[ad_1]
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Donald Trump has given populism a bad name.
Populism is okay, even if Trump isn’t.
I can imagine a successful political party in the United States that advocated populist positions. Some of those positions would mirror policies that Trump is advocating; some would not.
My populist party would favor high tariffs, to protect American businesses and middle-class jobs. I’m not sure this analysis is correct. For example, some economists say that by increasing the cost of raw materials, such as steel, tariffs actually hurt automobile manufacturers, ultimately reducing jobs. But high tariffs feel as though they protect domestic jobs, so my populist party would favor them.
Trump, of course, favors high tariffs, so he is, in that sense, a populist.
My populist party would restrict immigration, so that foreign workers weren’t competing with domestic ones for jobs. Again, I’m not sure this is correct, since many open jobs aren’t being filled by Americans, so maybe we could use immigrants to fill those jobs. But low immigration feels as though it protects domestic jobs, so my party would favor them.
Trump, of course, favors restricting immigration, so he is, in that sense, a populist.
My populist party would want to raise the minimum wage, so that low-income workers could support themselves. On this issue, too, the policy could be misguided. Some economists say that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment: If the economics of a job justifies paying $10 an hour, but the minimum wage is $15 an hour, then there will be no $10-an-hour job. That’s increased unemployment. But I don’t think people focus on this. I think the average person earning the minimum wage thinks, “Thank God for the minimum wage! Without it, I’d be earning even less!” The average unemployed person does not think, “If the government only lowered the minimum wage, then more jobs would exist, and I might land one of them. Damn the high minimum wage!” So my populist party would favor a high minimum wage.
Most recently, Trump has opposed raising the minimum wage. In that sense, he’s not a populist.
My populist party would be pro-union, so that unions could advocate for better pay and working conditions for middle-income workers. Again, this might be the wrong policy: Some economists say that raising wages makes domestic industries noncompetitive, actually harming American manufacturing. I’m not passing judgment on who’s right about this. I’m just saying that people are more likely to think, “The union raised my wages” than “The union decreases employment in the United States, and that’s why I’m unemployed.” My populist party would be pro-union.
Trump is generally anti-union.
My populist party would support lowering taxes on the poor and middle-class and raising taxes on the rich. This probably helps the poor and middle-class, which is what my party’s trying to do. And this is great politics: This country has many more poor and middle-class people than rich ones; if you win the votes of the poor and middle-class, and you lose the votes of the rich, you’ve been elected. I’m once again agnostic on the merits of this: Perhaps raising taxes on the rich creates some disincentives to working hard or maybe trickle-down economics really works. My populist party doesn’t care; it would favor low taxes on the poor and high taxes on the rich.
Trump generally favors tax cuts for everyone. (I guess I do, too, but I recognize the need to pay for government services and control the deficit.)
My populist party can take whatever position it likes on social issues. Just look at the polls and pick the positions the public prefers on abortion, gun control, transgender rights, and the like. I’m thinking only about economics here; beyond that, let’s take whatever position will win the most votes.
So, too, on foreign policy. If the majority of the voting public thinks that NATO’s a waste of money, then my party should want to pull out. If the majority likes NATO, then stay in. The same with supporting Ukraine, or Israel, or any of the rest of the hot-button issues. I don’t think there’s a populist position on those subjects, so my party can do as it likes.
I think my hypothetical party could do pretty well at the ballot box. My party would support economic issues that favor the majority (the little guy) and would hold positions with majority support on social issues and foreign policy (because I’m insisting that my party stake out positions favored by the majority on those issues).
My party would differ from the Trumpian Republican Party in one other way: My party won’t be nasty. My party won’t make up insulting nicknames for our opponents; we won’t call anyone vermin; we won’t say that the country won’t exist in four years if you don’t vote for the populist candidate. We’ll just lay out the issues, garner majority support, and take over the country. (I sure hope that Trump’s nastiness reflects simply the character of the candidate and is not the reason why people support him. If being a jerk is now the preferred quality in a candidate, we’ll be walking a long and ugly road.)
I wouldn’t necessarily vote for a candidate that espoused populist positions; indeed, I haven’t said a word about where I come down on the issues. I’m just saying that an intelligent populist party, led by a pleasant and engaging candidate, could succeed in the United States.
Trump, of course, is not that candidate.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.
[ad_2]
