We Looked at 46 Populist Leaders. Here’s What They Did to Democracy.

[Dill]

(12-26-2018, 12:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is something with which I definitely agree. Let's be clear that the Soviet Union was born of left-wing populism. Populist movements tend to be extremist, no matter which side of the ideological spectrum they inhabit. As a social democrat, there are a lot of policies that left-wing populists promote that I find appealing, but I recognize a need to work within the system. I understand the reason for the bureaucracy and the role the elites play. In the end it seems to come down to the old adage that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Does it matter what kind of state form and traditions are already in existence when populists take power?

The Soviet state was not really erected upon a liberal Democracy. The Duma which assumed control of the Russian state after the Tsar's abdication was only in power a few months and never had a mandate before it was overthrown.

You have posted an interesting article, though one point rubbed me the wrong way. I don't think Mouffe argues "The best response to right-wing populists, according to this camp, is not a preference for parties and candidates that respect long-standing democratic rules and norms—but rather the election of left-wing populists." I would say she (rightly) prefers a left-wing populism that continues to respect long-standing democratic rules and norms over right-wing, scapegoat driven populism. She has a rather Madisonian conception of how "agonistic" conflict checks power.  She would never like to see hegemonic power invested in a single party or leader for the long term, freed from the "check" of diverse groups/interests.