Populism Makes Worse People

Humans are only tolerable if they're apolitical

I sometimes get accused of misanthropy. But it’s not true. I generally accept people how they are and have no ill will towards most of them. My worldview places a lot of value on normal people doing normal things, pursuing their narrow self-interest, as the engine of economic growth and making the world a better place.

But there is one sense in which the charge is true. I think most people have terrible views on social and political issues. It’s not that they disagree with me, but rather that they don’t make the bare minimum effort to have opinions that are logically consistent or humane. The stronger they feel about their views, in general the dumber they are. It seems to me that most people get into the world of ideas because they’re compensating for some kind of deep personal insecurity by imagining a world where their status would be higher.

Populist man of the people. Source.

This may strike one as a radical position, but it is a common view to hold about the other side. Conservatives talk about liberal activists as self-righteous hypocrites who have high rates of mental illness and a deep desire to tear down anything seen as strong, beautiful, and successful. Liberals say conservatives are mean-spirited bigots living in a bubble of misinformation who want to demonize foreigners and overthrow democracy. The truth is that they’re both right, at least when it comes to the most passionate advocates on the other side.

It’s not surprising that most people have awful views. Given our nature, hating humans for that wouldn’t be too different from hating them for walking on two legs. I suspect communists have been the greatest mass murderers in history because they expected too much from people, which is the path to true misanthropy.

Last month, I had this exchange on Twitter with an anonymous account that clarified to me why I think being anti-populist is so important.

Populists, setting aside those who simply see populism as a tool, make one of two choices. First, they may decide some views are good because they are popular. So if the people want economic redistribution, this must reflect some deep wisdom. Second, if the populist is more honest, he can accept the overwhelming evidence that the masses are irrational, but declare on moral principle that they should be listened to. Option 1 is deluded, and Option 2 is a simple concession to mob rule, which I’ve always found to be more distasteful the less cynical it is.

Populists usually go with Option 1, and instead of defending on substance the idea that the masses know what they’re doing, which really can’t be defended, they quickly resort to name calling. You are too elite, or out of touch, or rich, or Jewish, or some combination thereof.

In addition to being deluded or dishonest by necessity, populism is bad because it seeks to recruit the masses and make politics more important to them. If most people only think about politics 1% of the time, then you aren’t forced to judge them based on their political views. In most other areas of life, where they face the direct consequences of their actions and have relevant experience, individuals tend to be relatively humane, realistic, logical, and honest. So if the political views of most individuals are going to be evil, then a world where people think about politics 1% of the time is better than one where they think about it 10% or 20% of the time and it becomes central to their identity. Populism makes both individuals and society worse off. I know old people who have always had a sort of crazy worldview, but have become less bearable as cable news and Facebook have eaten the rest of their brains. I love Larry David as long as he focuses on making sitcoms, but if I found out his next act in life was to become a political activist I’d hope to never hear about him again.

Of course, sometimes populist methods and means of persuasion are used to accomplish goals I approve of. That doesn’t change the main point, which is that a political movement should ideally harness populism to achieve desirable ends, while never meming itself into becoming full of individuals who are true believers in the wisdom of the masses, or at least the portion of the masses that is part of their own tribe. In practice, that’s very hard to do, because what you sell yourself as tends to become reality. The conservative movement has actually done a pretty good job over the last several decades of channeling paranoid, hateful, and stupid instincts into a pro-market direction, although we may be in the midst of a transition to a state of affairs in which the inmates will be running the asylum. Luckily, policy tends to be made by those who are less excitable and have longer attention spans, which always works against populists.