Populism has upended the Republican presidential race, and a populist outcry against a globalist, corporatist elite echoes throughout the Western world. It’s possible for conservatives to channel some of the populist energies currently disrupting the American political scene. Conservatism and populism don’t necessarily have to be antithetical, and an enlightened populism could advance many conservative aims. However, possible harmony between them does not mean that all populist efforts are ipso facto conservative, so it might be helpful to note briefly some of the areas where they are not compatible.
Conservatism and populism align when they take on a decadent elite. The current populist insurgency has been fueled by years of broken promises, economic stagnation, and identity politics. Conservatives and populists can agree that there needs to be a shake-up of the powerful. However, conservatives must break with populists when populists call not for a thoughtful decentralization of power or a more virtuous elite but instead cry out for an authoritarian white knight, who will deliver the body politic from the messy compromises of civic life. Some of the problems faced by our republic do stem from governing incompetence, but competence alone will not solve the challenges ahead of us. Moreover, calls to set up a strongman utterly vitiate the populist cry to return power to the people.
One of the greatest indictments against our current elite is that it has weaponized identity politics. The culture war against free thought, artistic expression, and intellectual diversity has, alas, all too often been led by many of those who occupy the commanding heights of our culture. Populists are right to attack the tyranny of Marcusian identity politics, and conservatives have every incentive to join them in that battle against cultural alienation. However, populists betray this critique of identity politics when they themselves succumb to tribalism. Bigotry is but one of the weapons used by collectivists to oppress the individual, and conservatives who seek to defend personal liberty and dignity should attack all such displays of malignant tribalism.
The nation-state has been one of the greatest defenders of individual liberty, and contemporary transnationalism’s radical assault upon the idea of a limited government may endanger limited government in general. Thus, a populist nationalism could reinforce a traditional defense of a republic as a nation-state. But, as always, the defense of the nation-state should also be a defense of one with limited power. When a braggadocios nationalism calls for trampling our liberties (including the First Amendment), then populist nationalism breaks with conservative principles. Our republic does not exist to glorify rulers, but, instead, those we elect have a duty to serve the people’s interests and protect their foundational liberties. Conservatives can make no peace with a political movement that puts the whims of the autocrat above inalienable rights and the rule of law.
In the current moment, populism expresses an understandable anger at the failures of the powerful, but populism becomes performance art—and not a vehicle for reform—when it makes anger its core principle. Insults are no substitute for policies that actually address the real problems of diminished opportunity and civic alienation. Proponents of aligning conservatism with populist energies must keep their eyes on policy solutions for the future. Those who have stubbornly clung to failed ideologies and policy nostalgia have done more than almost anyone else to set the stage for the current populist insurgency, and those who wish to keep populism from degenerating into a primal scream will need to support the hard work of reform (even if that work upsets some established interests).
The choice before us is not between blind anger or the status quo with better messaging. In fact, doubling down on the same, tired policies will likely lead to more anger—not less. As Peggy Noonan, Laura Ingraham, David Frum, the reformocon faction, and others have noted, ignoring the needs of the people does not seem like a smart strategy. Moreover, insulting those who dare to differ from the Great and the Good (or the Comfortable and the Conventional) might also be a counterproductive. A middle way is still possible between the sophistry of technocrats and the revanchist auto da fe. However, finding that middle way will require leaving the politics of shame and resentment behind and instead striving with charity, courage, and imagination to renew the republic.
