The Populist Plague

The hot new word in political discourse is “Populism.” Headlines following Scott Brown’s election declared a “Populist Victory,” while President Obama’s State of the Union address was called by many a “night for populists.” Republicans and Democrats alike have taken hold of this mantle, broadly defined as the politics of the many, hoping to galvanize their parties as the bearers of popular will. It is a dangerous trend emerging from both sides of the aisle.

Republicans have rallied behind polling numbers showing most people don’t want Mr. Obama’s health reform, highlighting the outpouring of anger during the tea parties and town halls. Many Republican leaders have stated that since the broad will of the people is against ObamaCare, the legislation should not be passed.

Democrats have applied this logic more broadly, forwarding government programs and regulations aimed to benefit the masses at the expense of a few (the rich; big business; Wall Street). President Obama’s recent State of the Union was markedly populist, denouncing “bad behavior on Wall Street,” and calling for “a fee on the biggest banks” and higher taxes on “oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year.” Indeed, his most famous populist moment came in 2008, when he told Joe the Plumber that the U.S. should “spread the wealth around,” taking from the few to give to the many.

Here, both parties are wrong.

Our founders were careful to craft a government insulated from the ebb and flow of popular sentiment. Mob rule, a product of the emotion, irrationality, and susceptibility to dramatics that plagues crowds, precipitated the downfall of history’s most famous pure democracy in Athens. Direct Democracy, they saw, was deeply flawed, a victim of the changing tide of public sentiment that throws prudence aside. They also knew that pure majority rule would come at the expense of the minority. A government dictated only by the popular will of the people would mean the rights of some would be compromised by the will of the many.

That is why our founders formed a Democratic Republic, a representative form of government marked by checks and balances, and constrained by the Constitution. The people could elect those they felt would best serve their interests, but terms in office would be staggered and cyclical, and chambers of government would be separated from one another. Once elected, those representatives would be held to constitutionally established rights regardless of popular sentiment. Those “unalienable Rights” would serve to project all classes of society, and would not be torn away by the emotion of the present.

The recent rhetoric dominating the political landscape, however, has become almost centrally focused on the “will of the people.” The right decision, the thinking goes, is the popular decision, the “just” outflow of democracy.

But popular will is not always commensurate with justice. Slavery, for example, was not ended because of broad popular sentiment—in fact, it took our most divisive war to stop it. Slavery was ended because it was sharply incongruent with the foundational notion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It had nothing to do with populism, but everything to do with Truth.

So, the Republican argument against ObamaCare should not be couched in populist rhetoric or wrapped in ever-changing polling numbers. It should be defined by what is right—that large, expansive, redistributive government runs counter to fundamental American ideas of liberty, personal property, and individual responsibility. Healthcare needs reform, just not the kind that portends government control.

Similarly, President Obama’s argument for government management of corporate pay, bank bonuses, and redistribution should not flow from a populist Robin Hood mentality that robs some to pay many. It is flatly wrong for government to confiscate individual earnings, control private industry, and fund special interest programs through selective taxation. The veil of popular mandate does not dissolve the rights of the minority. Public “outrage” has a funny way of suddenly shifting; it should not guide policy, and it should never be the impetus for governmental decision making.

Liberals have been, for the most part, intellectually honest regarding healthcare. They believe it is a right that should be guaranteed by the government regardless of the recent public outcry. And that is where the debate ought to reside: What is the right thing to do? How does the Constitution inform our decisions? Are we defending Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Critical questions must be considered about the role of government, the provision of the State, and what constitutes the careful balance between the protection of rights and the guarantee of liberty.

Protests, tea parties, town halls, and political punditry all have a vital place in the Republic. Free speech, as iron sharpens iron, forces us to constantly refine and evaluate the direction of our country. Similarly, popular elections create accountability, and remind our elected officials of the people they are sworn to serve. A Democratic Republic is the beautiful balance between the evolving will of the people and unalienable rights of the people. We must be careful to maintain that balance.

-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township, and Founder of TruPolitics.net