Is US election a triumph of populism over elitism?
- By Wang Chuanxing
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, September 26, 2016
|
|
| Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the United States, Feb. 1, 2016. (Xinhua/Yin Bogu) |
Although the U.S. presidential election is destined to become the world's hot political issue in the rest of 2016, the emphasis on populism still goes beyond many observers' expectations.
Usually for political elite, their dissatisfaction with the status quo can easily encourage them to turn to the "people" for help, and this often happens when a close competition reaches a climax.
Populist movements in American history
From a historical perspective, populism in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is definitely not an individual or special case in the history of American politics, but it has been there since shortly after the founding of the country.
A representative figure was Andrew Jackson, who believed that the president's authority was derived from the people. He was considered very approachable to the poor and his populism helped him win the 1829 election.
A representative event was the "Grange Movement". The National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry was founded in 1867 to advance new agricultural methods and promote the social and economic needs of American farmers.
As a social trend of thought, populism saw three development peaks in the United States in the 20th century represented by the populist movements led by Huey Long in the 1930s, George Wallace in the 1960s and Ross Perot in the 1990s.
Although populism has no systematic theoretical base in the United States, it can still be detected in the enlightenment spirit of a number of leaders, such as Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and James B. Weaver, a two-time failed candidate.
Ultimately, populist movements in American history were launched by white people for their own interests, ignoring and even brutally trampling on minority groups' interests.
Who are the "people" claimed by the candidates?
There were three representative candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries, namely the Democratic Party's Bernard Saunders and Hilary Clinton, and the Republican Party's Donald Trump, all seeking help from the "people" because of their professed "dissatisfaction" with the situation at the time.
For the leftist Bernard Saunders, the "people" he meant were mainly those blue-collar workers feeling "lost" in society.
For Hillary Clinton, it is those middle- and low-skilled workers who feel their country is going "backwards" compared with the outside world.
For Donald Trump, the "people" he talks of include both the blue-collar workers and middle- and low-skilled workers mentioned above.
Therefore, an obvious characteristic of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is the convergence of ethnic politics and populism, which is nothing new and can be described as "singing the same old song."
If more than 12 million illegal immigrants have the right to vote some day, will any political figures dare to break the bottom line of "political correctness?" So, compared to the short-term populist politics' impact on the United States, the real long-term impact is coming from ethnic politics.
Populism in the 2016 U.S. presidential election will eventually disappear in the powerful current of history and not get out of control. There are four reasons.
First, the root cause of populist politics in the United States can be traced back to its original constitutional design. One of the most fundamental concerns in the design of American constitutional government has always been distrust of government. This provides a theoretical basis of constitutional government and rich soil for populism.
Second, a so-called ideological compromise exists in modern American politics, that is, it will not to go to extremes. Therefore, even if there is an extreme voice, it will be absorbed and neutralized within the mainstream political parties.
Third, all the previous populist movements in the United States were essentially not revolutionary movements against the American capitalist system. They were, at most, reform movements responding to social injustice.
Fourth, there is one common aspect of populism. Although theoretically it represents the grass-roots, it is a concept played by the elite.
Lin Hong, a researcher into populism, has suggested elitism is an inner driving force of populism. The temporary fusion of elites and middle and low classes in a certain situation is a strategic choice of the former. Elites are the designers and play the leading role in populist political mobilization, because talk of the "people" can provide legitimacy for it.
Wang Chuanxing is a professor of Shanghai-based Tongji University School of Political Science and International Relations.
This article was translated by Li Jingrong based on the original unabridged version published in Chinese.
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)