False Populism

Here's a random note from last night. Bush, talking about a free trade pact with Colombia, said "If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere." The purveyors of false populism are, I guess, Hugo Chavez and other murky conspirators. But why is it false populism? Chavez is a real populist. Maybe you think he's a populist peddling fake solutions to Latin America's problems, but he's certainly not a secret pro-business neoliberal.

Meanwhile, what about failing to ratify the Colombia trade deal will embolden false populism? This seems like a bizarre context in which to start applying fight them in Tikrit so we don't need to fight them in Tuscon logic.

Comments

Bush, talking about a free trade pact with Colombia, said "If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere." The purveyors of false populism are, I guess, Hugo Chavez and other murky conspirators.

Maybe he was taking a swipe at John Edwards.

Posted by JB | January 29, 2008 3:05 PM

Maybe he was referring to John Edwards and David Sirota.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 29, 2008 3:05 PM

Damn! Beat me to it.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 29, 2008 3:08 PM

Actually, isn't Bush himself a perfect example of "false populism"...

To the extent that someone so totally brainless can really be "false" I mean...

Posted by RKU | January 29, 2008 3:08 PM

Damn! Beat me to it.

I don't want to talk about "beating" another commenter--I want to talk about how all commenters can work together to build a better America.

Posted by JB | January 29, 2008 3:10 PM

Actually, isn't Bush himself a perfect example of "false populism"

Yep. Like so much else spewed by rightwingers, this is classic projection.

Posted by guyx | January 29, 2008 3:10 PM

You are either with us or the purveyors of false populism.
If we don't approve the pact then the purveyors of false populism win.
We have to approve the pact there or else the purveyors of false populism will follow us home.

Posted by VOR | January 29, 2008 3:13 PM

But why is it false populism?

Because Bush is a fuckwit and his speechwriters are snakes.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 29, 2008 3:18 PM

Maybe he's a false populist cuz he's really a socialist? Somehow that might make sense in Bush's brain. Populism as such isn't bad, but it's false if it's in the cause of socialism.

Posted by Jack | January 29, 2008 3:19 PM

Meanwhile, what about failing to ratify the Colombia trade deal will embolden false populism?

I think it's something along the lines of Chavez being able to say "See, even if you cozy up with Bush and the Americans, do everything they ask, spray all the fields they want, extradite everyone they ask for, they'll still find an excuse to criticize you and not do business with you." Seems farfetched, but I think that's the logic.

Rich Lowry made the John Edwards joke at the Corner last night...

Posted by right | January 29, 2008 3:20 PM

As Bushisms go, it's not too bad. If you leave out the "false" (obviously a misbegotten attempt to say that populism is a false hope, rather than that it's not real populism), he's saying that if we don't ratify an agreement that (supposedly) shows the benefits of free trade, we'll embolden those who don't embrace free trade. It makes sense, if you buy the overall framing.

Posted by Rich | January 29, 2008 3:22 PM

"If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere."

Excuse me, stewardess. I speak Bush.

It's the usual "something scary will happen unless you help your betters fuck you over" tactic. Monsters will eat your face if you don't give me your candy bar. Scary brown people will be emboldened if you don't help me spread the disaster of NAFTA, etc.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 3:25 PM

I don't think this is so complicated. Chavez's enterprise is "false populism" because (i) it doesn't really benefit the poor and (ii) "populism" is actually a reasonably popular word, so you have to put "false" in front of it to show that you're not endorsing whatever you are talking about. So if you are actually having trouble interpreting Bush, now it's clear.

If the claim is being made that politicians use words with attention to their rhetorical effect rather than in accordance with the true, essential and inherent meaning of the word, then that's kind of a stupid point. A stupid middle-brow point, really, i.e., it might impress the half-educated, who are always talking about what a word "really" means, but not someone who has actually thought about the nature of language and thought.

Posted by y81 | January 29, 2008 3:25 PM

It just kinda sounds like "false optimism", so
his speechwriters are trying to coin a new phrase
(like "card-carrying member of the ACLU") which
can be used repeatedly and relentlessly against
all kinds of left-wingers and liberals.

I don't think anybody's listening any more though.
And now that Karl Rove has left the building, the
guys choosing the message are third-rate intellects.
Not that Rove was ever the genius he's cracked up
to be, but he had a certain low cunning to go with
his ruthlessness, and knew which phrases would
resonate with which groups.

Posted by Richard Cownie | January 29, 2008 3:26 PM

Rich Lowry made the John Edwards joke at the Corner last night...

Crap. At least it wasn't Lopez.

Posted by JB | January 29, 2008 3:26 PM

"I don't think this is so complicated. Chavez's enterprise is "false populism" because (i) it doesn't really benefit the poor and (ii) "populism" is actually a reasonably popular word, so you have to put "false" in front of it to show that you're not endorsing whatever you are talking about."

Your explanation would seem to imply that President Bush cares about the poor and whether or not Chavez's policies help them.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 29, 2008 3:33 PM

I'll take a stab at defending Dubya: it's "false populism" because "populism" is supposed to suggest some set of policies that benefit the masses, rather than the select few. Free trade does benefit the masses, while it hurts people in a few specific industries. Therefore, opposition to free trade is "false populism."

I'm not saying I believe it -- I support free trade, and I could give a damn about "populism" -- but the case can be made.

Posted by too many steves | January 29, 2008 3:33 PM

It's "Tucson."

Posted by Brian | January 29, 2008 3:35 PM

I don't want to talk about "beating" another commenter--I want to talk about how all commenters can work together to build a better America.

I can't support you until you answer from the left.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 3:36 PM

"If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere."

Assuming that words actually have meanings (contra Jonah Goldberg) and this isn't meant ironically, some speech writer may be busting on the Huckster.

Mike Huckabee, you got served.

Posted by Aaron | January 29, 2008 3:37 PM

In the Bush worldview, one shared by many many people, all problems have exactly one variable: the force of my will (with "my" referring to me, or the nation, or the West Coast Sales Division of IniTech Corporation, depending on the situation). If I will a solution forcefully enough, the problem will get resolved. If I am insufficiently resolute, the problem will persist. It's a seductive worldview, since a.) it implicitly makes me omnipotent, which is a gratifying thing to be, and b.) it is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is interpreted as proof as the sufficiency or otherwise of my resoluteness, and therefore no outcome can possibly disprove the basic theory. That's why it's a worldview that pops up in all sorts of contexts: religions (with "righteousness" replacing "force of will"), various new age philosophies from The Celestine Prophecy to The Secret, locker rooms, neoconservative think tanks, and, of course, the Oval Office.

The point is that, in this philosophy, it doesn't make sense to say that any context is a "bizarre context" to apply it in, nor does it make sense to try and puzzle out the "logic" behind a given claim. It's magical thinking, not logical reasoning.

Posted by OhioBoy | January 29, 2008 3:39 PM

Matt, for a taste, read the article about Victor Vargas in today's WSJ.

Posted by Mo | January 29, 2008 3:50 PM

"Tuscon" is the yearly gathering of Fleetwood Mac fans who consider "Tusk" to be the band's best album. (I believe this year's Tuscon is going to be held in Phoenix.)

It seems an odd event to construct an aphorism around, but Matt is a very smart person and I'm sure there are subtle implications there that just went right by me.

Posted by James Gary | January 29, 2008 3:57 PM

It's really not that difficult.

It's "false populism" because Hugo Chavez is a tyrant dictator who abuses and subjugates the people he purports to "represent".

He's not pro-business, but he's not pro-people either. He's Pro Hugo.

Posted by jb | January 29, 2008 4:20 PM

Not that it's strange to see a typo, but it's TUCSON, not TUSCON.

Posted by ben | January 29, 2008 4:23 PM

Free trade does benefit the masses, while it hurts people in a few specific industries. - too many steves

It does?

How? Since when? E.g., give me an example of a country (other than Britain, which developed first and which forced every country it could to have a "free trade" policy to the benefit of Britain) which developed under a free trade regime?

We didn't (we developed behind tarriffs, which were opposed by rich Southrons who wanted to maintain the agrarian economy in which they were at the top of the heap).

Now free trade does provide (c.f. Ricardo) an overall benefit in terms of economic efficiency, but that theoretical result says nothing about how the gains obtained by trade are distributed or even whether the gains are realized in terms of providing extra capacity to be directed toward economic growth rather than having the ability to produce/import the same goods and services with fewer man hours and hence having essentially a smaller (but more efficient) economy.

Remember (c.f. Ricardo's analogy) a household whose budget decreases because its inhabitants use their comparative advantages is able to get more with having a smaller budget -- when the nation as a whole has a smaller budget, though, that's called a decrease in GNP, which is usually considered to be a bad thing.

Posted by DAS | January 29, 2008 4:25 PM

If I will a solution forcefully enough, the problem will get resolved. If I am insufficiently resolute, the problem will persist. - OhioBoy

Most 1-2 year olds think this way. Usually they exit the "Schopenhauer" phase at some point during their fourth year, don't they?

Posted by DAS | January 29, 2008 4:28 PM

any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies def. from dictionary.com

I think the operative word there is appeal to the common person, it doesn't have to necessarily help them in any way. Kind of like there's a populist Fair Tax movement. The common man thinks it's a good idea for them, but it's not. Now to get to false populism, I guess it would have to mean that it is something that appeals to the established party lines.

Gah, I gave up trying to define anything that man said since the Clear Skies Initiative. 90% of the stuff that comes out of his mouth doesn't mean anything like it sounds like it does. Wait - FALSE POPULISM.

Posted by Julene | January 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Oy ... I realized my response to too many steves might not be clear.

My point is actually that the opposite of what too many steves said is in fact the case. Free trade does not benefit the masses (in the median). It does benefit people in a few, specific industries.

Those benefits (c.f. Ricardo) may out-weigh the costs of free trade in the sense of a simple, arithmatic mean, but tell that to someone who's lost their job ...

Posted by DAS | January 29, 2008 4:56 PM

What y81 said. If Bush had said it would embolden purveyors of populism, most people wouldn't have known what the problem's supposed to be. Almost by definition, most people like populism.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | January 29, 2008 5:50 PM

Time to apply Occam's Razor. This is just Bush messing with your mind.

There is no "false populism". "Populism" is, by popular definition, false- a demagogic attempt to rouse the masses to demand stuff that, in actuality, is bad for them.

Bush was just filling airtime with something that makes people like Matt wonder what he meant, because, surely, nobody can be that stupid. But, in fact, Bush can.

Of course, it's not really stupidity, it's a common technique of conmen and swindlers, the verbal equivalent of the flourishes, cape, and pretty girl the magician uses to distract you. County courthouses are full of this kind of talk.

Posted by serial catowner | January 29, 2008 5:51 PM

false stupidity perhaps?

Posted by gregor | January 29, 2008 7:42 PM

Everything that comes out of Bush's mind is a real mirage.

Posted by Reality Man | January 30, 2008 4:17 AM

in other words, matt's saying that when bush says 'false populism,' he's being redundant because he's implying that populism is always false. (..except when he engages in it; that demagoguery must go by some different name.)

Posted by sv | January 30, 2008 6:12 PM

and meanwhile i am too lazy to read any of the previous comments until after i've posted a .. redundant one a day later. never mind..

Posted by sv | January 30, 2008 6:14 PM