“Populist
Psychology in American History”
As I looked at the play of American political history,
I learned some things about how surges of populist psychology have shaped our
country. That is, mass, usually unnamed movements, powered by something that
clicks in the mind of otherwise diverse people. Corrective movements and
policies have emerged out of times of upheaval. The democratic process seems to
“naturally” involve expression of emotion, both good and bad. It turns out that
the corrective forces are not all rational, and do not all come from so-called
reformers in government. Often there is a disconnect between rational
discussion of social needs and the strong emotional movements that eventually
changed things. I mean things that we now take for granted, such as Social
Security, anti-trust laws, and the 8-hour workday. Often, in an historical
look-back, following a surge of people power activity, the creative part (if
there was one!) of the movement gets channeled into social reforms that
eventually benefit not only the disaffected, but also their children and
grandchildren. Us.
An example is the presidential campaign of William
Jennings Bryant in 1896. He mobilized the farmers of the Midwest who had felt
trampled and ignored by bankers and industrialists in the East. Some say that
the story of the Wizard of Oz was written to allegorically portray the powerful
forces in that election. Bryan’s party was actually called the Populist Party.
He lost to William McKinley, but the reforms he argued for became national
policy during the next forty years of American history.
Another example was the surge of white supremacy
following the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves. Whites, especially in
the South thought they were being sold out, and formed their own populist
groups in the manner of the psychological development I have described. The Klu
Klux Klan is one of those groups that survives to today, and captures the
strong and bigoted racial emotions lurking in some of our good citizens. It is
hard to see the benefit of such a populist movement, but perhaps it gives a
contemporary voice to those who can’t otherwise express themselves.
At the same time the story of Huey Long, governor of
Louisiana in 1924, and later a U. S. Senator is also a story of the South. When
he saw the plight of persons in the Great Depression, he set out to get them
relief, pushing for a tax on Louisiana’s Big Oil to fund social programs.
Unlike right-wing populism of William Jennings Bryan, this seemed to be leftist
oriented populism.
Occupy Wall Street, and, to some extent, Sen. Bernie
Sanders campaign against the one-percenters is an example of a more left
leaning populism.
“Populist Psychology and the AuthoritarianPersonality”
Appearing in Vox digital news commentary, an article
by Amanda Taub has put out some apparently well-researched data about the
authoritarian personality. Conclusions from the data show the aspects of people
whose personalities tend toward the authoritarian. Authoritarianism is
explained by Taub as a current behaviorally-measured psychological attitude
that explains the “popularity “ of Donald Trump’s style of politics. Naming the
phenomenon as authoritarianism, she shows why it is surging as a political movement,
generally unnamed, and a form of right-wing populism. Moreover, this sweeping
political movement is explained in terms of the specific psychological elements
involved in authoritarianism.
Persons who
feel threatened by “outsiders” (like immigrants, terrorists, or gays) will show
their desire for a strong protector/leader who is seen as someone able to “protect
them from the changes they fear”. The desire for order in a confusing and alien
world around them will propel them to look to a strong leader. This is termed an authoritarian attitude,
characterized by the need for respect of authority, traditional values, and
punitive response to offenders.
She cites
political science theorists who have done some survey research, much of it
based on the National Election Survey data which has been collected in every
national election since 1992. Taub summarizes the psychological profile of the
type of people willing to give their power to a leader who has simple and
strict answers, and who can allay the fears “with force”. Some of those who fit
the profile are already considered authoritarian personalities; others respond
similarly to emotional threat when things are more stressful.
