracle of aggregation," the cornerstone of free markets and large-scale democracy, until it produces a result they don't like. Then they cry "populism!"

Instead of decrying populism, maybe they should ask why people are so pissed off.

Usually the people in power and those at cozy universities are the very last to know something is very very wrong.

[Martinned]

"Populism" is simply whatever happens to be popular at the time.

No it's not. At least, I don't think it would be useful to define that word that way.

It's an "ism", an approach to government and politics. There are competing definitions out there, including definitions that focus on a "people vs elite" dynamic. (Which is exactly what you're doing.) I gave you what I think is the most useful definition.

[dwb68]

Most useful...only to your desired conclusion.

Merriam Webster definition 1:
"a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people, especially against the Establishment"

The beliefs popular among "ordinary people" is pretty much populism...that's how democracy works.

Sometimes those in power are perceived to be leading people in the correct direction. Other times not. And when "ordinary people" get fed up, sure, they vote out of a desire to send a middle finger to the establishment.

But surely that's not good for those little people down there, cant they see it? ... says every establishment politician about to be tossed onto the guillotine.

[Sarcastr0]

"is claimed to represent" is key here.

Populism doesn't need to actually be popular.

[Martinned]

What you're quoting there is the "people vs. elite" definition that I mentioned. Congratulations.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"Usually the people in power and those at cozy universities are the very last to know something is very very wrong"
Everyone is 'conservative' about their livelihoods.

[EllaWilson]

Liberals are trying to kill journalists in Minneapolis.
Liberals are attacking families in churches in Minneapolis.
Liberals, your politics are going to be different than America's.

[ReaderY]

If one doesn’t need evidence, one can say anything one wants.

But as Abraham Lincoln, that RINO, once said, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.

[Longtobefree]

But if you can sell the idea that a tail can identify as a leg to a court, you are on your way.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

What makes populism right-wing? Are there any politicians who DON'T cater to the crowds?

[Martinned]

Populism isn't (inherently) right-wing. Left-wing populism is perfectly possible, and exists in many countries. Moreover, right-wing populism may well involve elements that would otherwise be considered left-wing, like taxing the rich or increasing the minimum wage.

[dwb68]

Populism dominates because "a commitment to something you love" has no agency. Nice people finish last, and in politics, not at all. If you are simply defending territory, that territory shrinks over time. An inch here, an inch there, pretty soon you are sliding down that slope at warp speed.

[ReaderY]

I think before you can say that, you also have to take into account who survives to pick up the pieces after the alphas end up destroying each other. As a matter of evolutionary biology, peak predators tend to go extinct rather quickly as the lifespans of species go, while species which stay small, don’t dominate, and cooperate heavily tend to be the long-term survivors.

If you are concerned about how well you as an individual will do vis-a-vis those immediately around you, by all means domination may be your best strategy. But once you start becoming concerned about whether your descendants will survive, then things become totally different.

[dwb68]

"peak predators tend to go extinct rather quickly"
uhh, no. lol. Sharks and alligators have been around for hundreds of millions of years. Predators stick around if and only if they adapt to changing food sources (and a changing environment). Twas a meteor that killed T-rex, not its status as a peak predator.

[Bob from Ohio]

Humans are the ultimate peak predator. Haven't gone extinct yet.

[David Nieporent]

An inch here, an inch there, pretty soon you are sliding down that slope at warp speed.

No; you're inching down the slope. Which is fine. Conservatism isn't about freezing things the way they were in the 12th century.

[ReaderY]

I’d point out that the same is true on the left. There are people who act out of love, who are for something, and people who act out of hate, who act because they are against something, and ho define themselves by what they aren’t and what they are against.

Ultimately, people on the left and the right who are motivated by what they love and what they are for may have more in common with each other than either has with people ostensibly on their own side of the spectrum who are motivated by what they hate and what they are against.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Bingo. You got it. Unfortunately, the modern culture war in the USA has devolved into hate versus hate. Not principle versus principle. Not best this way or that way. Just my tribe versus your tribe. There is not a dime's worth of difference between left and right on that scale.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's inherent in the centralization and increase in governmental power.

In the private sector, you can get one thing, I can get another, and so even though we want different things we can cooperate.

In the governmental sector the tendency is towards one size fits all. Winner takes all. Mandated complicity.

The more we move things from the private sector to the governmental sector, the more social conflict increases, because the more it matters who wins.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

"One size fits nobody" is more accurate. One size seldom fits even a few, and never fits all.

That's why moving things to government control fails and riles up so many people -- they don't fit anybody. If they did fit all or even most, they wouldn't be contentious, and society would already be doing them. The point of government doing things is the coercion to force unwanted round pegs into square holes.

Obamacare is a good example. Even its architects and backers admitted it was never expected to work, only to be a stepping stone to some future magical elixir. A placeholder until they could figure out the next stepping stone.

[Drewski]

You're stupid and that's ridiculous. This sort of behavior is normally associated with third-world countries with barely-functional governments.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm just imagining that I got forced to have a low flow showerhead in Michigan, surrounded by half the fresh water in the world, in order to conserve water in Arizona?

[Sarcastr0]

Of all the things you could have picked, water supply has a pretty strong national component to it.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

that national component is asserted, though, through an interstate nexus. Because Colorado and Nevada argue over shares of a river, the Feds can regulate gallons-per-flush of toilets.
Camel's nose.

[dwb68]

I can no longer install gas or propane in my house due to the cost of the flue liner and other new regulations for gas/propane heaters. I have oil now. Congratulations, .gov, I will be burning oil for another 50 years.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That sort of comment is normally associated with people who have nothing constructive to say.

So there.

[Sarcastr0]

Small government populism is MAGA right now.

It's not what it claims, but that's what it says.

So it's not inherent in large government at all.

'Oh if government were smaller we wouldn't be seeing as much dirty tricks and abuse' is making quite an assumption about power.
Government isn't the same as the private sector, but in terms of the temptations and abuses of power, you're wrong.

In large companies, you get one size fits all. You get winner takes all. You get all the same nonsense.
And the idea that the market corrects that nonsense is ignoring the corporate lay of the land today. Plenty of disfunction leading to dissatisfaction with Twitter, Electronic Arts, Disney. And yet, their power persists.
In capitalism, economic power can protect itself about as well as political power.

And that's fine, so long as you're not pretending the market is somehow more pure than government.

[Ska]

Is he not talking about it from the customer's/service user's perspective?

I don't care about the corporate leadership of Twitter, EA, or Disney, I care about whether they offer products and services I want and make my choices accordingly. Their employees can worry about their corporate structure. Government, eh, not so much flexibility there when I'm the end user.

[Sarcastr0]

That depends on the service or good you're using.

Post office? Highways? Energy Star ratings? Public schools, even? Not required if you don't wanna.

Government is not the same as business, of course, and they do have a monopoly on violence which is a clincher if you think of power as one-dimensional. But you shouldn't.
Thanks to elections and money they're not immune from corporate power. See: Musk's money in Europe and all the chaos it has caused.

There are abuses unique to government, and those unique to business. But I'm not going to delve into those weeds.
My point is that big corporations are also loci of power, and all the abuses and fails that power brings show up for them as well.

It's a common thing with a certain flavor of libertarian to mix up bigness with government.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

to government, you may consider yourself an end-user. They, however, consider you as client, or product, or resource. Not end-user.

[Riva]

Thinly veiled ad hominem attacks on anyone supporting President Trump. How original. And compelling.

Correction. Pompous and unoriginal but not that veiled at all really.

[David Nieporent]

Richard Weaver: "Ideas have consequences."
Riva: "Ideas are for poopyheads."

[Riva]

More cogent and convincing analysis from crazy Dave above. Crazy on Dave.

[SRG2]

I think that populism is the strong playing on emotions to bypass rational thought for votes, and hence is not assignable to any political theory; it's neither left nor right. Now it may be that people inclined to conservatism are more susceptible to this playing on emotions than people inclined to progressivism, but that tells one nothing about conservatism itself even if it's true.

It's easy enough to formulate a communist populism - "look at all those capitalists/Jews getting rich off your labour!" being an obvious line, which in itself demonstrates that populism isn't confined to one side of the spectrum,

And it may be that to people who strongly think in terms of "us" v "them" and believe that the world is zero sum, and are more inclined to be fearful of or to hate "the other". the populist approach is opportunistic, that is, the populism will be left-wing or right-wing purely dependent on where a populist leader thinks the votes will come from.

[M L]

What you are describing is more demagoguery than populism.

[Longtobefree]

Left, right, populist, liberal, conservative, anarchist, neo-anything; all have become meaningless in this Humpty-Dumpty time of inventing words and changing the meaning of existing words.

Either a group prefers individual freedom, or it prefers government control.

[SRG2]

https://imgflip.com/i/ahs1mc

[Rossami]

That's maybe an okay explaination of conservatism. That's a god-awful definition of populism. Populism is not based on fear - at least, not necessarily so. Populism is based on aggregating power by pandering to the baser instincts of the masses.

And as several have already commented above, populism is very much not a right-wing-only problem. History has just as many left-wing populists - and they're just as evil as their right-wing counterparts.

[David Nieporent]

baser instincts of the masses.

i.e., "fear."

[M L]

I disagree.

There is certainly a distinction between being motivated by and rooted in love, versus being rooted in fear/hate. But that's not useful as an objective description of conservatism versus populism.

Populism can be right wing, left wing, conservative, socialist, etc. It is less ideological, more flexible/pragmatic and personal. It is of course marked by framing of division between the people versus elites and establishment institutions. It posits a gap or disconnect between the interests of the people and the actions of prevailing forces. It can be more susceptible to demagoguery. It can also be a legitimate viewpoint.

Intellectual people tend to be more ideological. They want to systematize things. They like a logical system that can be universally applied and gives a clear coherent answer. But the mess of human society isn't so easily systematized. Rigid ideologues may have a tendency to disregard the personal, the interpersonal, the historical, the facts on the ground, and the messy cultural differences between groups and individuals.

In the abstract, I think "conservatism" and "populism" have equal capacities to be rooted in love for something, or to be rooted in fear of something. The something could be your pet ideological system of thought, or it could be your community of people. Or various other things. You can also "love" a bad thing or a self-interested thing, such as money, or individual positions of power, comfort, prestige, stability, etc.

The great majority of people do not have rigid ideological views. Intellectuals may look down on them for not understanding the beloved political theories, and for being more subject to emotional appeals (at least on the surface). But it doesn't follow that they are more motivated by love vs fear and hate. All of those things involve emotions, after all. Perhaps a lack of any emotion, if that existed, should be viewed as the more suspect thing.

The OP may be useful only as a political smear against those you dislike/disagree with. I think it is something between that and a misunderstanding.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"The great majority of people do not have rigid ideological views"
A parallel with the criticism of Homo economicus: the great majority of people don't rationally maximize utility either.