Populism And Elitism

The recent elections re-introduced into our political vocabulary two words that captured my attention. The same two words are being used in Europe as many countries approach national elections in 2017: Populism and Elitism.

I thought that would devote this blog to both hoping to shed some light on the subject and perhaps more clarity in our political jargon.

Defining Populism

It has many definitions. It has been used loosely as a label for movements that are hard to classify as right, left, or center.

Scholars define populism as an ideology that “pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and other dangerous “others” who are depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice”.

In the U.S. populism has generally been associated with progressives, such as Bernie Sanders and his followers, whereas in European countries, populism has been associated with conservatives. 

Some reject this typology and declare that populism is transversal (supporters come from different political parties). I, for one, buy into this understanding.

Why? Using the results of the last election as an example, people from the entire political spectrum supported Trump, the populist, e.g., liberal democrats such as blue collar union workers, conservative evangelicals, and middle of the roader independents.

Populism is largely a democratic and positive force for change.

A Little History

Populism has historical roots as government by the masses. It was used by Romans to fight plutocracy, aristocracy, or any government perceived to be dominated by a small and privileged class.

During the Reformation, Protestant groups rebelled against the idea that only the clergy could read the bible. Puritans and Levellers in England had similar ideas with respect to conflict between peasants and landowners. The French Revolution, although led by wealthy intellectuals, was a populist movement against the excesses and privileges of the ruling class.  The American Revolution to a great extent was a rebellion against despotic rule by a faraway King.

His socialist and populist message aided Mussolini’s rise in Italy. In recent years, tycoon Silvio Berlusconi won the elections in Italy through media control. Currently, the Lega Nord and the Five Star movements advocate a federal system and direct democracy respectively.

The Brexit referendum in the UK was an act of populism. People who supported leaving the EU came from the entire political spectrum. Politicians who opposed the referendum are now trying to implement it. Northern Ireland, Scotland and London City are not in favor of the exit and are trying to stay connected to Europe in some form or another.

Populism has been an important phenomenon in Latin America as well. Charismatic leaders such as Peron in Argentina, Goulart in Brazil, Castro in Cuba, and Chavez in Venezuela have started grass root movements initially designed to improve the standard of living of the lower classes, and to fight imperialism. The driving force has been primarily economic with an ideological edge.

Defining Elitism

It is the belief or attitude that individuals with a certain ancestry, wealth, university degree, or other distinctive attributes have more influence or authority than others. Their views have more weight. Elites are perceived to feel that they are more fit to govern.

Another way to look at the elites is by examining how power is concentrated among a small group of people. Elites tend to view egalitarianism, populism, and pluralism as utopian, and therefore, unrealistic.

With elitism come privileges as well as responsibilities. With elitism come social class and social stratification. Members of the upper class are often seen as elites. Members of a group claiming to have high abilities or simply as an in-group grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism is called discrimination. Academia is well known as a group of elites enjoying special privileges and benefits.

My Viewpoint about Elitism

Elitism can blind people. Trump’s election is an example. The professional elites looked down and used deprecating terms when describing less educated folks, discounting their ability to make sound voting judgments. By painting Trump as a bumpkin, elites managed to offend voters who, like Trump, lacked affiliation with the in-group of the sophisticated, PC correct, who did not ascribe to the progressives agenda.

As an immigrant who worked his way up from the ranks, I watched and listened to my fellow blue-collar, dirty fingernail brethren, as I was getting acquainted with America. I recall vividly the pejorative terms blue-collar workers had for college graduates and other “professionals”. While serving in the US military as a lowly private, I remember that non-commissioned officers held newly commissioned second lieutenants in low esteem for their lack of experience.

Elites’ blind spot prevents them from seeing blue-collar workers' visceral dislike for professionals in general and their admiration of rich people because they too would like to be one.  Many, if not all, elites see the rich through color-shaded eyes. They resent their wealth as being ill gotten or just inherited. Because of their academic achievement, elites feel that they are better prepared and perhaps more entitled to govern.

Although I can legitimately include myself in several elite groupings, I dislike the term. Why? I have never liked people who see themselves as being superior to others. I am also biased against anyone whom I perceive to be arrogant. I was taught that humility is a virtue, not a sin. If we dig deep enough, most, if not all, will find that our origins are quite humble.

My Viewpoint about Populism

Populism is a reactionary change method. It is usually fueled by anger toward the ruling class and fury against the status quo. It is triggered by what people perceive as double talk, corruption, and manipulation by the ruling class.

In a two-party system, we are engaged in what is called the wide-pendulum swing. Every eight years, by and large, the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, only to suffer the same fate eight years later. When completing the two alternative cycles, voters are confronted with a zero-sum result.

Voters booted the Republicans in 2008 and elected a Democrat president for two terms with control of both houses for two years in order to right what they said was a dismal state of affairs created by the Bush administration.

Flash-forward to 2016 and what do we have?

Record people on welfare, lowest worker participation in history, stagnant wages, diminished manufacturing base, double national debt, our men and women fighting in the Middle East, a half baked healthcare system, social injustice, and rising inequality. 

Democrats blame the Republicans for stymying President Obama's initiatives from the start. Republicans point out that the President controlled both houses of Congress during his initial two years. 

Many voters had to choose in the 2016 elections between more of the same or blow the whole system up. They chose the latter.

A populist showed up to lead the parade of the disaffected. It has been said that often leadership is finding a parade and getting in front. That is how Trump might have captured the nomination! He tapped into the rising discontent of the working class, independents, and loyal republicans.

Voting: Games Politicians Play To Gain An Advantage

The Aftermath   

There is an expression in poker that suggests that there are two kinds of people who play the game. One laughs and has a great time after winning a hand and raking in the winnings, while the other asks the dealer for a new hand. The same happens, it seems, after an election.

The winner celebrates and gives speeches congratulating everyone and basking in the glory. The loser, after conceding, quietly disappears into the shadows only to ask for a recount the next day. This season is no different.

Jill Stein, who received about 1% of the vote nationally, asked for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. She tells us that there is no evidence of wrongdoing, but that the count is necessary to ensure the integrity of our voting system. Others suggest that a recount makes sense because the victory margins were so small.

When the recount fails to deliver, there is one more card to play: who got the most votes nationally. People consciously ignore the fact that the U.S. is a federal republic with 50 states, and the Founding Fathers instituted the Electoral College to prevent large (population or physical size) states from bullying smaller states. They will tell you that the system is undemocratic.  They advocate changing the ground rules blaming them for the loss. 

Truth is that under different rules Trump’s strategy would have been different and possibly yield the same end result.

Reality

The American voting process is notoriously antiquated and the most troubled among the developed countries. Every election allegations of abuses, real and imagined tantalize voters. Unlike other countries the U.S. does not have a national photo I.D. card. Some suggest that the Social Security card is a form of identification, but it lacks a photo and robust verify mechanism.

Voter legislation varies from state to state. The voting data collection methods range from paper to electronic.  States with a checkered civil rights history and states with notorious voter fraud history are suspect of vote manipulation and other shenanigans in order to stuff the ballot box. Conspiracy theorists construct a variety of circumstantial stories to support their theory.

It is a fact that voter rolls are not purged of dead people. It is a fact that some people are enrolled to vote in more than one state. It is true that absentee ballots can be easily manipulated. What we do not know is the actual percentage of illegitimate votes.

A Little History

The U.S. has a checkered past when it comes to voting. Jim Crow tactics were used after the Emancipation Declaration to keep African-Americans from voting in the South. Poll tax, literacy tests, and other subterfuges have been used to disenfranchise minorities and poor folks. In the Northern states more subtle ways have been used to keep some voters from casting their vote, such as locating polling places far away from were people live, scheduling voting hours while people are still at work, physical intimidation, long wait lines, unsheltered waiting areas during inclement weather, and so forth.

In later years, another method has been used to dilute minority voting through gerrymandering districts or by bundling large minority voters so that some minority candidates could more easily win the election. The latter has been widely used in large urban areas where minorities are more concentrated.

It is no secret that both political parties will try to enact laws that give them a political advantage. The courts often are called to rule against attempts to play games with the right to vote.

Let me advance my own observations, fully realizing that my knowledge is limited and that my bias is toward a uniform national voting regime with better verification methods.

Voter Suppression

On the left, Democrats accuse Republicans of enacting laws and regulations intended to suppress voter participation, principally the vote of minorities and the poor. They argue that requiring voters to prove citizenship can be a costly process for those who do not have ready access to their birth or naturalization papers. Some do not have a valid driver license. Therefore, asking to submit any of these documents is discriminatory and an attempt at disenfranchisement.

On the right, Republicans will argue that federal regulations require that travelers produce a passport or valid driver’s license before they are allowed to board a flight. They describe their own inspired regulations to be driven by fraud prevention. 

Democrats agree that there are cases where people vote multiple times, and in multiple states. They also acknowledge that some non-citizens vote even though not eligible. But, in their view, the number is so small as to be inconsequential.

We have seen cases where during the recount of a close election a large block of votes appears out of nowhere to tip the scale in favor of the candidate of the majority party in that state. The election of JFK was supposedly the result of such manipulation by the Chicago Democrat machine. Others will point out that the same was attempted in Florida during the Bush versus Gore recount.

As we have seen in this and other elections, often the margin between the winner and loser can be miniscule. On a local basis in fact, the margin can be so thin that the winner has less than 10 more votes (Los Altos, CA 2016 City Council race).

Voter Unconstraint

Republicans have suspected for years a hidden and sinister agenda behind the Democrats’ push for open borders. Under the guise of family re-unification, providing safe heaven, and filling hard-to-find skills the Democrats are suspected of ulterior motives.

What better way to dilute Republican control of certain jurisdictions than opening the border and letting people in that historically will vote left? By engaging in identity politics, Democrats seem to favor letting in those most likely to support their agenda.

During the last presidential election, the Democrat Party positioned itself as the party of choice by the African-American, Latino, LGBT, and college educated voters. Unfortunately, not all Latinos voted Democrat, and many African-Americans did not show up to vote. To their chagrin, Democrats ignored their traditional constituency – the working class. Clinton offended this group of voters by using the pejorative term of a basket of deplorables.

Another coup for unconstraint voting was permitting illegal aliens to receive a driver’s license in eight states. In California alone, over 800,000 such licenses have been issued. These licenses meet federal regulations but have an apparently innocuous mark saying that the license does not comply with some federal requirements. It is estimated that more than 2 million such licenses have been issued throughout the United States.

If you have such a diver’s license, you can vote in most jurisdictions. No one will dare to challenge your right to vote.  So potentially 2 million bogus votes can be cast. Of course, not all will do so, but will enough take advantage of this loophole and cast a vote? Sure! Estimates range from 20-30%. In California alone this would account for 200,000-300,000 illegal votes. California has a Latino population that exceeds 40%, not counting millions of illegals (the so-called undocumented). Hillary Clinton received more than 2 million votes than Trump in California. The state is heavily Democrat and pretty much a one party state with the enactment of the open primary system.

California starting next year will automatically add diver licensees to the voter roll. This surely will enable legal and illegal aliens to cast their vote although ineligible to do so.

Where Next?

Loopholes, casual enforcement, outright fraud, and system’s glitches will continue to fuel the need for reform. Streamlined and verifiable procedures across state lines are essential. Surely, a country as developed as the U.S. can come up with a better system that ensures that all eligible voters can exercise their right to vote and knock off abuse and chicanery.