Don’t blame the elite alone for populism

Shortly after Jerry Springer’s death last month, another sandy-haired German named 70 years old continued his work. Where Springer’s platform was daytime television, Donald Trump’s platform was no less than that of CNN. Where Springer had to coax his guests into tasteless treats, Trump supplied it himself. (He called the women “nasty” and “crazy” on May 10, to cheers from the live audience.) Where Springer played her part with a sense of ironic distance, Trump couldn’t play for the higher stakes.

A famous old epigram is the wrong way around, then. Sometimes history appears first as farce, then as tragedy.

Blaming the broadcaster is a mistake. Yes, CNN could have denied the platform to Trump last week. But why? It doesn’t change the underlying fact that many people find the man amusing. headlines like “What was CNN thinking?” And “Really, CNN?” This means that responsible adults have failed to stop Trump: that he is the product of a reckless elite. This is always the case with analyzes of former presidents. Three elites in particular get the blame.

One is media. If only Facebook and Twitter policed ​​misinformation on their platforms. If only Fox News had developed a conscience. If only reporters fact-checked Trump. (Oh, how CNN anchor Kaitlyn Collins tried.)

Another is the Republican Party itself. If only congressional leaders like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell would stand up to Trump. If only his opponent, Ron DeSantis, attacked him instead of directly attacking him. If only Republicans hadn’t included the Tea Party, Newt Gingrich, and other pioneers of Trumpist politics.

Yet a third culprit is “neoliberalism” and its supporters. If only his policies had not turned the industrial heartland into beggars. If only the jobs weren’t offshored to China. If only unions weren’t left out to dry.

In all three cases there is some semblance of truth. But in all three cases, voters are credited with little choice or power.

The elite are always accused of holding the masses in contempt. It just goes wrong. The elite will go through great intellectual contradictions to avoid blaming the masses for the state of politics. Whether for inventing social media and failing to regulate it, or for allowing Trump to take over such an institution as the GOP, or for ripping off the market, they find themselves at fault. On the surface, it all sounds like humility and remorse. Actually it is its own kind of arrogance.

The premise, after all, is that everything in the world is the result of actions taken or not taken by the elite. It treats “the people” as a passive blob with no agency of its own. In acquitting them, it makes them childish.

A more honest account of events would be as follows. It does not require any manipulation of a large minority of the public to vote for populism. While some have clear complaints, not all. (I’m waiting to hear from the economic determinants why so many affluent people voted for Trump and why, in the UK, the home county voted for Brexit.) Yes, there is such a thing as elite mismanagement, and it’s understood. Maybe why be a voter, with a heavy heart try a radical alternative. Can’t explain why someone might laugh as an accused of sexual assault is told “whack job” by a former president. No, this is a straight case of civic irresponsibility. or nihilism.

Blaming the elite alone is comforting because it provides the illusion of control. If the cause of populism is top-down, then so must be the solution. It’s just a question of finding and implementing a technical fix. The alternative explanation, that modern politics is more like a team sport than any rational one, and that Trump is the beloved “captain” of a team so scary as to command unquenchable jealousy as long as he’s around . it suggests a problem with nation Self: That which exists before, outside and above the actions of the ruling class.

Why, if neoliberalism is the cause of democracy, why did Joseph McCarthy, the statist, flourish in the 1950s egalitarianism? If prominent Republicans muster the courage and oppose Trump (as many did in 2016), how will that stop the rank-and-file from supporting him in the primaries anyway?

For the media, what if it does more to ignite populist sentiments in a country than to build it up? A generation ago, it was talk radio that was considered the dogma of millions. That moral panic struck the audience as helpless children. So implore against CNN. At some point, the demand for fake news will be scrutinized as much as the precise means of supply.

janan.ganesh@ft.com