An easy way to distinguish a populist appeal from a technocratic one is that the populist message will restrict itself entirely to primary representations. For example, the “cost of living” is not a primary representation, it is an abstract concept. The price of groceries, on the other hand, is a primary representation – everyone can easily summon up an image of the price, on the supermarket shelf, the last time they bought orange juice or bread. This is, of course, something that Trump spent a great deal of time talking about (“groceries, such a simple word”), and that the Brahmin left in America spent a great deal of time making fun of him for (e.g. here). In so doing, they exhibited a sort of higher-order stupidity. As Stanovich observes, the thing about primary representations is that they have a “special salience” that abstract concepts will never possess. (...)
From this analysis, one can see also why the Bernie/AOC “billionaires are bad” pitch is not genuine populism. The problem with criticizing inequality is that inequality is another abstraction, one that only intellectuals care about per se. There’s lots of research showing that most people have no idea what the distribution of income and wealth is in their society, in part because they don’t really care. What they do care about, first and foremost, is their own financial situation. To the extent that they are bothered by what others have, their attitudes are based on comparison to a specific reference group. They pick out an individual or group who is thought to be comparably situated to themselves (e.g. neighbours, high-school classmates, siblings, etc.), who then serve as a source of primary representations. They judge their own level of success and material comfort based on how well their situation compares to that of these people. (Hence the kernel of truth at the heart of H. L. Mencken’s observation that a truly wealthy man is one who earns more than his wife’s sister’s husband.) The problem with complaining about Jeff Bezos’s yacht, or Elon Musk’s effective tax rate, as a political strategy, is that these people are completely outside the reference class of all but a small handful of Americans. As a result, their financial situation is completely incommensurable with that of the average person. It is very difficult to cultivate resentment, or any other strong feeling, by inviting people to contemplate an abstraction.
In order to do populism effectively, politicians must not only focus on problems that the public cares about, they must also by-and-large accept the public’s framing of those problems. This creates a dilemma for the left, because that framing, in a complex modern society, will usually be incorrect. As a result, it is extremely difficult to find issues on which left-wing politicians can be authentically populist.
In order to do populism effectively, politicians must not only focus on problems that the public cares about, they must also by-and-large accept the public’s framing of those problems. This creates a dilemma for the left, because that framing, in a complex modern society, will usually be incorrect. As a result, it is extremely difficult to find issues on which left-wing politicians can be authentically populist.
by Joeseph Heath, In Due Course | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Sounds about right. See also: Why We Never Hear About the Countries Where Socialism Works (Amie Boakye).]
When most people hear the word socialism, the first images that flash across their minds are grim ones: long bread lines in the Soviet Union, economic collapse in Venezuela, or repression in Cuba. In popular Western discourse, socialism has been painted as synonymous with failure, inefficiency, and authoritarianism. The narrative is so ingrained that even those who’ve never studied political theory or looked closely at history reflexively think socialism equals poverty.
But here’s the paradox: many countries around the world have quietly, effectively integrated socialist principles into their political and economic systems. And they are thriving. These nations often rank among the happiest, healthiest, and most educated societies on Earth. So why don’t we hear about them? Why do their successes stay in the shadows while the failures dominate headlines?
The short answer: power, perception, and politics.
Before diving into examples, it’s important to define what socialism means in practice, because the word itself has become a linguistic battlefield. For some, socialism means full state control over production and distribution. For others, it’s a mixed economy where public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure are guaranteed, while markets handle the rest.
In reality, modern socialism often looks less like Soviet central planning and more like a robust safety net combined with democratic governance. It’s universal healthcare in Sweden, tuition-free universities in Finland, and public housing in Vienna. It’s not the abolition of markets, but the idea that essential services should be protected from market failure.
That distinction matters. Because much of the West’s fear-mongering about socialism rests on outdated caricatures.
When most people hear the word socialism, the first images that flash across their minds are grim ones: long bread lines in the Soviet Union, economic collapse in Venezuela, or repression in Cuba. In popular Western discourse, socialism has been painted as synonymous with failure, inefficiency, and authoritarianism. The narrative is so ingrained that even those who’ve never studied political theory or looked closely at history reflexively think socialism equals poverty.
But here’s the paradox: many countries around the world have quietly, effectively integrated socialist principles into their political and economic systems. And they are thriving. These nations often rank among the happiest, healthiest, and most educated societies on Earth. So why don’t we hear about them? Why do their successes stay in the shadows while the failures dominate headlines?
The short answer: power, perception, and politics.
Before diving into examples, it’s important to define what socialism means in practice, because the word itself has become a linguistic battlefield. For some, socialism means full state control over production and distribution. For others, it’s a mixed economy where public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure are guaranteed, while markets handle the rest.
In reality, modern socialism often looks less like Soviet central planning and more like a robust safety net combined with democratic governance. It’s universal healthcare in Sweden, tuition-free universities in Finland, and public housing in Vienna. It’s not the abolition of markets, but the idea that essential services should be protected from market failure.
That distinction matters. Because much of the West’s fear-mongering about socialism rests on outdated caricatures.
