BookPDF Available

Mapping Populism: Approaches and Methods

March 2020

DOI:10.4324/9780429295089

ISBN: 9780429295089

Authors:

Amit Ron

Arizona State University

Majia holmer Nadesan

Arizona State University West Campus

Content uploaded by Majia holmer Nadesan

Content may be subject to copyright.

Mapping Populism

This collection, which can serve as an introduction to the ﬁeld of populism,

provides an array of interdisciplinary approaches to populist mobilizations, the-

ories, meanings, and effects. In so doing, it rejects essentialized ideas regarding

what populism is or is not. Rather, it explores the political, social, and economic

conditions that are conducive for the emergence of movements labeled populist,

the rationalities and affective tenor of those movements, the political issues

pertaining to the relationship between populists and elites, and the relationship

between populist groups and political pluralism. Grappling with accord and

discord in assumptions and methodologies, the book will appeal to scholars of

sociology, political science, communication and cultural studies interested in

populism, social movements, citizenship, and democracy.

Amit Ron is Associate Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University,

U.S.A. His research focuses around two central themes: the political and normative

dimensions of the history of political economy, and the democratic theory of the

public sphere.

Majia Nadesan is Professor of Communication Studies at Arizona State Univer-

sity, U.S.A. She studies the political logics shaping the government of life, with

particular emphasis on the constitution and distribution of risk. Her research has

emphasized the government of autism, ability/disability, childhood, democracy,

and most recently ﬁnancial and environmental crises.

Mapping Populism

Approaches and Methods

Edited by Amit Ron and Majia

Nadesan

First published 2020

by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

chapters, the contributors

The right of Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan to be identiﬁed as the

authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their

individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77

and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,

or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including

photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or

retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and

explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-0-367-27144-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-429-29508-9 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

Contents

List of ﬁgures viii

List of tables ix

Note on contributors x

Acknowledgments xiv

Introduction to collection: problematizing populism 1

AMIT RON AND MAJIA NADESAN

PART I

Explaining populism 15

1 Explaining populism introduction 17

MAJIA NADESAN AND AMIT RON

2 Populism and citizenship: toward a “thickening”of American populism 22

MATTHEW DEAN HINDMAN

3 From personal opinion to social fact: interactional dynamics and the

corroboration of populist support 32

MARCO GARRIDO

4 The people and the public: cyber-demagoguery and populism

as war 42

JACK Z. BRATICH

PART II

Populism and pluralism 55

5 Populism and pluralism introduction 57

MAJIA NADESAN AND AMIT RON

6 Democratic populism as constructive nonviolence 63

HARRY C. BOYTE

7 Lessons for left populism: organizing revolt in Babylon 74

MICHAEL J. ILLUZZI

8 Popularism, pluralism, and the ordinary 85

BENJAMIN L. MCKEAN

PART III

Populism:conditionsofpossibility 97

9 Populism: conditions of possibility introduction 99

AMIT RON AND MAJIA NADESAN

10 Does globalization produce populist parties? a cross-national

analysis 104

ANDREW P. DAVIS AND ALBERT J. BERGESEN

11 Populism, monopoly, and the urban liberal–rural populist coalition 113

JEFF BLOODWORTH

12 Farming failure: the origins of rural Trumpism, 1950–2016 124

BENJAMIN DAVISON

13 Austerity and ethno-nationalism: the politics of scarcity in

right-wing populism 134

NED CROWLEY

14 Populism and war-making: constructing the people and the enemy

during the early Lebanese Civil War era 146

DYLAN BAUN

PART IV

Between “the people”and elites 159

15 Between “the people”and elites introduction 161

MAJIA NADESAN AND AMIT RON

16 The social psychology of populism 166

PARIS ASLANIDIS

vi Contents

17 Populist corruption talk 176

ROBERT G. BOATRIGHT

18 Populism, democracy, and the Ukrainian uprisings of the Orange

Revolution and Euromaidan 185

BARBARA WEJNERT

19 Twenty-ﬁrst century American populist movements: the challenges

of organization and institutionalization 199

DAVID S. MEYER

20 Crisis government: the populist as plebeian dictator 210

CAMILA VERGARA

PART V

Issues and methodologies 221

21 Issues and methodologies introduction 223

AMIT RON AND MAJIA NADESAN

22 Political theory and its problem with populism 227

CHRIS BARKER

23 New directions in quantitative measures of populism: a survey 236

MATTHEW E. BERGMAN

24 Populism from the bottom up: ethnography from Trump’s

U.S. and Kirchner’s Argentina 248

RACHEL MEADE

Conclusion: emerging issues and future directions 259

MAJIA NADESAN AND AMIT RON

Index 261

Contents vii

Figures

10.1 Changes in world system centrality over time 108

13.1 Total ﬁscal cuts in a local authority and (a) anti-immigrant

attitudes and (b) approval of UKIP 140

13.2 Ethno-nationalist attitudes and public education spending cuts 141

14.1 al-Anba’, March 7, 1975 147

14.2 al-Nida’, April 30, 1975 147

14.3 al-Nida’, April 8, 1973 154

14.4 al-Anba’, May 1, 1975 154

18.1 Interaction of populism and democracy in the Orange Revolution

in Ukraine 190

18.2 Interaction of populism and democracy in the Euromaidan

uprising in Ukraine 194

Tables

10.1 Comparisons of changes in world trade network centrality and

populist parties 109

10.2 Pooled logistic regression estimates for populism in

cross-national context 110

18.1 Characteristics differentiating populism from democracy 187

23.1 Survey battery from Akkerman et al. (2014) 237

23.2 Dictionary terms associated with populism (Pauwels, 2011) 238

23.3 Suggested disaggregation of survey measures of populism

(Castanho Silva et al. 2018) 242

Note on contributors

Paris Aslanidis is Lecturer at the Department of Political Science and the Hellenic

Studies Program at Yale University. His work on populism analyzes the phenom-

enon at the level of political party systems as well as a type of social movement.

He is currently working on an intellectual history of populism that seeks to under-

stand how the concept has been employed by political scientists, historians, soci-

ologists, and economists. Among other academic journals, Aslanidis has

published with Political Studies,Democratization,Sociological Forum,Mobiliza-

tion,andQuality & Quantity. His chapter on “Populism and Social Movements”

was recently published in The Oxford Handbook of Populism.

Chris Barker teaches political science at the American University in Cairo

College. He has previously held positions at Southwestern College, Harvard

University, Boston College, and Ohio University. He has published several

articles and book chapters on nineteenth-century liberalism and contemporary

political theory. His book, Educating Liberty: Democracy and Aristocracy in

J.S. Mill’s Political Thought, was published by the University of Rochester

Press in 2018.

Dylan Baun is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Alabama in

Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Middle Eastern and North African

Studies from the University of Arizona. His current research focuses on

popular youth clubs, political organizations, and social movements in mid-

twentieth-century Lebanon.

Albert J. Bergesen is Professor of Sociology and Director, School of Sociology,

University of Arizona.

Matthew E. Bergman recently joined the Department of Government at the Uni-

versity of Vienna as a postdoctoral research scholar afﬁliated with the collab-

orative research center “Political Economy of Reforms”based at the University

of Mannheim. He has previously served as a Lecturer of Political Economy,

Research Design, Political Analysis, and Legal Reasoning at the University of

California—San Diego. His research focuses on niche parties, issue competi-

tion, voting behavior, and electoral systems in Advanced Industrial Societies.

Jeff Bloodworth is Associate Professor of History and Chair of the Department

of History & Archaeology at Gannon University (Erie, PA). He specializes in

twentieth-century political history and published a book, Losing the Center:

The Decline of American Liberalism 1968–1992, with the University of

Kentucky Press. In addition, he has published articles and op-eds in Political

Science & Politics,WisconsinMagazineofHistory,The Historian,Paciﬁc

Northwest Quarterly,Just Security,St. Louis Post-Dispatch,Wichita Eagle,and

additional journals and newspapers.

Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University and

the Director of Research at the National Institute for Civil Discourse

(NICD) at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of

campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest

groups, with a particular focus on primary elections and campaign ﬁnance

laws and practices. He is the author or editor of six books. He received

a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and a B.A. from Carleton College.

Harry C. Boyte is Co-founder of the Public Work Academy, Senior Scholar in

Public Work Philosophy at Augsburg College, Founder of the Center for

Democracy and Citizenship, now merged into the Sabo Center of Democracy

and Citizenship, and Founder of the international youth empowerment and

political education initiative Public Achievement. Boyte is the leading archi-

tect of the public work approach to politics and citizenship, which has gained

international recognition for its practical effectiveness (for instance, in citizen

professionalism) as well as its theoretical innovations. He has authored and

edited ten books on democracy, citizenship, and community organizing.

Jack Z. Bratich is Associate Professor in the Journalism and Media Studies

Department at Rutgers University. His research takes a critical approach to

the intersection of popular culture and political culture. His work applies

autonomist social theory to topics such as reality television, social movement

media, and the cultural politics of secrecy. He is the author of Conspiracy

Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture (2008) and an co-editor,

along with Jeremy Packer and Cameron McCarthy, of Foucault, Cultural

Studies, and Governmentality (2003). He is a zine librarian at ABC No Rio

in New York City.

Ned Crowley is Ph.D. Candidate in sociology at New York University. His

dissertation is a political sociology of public ﬁnance and economic policy in

the contemporary United States.

Andrew P. Davis is Assistant Professor of Sociology at North Carolina State

University. His ongoing research interests are in political sociology, the

sociology of human rights, global conﬂict, and quantitative methods. His

most recent work applies formal organizational and network theory to

understand widespread human rights violations in the global system. His

Note on contributors xi

research has been published in a variety of peer-reviewed outlets, including

Social Science Research,Poetics,International Journal of Comparative

Sociology,Punishment & Society,Comparative Sociology,Sociological

Perspectives, and The Sociological Quarterly.

Benjamin Davison is Ph.D. Candidate in American History at the University of

Virginia who specializes in modern business, political, and cultural history.

He has served as a coordinator for Loyola University of New Orleans’Food

Policy, Culture, and Commerce Program. His current project focuses on the

supermarket industry and the creation of industrial food systems and he is

also writing National Roots: Chefs, Environmentalism, and the Creation of

American Cuisine, under contract with the University of Florida Press. His

work has been featured in The Washington Post and National Public Radio.

Marco Garrido is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Chi-

cago. His work on the relationship between the urban poor and middle class

in Manila has appeared in American Journal of Sociology,Social Forces,

Qualitative Sociology, and International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research. More recently, he published a book entitled The Patchwork City

(University of Chicago Press). His new project draws a link between demo-

cratic recession and the explosive growth of the middle class in the developing

world. Speciﬁcally, he locates the Philippine middle class’support for Rodrigo

Duterte in their experience of democracy.

Matthew Dean Hindman is Associate Professor of Political Science at the

University of Tulsa. His research interests include political representation,

interest groups and advocacy organizations, political parties, LGBTQ politics,

and American political development. His book Political Advocacy and Its

Interested Citizens: Neoliberalism, Postpluralism, and LGBT Organizations

was published by Penn Press in 2019.

Michael J. Illuzzi is Associate Professor of Political Science at Lesley Univer-

sity in Cambridge, MA. His work focuses speciﬁcally on nineteenth- and twen-

tieth-century American political thought, the intersections of inequalities in

race, class, and gender, as well as issues in civic engagement.

Benjamin L. McKean is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ohio State

University. His research concerns global justice, populism, and the relation-

ship between theory and practice. His work has been published in American

Political Science Review,Political Theory, and Journal of Politics.

Rachel Meade is Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science at Brown Univer-

sity. She studies why people support populism, using comparative ethnographic

research on populist social movements in the United States and Argentina. Her

research also examines how social identities and political polarization affect

democracy. Her work has been published in the journal Idées d’Amériques.

xii Note on contributors

David S. Meyer is Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University

of California, Irvine, and author of several books and many articles on social

movements. He is particularly interested in the relationship between protest

and public policy.

Majia Nadesan (Editor) is Professor of Communication Studies at ASU.

Dr. Nadesan’s interdisciplinary research examines the ethical implications of

societal governing logics and risk- management strategies. Recently, she has

looked at how politics and scientiﬁc uncertainty complicate risk assessment

and addressed risks to democratic society through comparative risk analyses

of technological crises. Across these analyses, her work interrogates how

we construct the conditions and possibilities for biological and social life in

language, laws, institutions, technologies, expert knowledge, and activism,

with normative critique aimed at differentiating those forms that optimize

diverse and sustainable forms of living versus those that suppress them.

Amit Ron (Editor) is Associate Professor of Political Science at ASU.

Dr. Ron’s research focuses around two central themes: the political and nor-

mative dimensions of the history of political economy, and the democratic

theory of the public sphere. With regard to the democratic theory of the

public sphere, Dr. Ron is particularly interested in the role of the public in

the cognitive division of labor that is required for a social scientiﬁc inquiry.

Camila Vergara is Postdoctoral Research Scholar at the Eric H. Holder

Jr. Initiative for Civil and Political Rights, Columbia Law School. Combining

a materialist interpretation of republican thought and normative political

theory, her work explores alternative constitutional frameworks aimed at

containing corruption by giving institutional form to popular authority.

Barbara Wejnert is Professor of Politica Sociology, and Sustainability Studies,

and prior Chair of the Department of Global Gender Studies at the University

at Buffalo, SUNY. She has written and edited several books and numerous

papers related to democratization and globalization, including a book Diffusion

of Democracy, published by Cambridge University Press that challenges estab-

lished thinking about the global spread of democracy across the past 200 years.

Note on contributors xiii

Acknowledgments

Back at the end of June 2016, a few days after the Brexit vote in Britain and

three weeks before the Convention of the Republican Party nominated Donald

Trump as its presidential candidate, our then colleague Carol Mueller

approached us with the idea of organizing an interdisciplinary conference on

the study of populism. With her support and leadership, we were able to bring

in March 2018 a group of 40 scholars to present and discuss cutting-edge

research on populism. This volume came out of the papers presented in this

conference. We wanted to thank Carol, who is now retired, for her leadership

in organizing this conference and for being a great colleague, friend, and

a mentor to both of us. We also wanted to thank the participants in the conference,

especially our key note speakers, Harvard Professor Theda Skocpol and historian

Thomas Frank, as well as New College of Interdisciplinary Studies, the School of

Social and Behavioral Sciences, and the College at Arizona State University for

their ﬁnancial and organizational support.

One of the participants in the conference was Thomas J. Keil, who presented

empirical research tracking populism in the coal country of Pennsylvania. Tom

passed away at the beginning of August 2018, less than four months after the con-

ference. Prior to his retirement, Tom was our colleague at the School of Social

and Behavioral Sciences and was a friend and mentor. We are grateful that the

conference provided an opportunity for us to see him again. We miss him.

Each one of us also wanted to thank their spouses and the families for their

continued support in our academic endeavors.

Introduction to collection

Problematizing populism

Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

Populism was among the 2017 “words of the year,”with Wendalyn Nichols,

publishing manager at Cambridge University, observing that what

distinguished the word populism from other terms circulating that year was

that it “represents a phenomenon that’s both truly local and truly global, as

populations and their leaders across the world wrestle with issues of immi-

gration and trade, resurgent nationalism, and economic discontent.”Populism

is a term whose ﬁrst use in print has been traced to the U.S. magazine The

Nation in 1898, where it was deployed to describe the “People’sParty,”

a political movement of the “common man”opposed to the excesses of the

Gilded Age (Jäger, 2017). The meaning of populism was contested from its

ﬁrst use to describe a movement located outside of conventional politics,

pitted antagonistically against industrialized America.

Were populists virtuous reformers or paranoid nativists? In the mid-twentieth

century, Richard Hofstadter (1964) argued the latter position, seeing a common

“paranoid style”in U.S. politics that linked turn-of-the-century populism to

McCarthyism. Populism was subsequently linked with authoritarianism and

fascism in an international research trajectory suspicious of its anti-pluralist

tendencies. Yet, this view of populism as antithetical to democracy has been

repeatedly challenged in debates over historical details and counterexamples of

inclusive populist mobilizations. These debates over populist meanings, forms,

and effects have assumed more urgency in the context of new avenues for political

participation enabled by the web 2.0 environment, leading some academic obser-

vers, such as Benjamin Mofﬁtt (2016), to describe populism in relation to political

performativity.

Although today, populism is ascendant as a term used to explain outbreaks

and mobilizations of political activity, there is little agreement on other aspects

of the meaning of the term and its designations. Populism is most often deﬁned

as a concept of morally righteous people pitted against corrupted elites. Groups

often targeted in populist discourses include cultural, corporate, and governmen-

tal elites. Populist objectives can be reform oriented or revolutionary. Examples

of movements described as populist span the political and cultural spectrum,

including social mobilizations as diverse as the 1960s-era civil rights movement

and early-twenty-ﬁrst-century Tea Party movement. The meaning of populism is

confusing when applied to such a heterogeneous array of social mobilizations

and political leaders, the latter including the right-leaning Donald Trump (U.S.),

Viktor Orbán (Hungary), Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), and Matteo Salvini

(Italy) and the left-leaning Bernie Sanders (U.S.), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Andrés

Manuel López Obrador (Mexico), and Hugo Chávez (Venezuala) (Rice-Oxley &

Kalia, 2018).

As illustrated with these examples of populist meanings and leadership, map-

ping and navigating academic and news media accounts of populism can be

challenging for the uninitiated, particularly for scholars wrestling with the funda-

mental ambiguities and debates over populist meanings and praxis. Perhaps the

most central problem of research on populism is that there is no agreement

about what it is that needs to be explained. That is, the nature of the populist

phenomenon is highly contested, beginning from the very question of who

counts as a populist. Populist groups sometimes name themselves through their

political agitation (such as the self-conscious “Tea Party”identity) (Skocpol &

Williamson, 2016) or at other times are ﬁrst called out as populist by outside

observers suspicious of energized circulations of contagious ideas or practices

that in some way(s) challenge the observer’sstatusquo.

The urgency with which populism is singled out and interrogated in mass

media, academic, and security accounts can be regarded as a response to

a perceived rupture in the taken-for-granted symbolic order. In an important sense,

populism names an ambiguous exigency or rupture in political relations, particu-

larly because populist movements are often situated antagonistically in relation to

established protocols and/or ideologies. Sociologist and social theorist Manuel

Castells (2019) argues that the most pressing antagonism today is the “rupture that

has occurred between citizens and governments”(p. 5). Academic research aims

to tackle the challenges of naming, differentiating, dissecting, and governing

disruptive populist mobilizations that pit the people against real or imagined polit-

ical, corporate, or social elites. Yet, this academic research is heterogeneous and

dispersed across disciplines, reﬂecting specialized interests that can silo discus-

sion. Accordingly, this collection offers a broad and interdisciplinary introduction

to the study of populism intended for readers who are making their initial forays

into this ﬁeld. Our collection maps key issues and debates in the literature

on populism, focusing on the central research and methodological questions that

animate some of the most important debates across academic disciplines, ranging

from political science to sociology to communications and cultural studies.

Representative case studies and discussions in this collection illustrate the

concerns of particular research areas and explain their implications for issues

and questions that transcend disciplinary boundaries: What types of questions do

researchers ask about populism? What does it mean to be populist? What

assumptions about “the people”are built into diverse understanding of popu-

lism? What other assumptions inform vernacular and expert understandings of

the term, historically and in the contemporary context? What are the conditions

2 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

of possibility for mobilizations labeled populist? What does populist praxis look

like today in the era of the Internet and user-generated content? Are populists

today more susceptible to demagoguery? What effects are posited in response to

populist mobilizations? What is the relationship between populism and liberal

democracy? This collection grapples with these issues, focusing on fundamental

questions about the meaning of “the people”and unpacking relationships across

“the people,”populism, and democratic pluralism. In so doing, it raises funda-

mental questions about the possibilities and challenges of inclusive democracy

free from mob rule in the Internet era, the tyranny of the majority, and the types

of expulsions that have been characteristic of democratic social organization.

These questions are especially pressing in the context of the urgent ecological

and population crises confronting human societies across the planet. The ques-

tion of whether liberal democracy can deliver a sustainable future hinges in

signiﬁcant part on the nature and objectives of populist social mobilizations.

Although the term “populism”is modern, used by late-nineteenth-century

agrarian reformists, the concerns expressed by observers at the time regarding

populists’susceptibility to demagoguery echoed classical skepticism regarding

the merits and democratic capabilities of “the people.”At the height of ancient

Athenian democracy, Plato promulgated pessimism regarding citizens’capacities

to distinguish between pure rhetoric (truth) and sophistry, deﬁned most bluntly

as persuasion devoid of truth and ethics. This example captures not only ancient

doubts about the wisdom of popular governance, but also the narrow delineation

of those designated as citizens with participatory rights in democratic societies.

Movements of the people have historically been engendered by such exclusions.

Exclusions can provide the unifying logic that binds “the people”into an entity.

Speciﬁc exclusions are locally determined, but there are historical patterns of

exclusion against ethnic and religious minorities, non-propertied residents,

women, and children. The constitution of peoplehood around exclusions has

historically raised observers’concerns regarding reformist or revolutionary inten-

tions. Efforts to manage social mobilizations of the people were enabled by the

new expert space of “public opinion,”which became a primary target of inter-

vention by industry and government (Lippmann, 1965). Public opinion data

offered insights into the concerns of “the people,”represented as fragmented

into distinct demographic and interest groups. Issues identiﬁed through surveys

could be managed strategically, enhancing public consent and domesticating

the unknown dangers posed by democratic crowds. However, the capacity for

democratic elections in Europe and Latin America to produce popular, but authori-

tarian, leaders ampliﬁed concerns about populism’s role in delivering democracy.

Studying and understanding populism

Concerns about populism have fueled 100 years of governmental scrutiny,

media reporting, and academic research providing descriptive reports and tools

aimed at identifying, describing, deﬂecting, and/or orchestrating particular

Introduction to collection 3

populist mobilizations. What is new today is the mass media environment,

whose contours have shifted dramatically in the last ten years with the rise of

web 2.0 and user-generated content. Twentieth-century gatekeeping and mass

communication ﬁlters faltered as mass-mediated control of political messaging

was shattered by new sharing technologies, with effects that have reverberated

across the vast and bureaucratic apparatuses of representative democracy.

Today, the opinions and will of “the people”ﬂow across social media plat-

forms, energizing existing and enabling new social mobilizations, sometimes

around ideas that promote democracy and sometimes around ideas that

threaten it. Energetic ﬂows across social media platforms and public squares

are seen as dangerous when their emotional economies are too forceful in

their antagonisms and too exclusive in their conceptualizations of the will of

“the people.”Inertia against desired popular reforms can further radicalize ener-

getic social media ﬂows and lead to efforts to purify coalescing movements of

less revolutionary ideas and programs. In an important sense, the relationship

between populism and democracy is being tested because democratic pluralism

is seen as at risk by contemporary populist mobilizations that are fueled online

by outraged affective economies.

In order to unpack these issues in this collection, we begin by outlining and

addressing key ideas about “the people”that have animated debates about

populism, such as the extent to which mobilizations and/or leaders labeled as

populist have some essential characteristics deriving from their conceptualiza-

tion of “the people”that distinguish them from other types of social

movements. Second, we explore conditions of possibility for populist social

mobilizations (e.g., the relation between populist mobilizations and economic

disenfranchisement). Third, we explore the types of affective economies

most commonly displayed across case examples of populist movements. More

speciﬁcally, we address the question of whether populist movements are anti-

rational as a result of their emotional antagonism to elites. Relatedly, we ask

whether populism is inherently anti-pluralist as an outcome of the basic distinction

drawn between populists and elite groups.

In structuring this survey of the research on populism, we try to assist new-

comers in navigating their way through the scholarly terrain, using sample read-

ings and editorial discussion, while sidestepping the risk of becoming preoccupied

with the question of how to deﬁne populism. Fine-grained debates concerning

what populism is or is not have led some academics to reject the term altogether,

arguing against its conceptual utility. We accept that populism is polyvalent in

meanings and aim to introduce readers to helpful overviews of the scholarly

debates concerning what it means to be populist.

Populism and “the people”

As a minimalist deﬁnition, populism is a mode of political interaction that refers

in some way to “the people.”Beyond this minimalist or “thin”deﬁnition, there

4 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

is a wide disagreement concerning populism’s essential features. For example,

Cas Mudde (2018), a proliﬁc writer on the subject, deﬁnes populism as a belief

system—more speciﬁcally, “an ideology that considers society to be separated

into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’versus ‘the

corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of

the volonté générale (general will) of the people.”In Populism: A very short

introduction (2017), Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser historicize this

formal deﬁnition of populism with detailed analyses of the particular charac-

teristics of populist movements and leaders across time. A historical approach

to populism sees every mobilization given that name as uniquely conditioned

by the particularities of time and space. In contrast, empirical accounts seek

to identify recurring relations and patterns across time. To a large extent, this

idea of populism as a basic antagonism between “the people”and an elite

group is a unifying thread in the literature despite heated debates over

whether other generalizations can be made about the nature of those people,

the characteristics of their grievances, and the relative importance of particu-

lar economic and political circumstances.

The political philosopher Ernesto Laclau (2005) suggests that the symbolic

or “discursive”characteristics of key antagonisms are relevant to the study of

populism, which he describes as a “political logic”that can be deployed by

any political persuasion (p. 117). For Laclau, populism’s political logic is

expressed in discourses that pit unequal and oppositional powers against each

other by establishing equivalences and antagonisms across a “horizon within

which some objects are representable while others are excluded”(p. 117). The

logic of equivalences connects disparate and historically situated mobilizations,

as illustrated by the integration of various “rights”discourses—for example,

African-American voting rights, women’s reproductive and employment rights,

disability rights—as “civil rights,”which opposes an entrenched exclusionary

other of white, masculine, establishment values. Laclau’s approach is useful

for illustrating that the notion of “the people”is emergent, constructed, and

multifaceted, and given unifying meaning through a fundamental antagonism.

In Laclau’s view, “the people”is aterm of choice precisely because it does not

have one accepted meaning. Chantal Mouffe (2018), another political theorist

and former collaborator of Laclau, agrees that what is important is the logic of

the we–they relationship in pluralist politics, but offers a distinction between

“agonism”and “antagonism,”with the latter being reserved for conﬂicts that

threaten the very foundations of liberal democratic societies. Mouffe’s view of

agonism captures irreconcilable, but productive, tensions in democratic soci-

eties and distinguishes them from those threatening core values.

Drawing upon diverse theoretical foundations, the chapters in this collection

present useful overviews of the scholarly terrain, mapping key conceptualizations

of “the people”and offering innovations and empirical cases that capture the

complex ways this construct can capture multifaceted meanings. In preparation

for reading these chapters, it is useful to review the distinct and recurring

Introduction to collection 5

images of “the people”that are typically at play in discussions about populism:

as an identity group, as a social class, and as a political unit. We argue that even

though the three images we describe below often overlap, they each raise differ-

ent research questions for those who are interested in studying populism.

The ﬁrst image of “the people”is as an identity group, an ethnos, a people

who are tied together by a shared identity with allegedly deep bonds. Arguably,

this is the image of “the people”invoked by the Old Testament when it

describes how God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Let my people go”

(Exodus, 5:1). The research program that revolves around this image examines

the processes through which a particular identity, or a particular type of identity

category, is forged. For example, research can ask how certain ideas, values,

or groups come to be perceived as “American,”while others are excluded. Fur-

thermore, the processes that shape political identities often shape the interests

associated with these identities. Accordingly, there are research questions about

how identities get afﬁxed to interests and then to speciﬁc policies. Social science

provides a wide array of approaches for answering these questions, from theoret-

ical frameworks that are rooted in social psychology and interpersonal dynamics

to those that understand identity production sociologically, in broader systemic

contexts composed of institutionalized social relations.

The second image of “the people”is as a social class, the plebs. This is the

image of “the people”invoked by Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince (1532/

1988) when he writes that “[w]ell-ordered states and wise rulers have always

been very careful not to exasperate the nobles and also to satisfy the people

and keep them contented”(p. 66). In this image, what distinguishes “the

people”is their marginal social position vis-à-vis the elite, inextricably tying

the question of who constitutes “the people”to access to economic or social

power. For those who view “the people”through this image, research revolves

around the question of how the more fundamental properties of the hierarchical

social order present themselves as forms of political identities or political

movements. In this image, “the people”may have objective or real interests

that are different from their perceived interests. Not every political identity or

social movement that claims to speak on behalf of “the people,”or get wide

support from the non-elite, necessarily speaks for the real entity of “the

people.”That is, sometimes the people can be manipulated by elites who claim

to speak on their behalf (we will return to this theme in our discussion of

demagoguery).

The third image of “the people”is as a political entity uniﬁed by shared

terms of social cooperation. This is “the people”of “We the people”from the

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. This image, which is rooted in the liberal

social contract tradition, understands the source of the authority of government

to be rooted in the consent of “the people.”Government is created, as John

Locke (1689/1980) describes, “where-ever any number of men, in the state of

nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one

supreme government”(pp. 47–48; §89). The power of government has to be

6 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

employed for the “good of the people”or the “public good.”This insistence

on the social contract legitimizes dissent when government is perceived as

acting inconsistently with the public will. Within the liberal-democratic trad-

ition, there are different approaches to how these general intuitions about the

purpose of government and the source of its power can translate into a full

account of political power. The main philosophical and research questions are

therefore related to the notion of the legitimacy of the exercise of political

power in democratic societies. Are those who exercise political power acting

in the interest and consent of “the people?”What are legitimate avenues of

political expression and what happens when they fail?

Critics of populism sometimes ally themselves with political realists in claiming

that political processes cannot be evaluated using the standard of popular “legitim-

acy,”and that the very attempt to rank more or less legitimate forms of political

representation is misguided. But rankings of legitimacy have a certain utility, par-

ticularly when many stakeholders are involved in producing and applying criteria.

Questions of legitimacy have taken on added importance in a context Castells

(2019) described as a “rupture between citizens and governments,”deriving in

signiﬁcant part from the “gradual collapse of a model of representation”(p. 5)

capable of excising the tools necessary for collective collaboration. It is important

to stress with this example that public opinion is used to invoke a concept of “the

people”as a real social category, the values and interests of which can be directly

represented and addressed. For example, a politician can claim to speak for “the

people”as a class by virtue of the results of an election or other empirical data

concerning constituent values and attitudes.

Given the complexities of representing populist movements and their

relationships to “the people,”research must speak to and be reﬂexive about issues

of communication, power, authenticity, and legitimacy. We must ask how commu-

nications produced by everyday people, politicians, the media, and academics,

among other forms of agency, invoke “the people”and how symbolic and material

populist mobilizations reproduce or transform existing power relations in society.

We must interrogate the authenticity of populist movements and representations,

and in so doing grapple with complex issues of representation, including the ques-

tion of authenticity itself, especially in the Internet era. We must also acknowledge

our positionality as researchers, confronting the possibility that our representations

of populist mobilizations are also shaped by power relations.

What are the conditions of possibility for populism?

If we bracket the deep question of what populism is and operate with the min-

imal deﬁnition in mind, then a second set of important questions concerns how

to go about explaining emergence and variations in populist mobilizations.

Which networked beliefs and similarities of conduct (“contiguities”) give rise

to mobilizations named populist by mobilizers or outsiders? When and where

are we likely to ﬁnd more populism? What are the economic, technological,

Introduction to collection 7

and cultural conditions that make the emergence of populism possible and

shape value inﬂections and political performances? These types of questions

are central to historical and comparative approaches to populism that address

how social institutions and inequalities engender populist mobilizations, whose

rise to power is enabled or conﬁned by the strength of key leaders, core insti-

tutions, and access to communications networks. Several chapters in this col-

lection address these questions by examining the economic conditions that

make it possible to mobilize on behalf of “the people.”In particular, they

emphasize the increase in economic inequality that sharpens the experiential

distinction between “the people”and elite groups, foregrounding the failures

and inadequacies of existing ideational and institutional foundations.

Other chapters in this collection address the socio-psychological conditions of

possibility for populist beliefs. The ﬁrst approach to understanding how people

hold populist beliefs entails cognitive and ideological mapping. This entails delim-

iting populist beliefs among targeted populations (such as anti-elitist sentiments

among working-class white voters) and situating them in the context of a web of

beliefs that are tied together by some inner logic (such as a narrative of American

decline). This form of explanation opens the door to an engagement with the val-

idity or truth value of particular belief systems (such as the existence of a “new

world order”). It also encourages another approach, which addresses how populist

leaders and/or mobilizations strategically articulate and deploy existing beliefs in

their communications to target audiences.

Is populism irrational?

The role of contemporary media in enabling populist mobilizations and in

shaping representations of their aims and ethics cannot be underestimated. The

Internet has disrupted centralized control over the production of mass-mediated

messages, enabling outreach and fostering social networks that have the poten-

tial to become visible populist mobilizations. Mofﬁtt’sThe Global Rise of

Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation (2016) argues that

new media play a critical role in contemporary populist movements and

that a historicized view of populism today is best represented by the idea of

political style, “a repertoire of embodied, symbolically mediated performance”

(pp. 28–29). If populism today is a political style, then what affective (i.e.,

emotional) characteristics dominate its performative style?

Ronald Jacobs and Eleanor Townsley (2018) argue that new media encourage

an “agonistic process of positioning”deﬁned in terms of today’s unrestrained pro-

liferation of divergent performances of truth and justice on mediated platforms,

which add to challenges to institutional authority (p. 345). They point out that

these divergent performances illustrate reﬂexive modernization as social groups

interrogate the conditions of their everyday lives and mass-mediated realities.

However, this reﬂexive modernization can promote and amplify political and

cultural alienation and resentment in a technological context of high connectivity

8 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

but deep economic inequality. Populism can emerge as a sort of social contagion

in this line of research, characterized by a politics of resentment and irrational

political beliefs.

In an academic review of American and European theorizing about popu-

lism, Paul Jones (2018) argues for the primacy of Theodor W. Adorno, Else

Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford’sThe Authoritar-

ian Personality (1950) in understanding nineteenth-century and twentieth-

century populism, even in the American context. Historians have been tempted

to romanticize late-nineteenth-century American populists by marginalizing

nativist, racist, and anti-Semitic leanings, a point made by Hofstadter’sThe

Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R (1955). Jones argues that Hofstadter’s

description of the paranoid elements of American populism is indebted to the

psycho-political “authoritarian”personality style.

This collection problematizes universalizing accounts of the populist phe-

nomenon as irrational political affect by introducing and interrogating multiple

populist rationalities. There exists no singular form of populist rationality and/

or irrationality (Laclau, 2005). Yet, one of the questions troubling empirical

research on populism is whether in explaining populist beliefs, or the bond

between populist leaders and followers, it is necessary to “look under the

hood,”disclosing psychological processes and they are embedded in and inter-

act with particular social and political contexts.

Who is pulling the strings? Is populism an elite-driven

phenomenon?

At its core, populism imagines, calls for, or tries to bring about a particular set

of relationships between putative “people”and putative elites. It is a discourse

about the relationship between “the people”and the elites. But the question is:

How do populist discourses construct the social relationships in which they are

located? Populists often view themselves as authentic representatives of “the

people,”but others demur, suggesting that, at the end of the day, it is the elites

who are pulling the strings or who are ultimately beneﬁting from populist

fervor. Others point out that the fundamental antagonism between the populist

people and the elite is ultimately based on inescapably corrosive exclusions

that are inescapable and also increase populists’susceptibility to demagoguery.

To be sure, those who argue that populism can be authentically of “the people”

are not naive and are aware of internal and external dangers. Nonetheless, they

suggest that in some cases, or under some conditions, populist movements are

vanguards of the human struggle for justice in the context of intolerable social,

political, and economic conditions. But even if the claim of populist movements

to mobilize “the people”is authentic and defensible, there remains the question of

whether this authentic spirit can be sustained over time. Direct democracy is cum-

bersome; yet, power entrusted by “the people”to their representatives can be

misdirected.

Introduction to collection 9

Is populism necessarily anti-pluralist?

Some forms of populism, often described as right-wing populism, are built on

a conception of “the people”that is largely cultural and often exclusive. For these

populists, the boundaries between the “inside”and the “outside”of “the people”

are taken as a given and of moral import. Oftentimes, they warn that the very

identity (and/or civilization) of “the people”is under threat from outsiders who try

to inﬁltrate or contaminate ways of life. Critics of populism argue that populism

itself, not only one of its variants, is inherently anti-pluralist because the binary

relationship at the heart of populism is insidiously corrupting.

This claim about the homogenizing and anti-pluralist character of populism

is a mix of a normative claim about the meaning of democracy and an empir-

ical claim about the consequences of certain rhetorical moves. The normative

claim is related to debates in democratic theory about how to understand the

ways “the people”(demos) can hold the power (kratos) in a democracy

(demokratia). The empirical claim is that regardless of legitimacy, the binary

logic deployed in populist mobilizations inevitably breeds paranoia and vio-

lence. However, the question of whether populist social organizations can

avoid these tendencies is ultimately empirical, a point made in this collection.

Case studies reveal that populism can drive reform by energizing democratic

societies, but it can also drive revolution, because there is no guarantee “the

people”will choose democracy. Democracies that are too responsive to “the

people”risk promoting illiberal tendencies. Nadia Urbinati makes this argument

in Democracy Disﬁgured: Opinion, Truth, and the People (2014), asserting that

populism is a disﬁguration of democracy. Populism too radically polarizes the

public forum while unpolitical democracy elevates expertise over political opin-

ion, and plebiscitary democracy is too responsive to the nonrational and aesthetic

aspects of opinion. The legitimacy of the raw voice of “the people,”particularly

as expressed in public opinion, must therefore be mediated in relation to

a“dialectic between pluralism and unity”(Urbinati, 2014, p. 136) that is seen as

crucial for democracy, with unity representing cornerstone values.

Yet, an alternative approach grounded in contrasting cases views populist

mobilizations as constitutive of robust pluralist democratic practice, rather than

as symptomatic of crisis or decline. In this alternative approach, the “will of

the people”is not a metaphysical entity that needs to be carefully uncovered,

but is at best a useful metaphor to describe a democratic praxis reﬂecting the

expression of emergent and heterogeneous interests and symbolic systems.

From this perspective, ﬁxed categorical representations of “the will of the

people”are inherently anti-democratic because the very need to represent the

raw “will of the people”simpliﬁes and distorts. Populist representations must

be acknowledged as ephemeral and contingent, coalescing in time and space

and inﬂected by local circumstances. Each case must be addressed in its par-

ticularities, and normative judgments about legitimacy must be reserved or

deployed carefully.

10 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

This afﬁrmative view of populist praxis is not, perhaps, the most popular

among academic and news media observers. The historical record suggests

there are empirically grounded consequences regarding deployments of binary

logic as a rhetorical strategy for unifying a collective. The binary logic of

a discourse or rhetoric based on the distinction between those who belong to

“the people”and the “other”has two consequences. First, it makes it easier to

slip into Manichaean language and portray the others, the outsiders, as the

enemy of “the people.”Second, it pushes those who use this framework to

treat “the people”as a single entity and thus to under-emphasize, ignore, or try

to eradicate the differences between and across groups within “the people.”

This skeptical approach to populism is illustrated in Jan-Werner Müller’sWhat

Is Populism? (2006), in which he adopts the language of populism as

a political logic, but identiﬁes key attributes of that logic, including a strong

anti-pluralism deriving from populists’belief in their moral singularity. Steven

Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt adopt this pessimistic reading of populism in How

Democracies Die (2018), in which they argue that authoritarian populism pre-

sents a clear danger to fragile pluralist democracies.

Despite these concerns, few of the chapters in this collection adopt the

position that populism is necessarily anti-pluralist. Although contributors

acknowledge the validity of the slippery slope invoked with “the people,”they

argue that “the people”can both be plural and recognize themselves as such.

Generally speaking, the pluralist populist argument focuses less on the particular

arguments that are made, rightly or wrongly, on behalf of “the people,”and

more on the processes that allow people to engage collectively. One implication

of this focus on the process is that more pluralist populists are less interested in

establishing clear boundaries between “the people”and their enemies. While cer-

tain populist rhetorics view “the people”unidimensionally as members of

a single group, when real people interact, especially in the intense purposeful

interaction of forming social movements, they encounter each other as complex

human beings. These interactions allow participants to identify commonalities

and to develop respect and appreciation for differences.

Practical problems in studying populism

The ﬁnal set of challenges addressed in this collection concerns the practical and

methodological problems of studying populism. A survey of approaches to the

study of populism risks replicating broad philosophical and methodological debates

in the social sciences and the humanities—between positive, interpretive, and

critical approaches, between quantitative and qualitative methods, between “N”and

“n,”and so forth. Yet, we also recognize that methodological matters shape the

types of questions asked and data collected. We therefore seek to offer a brief over-

view while avoiding detailed mapping of existing methodological divisions.

Although there are many ways of organizing diverse interdisciplinary scholar-

ship on populism, the three-part typology introduced by Francisco Panizza in the

Introduction to collection 11

edited collection Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (2005) is particularly

helpful. First, Panizza delineates empirical research on populism as seeking

observable generalizations from cases of populism with the hope of identifying

distinctive attributes characteristic of populist phenomena, which help build dis-

tinct typologies. Paul Taggart’sPopulism (2000) adopts this empirically

grounded approach when outlining key themes across populist mobilizations—

including a hostility to representative politics, a shared idealized heartland, and

a reaction to a sense of extreme crisis—that persist despite populism’schame-

leon-like adaptations to local circumstances and lack of transcendent core

values. This empirical approach to populism is found throughout this collection

butmostspeciﬁcally in the case studies of populist mobilizations explored in

Parts III and IVand the methodological issues raised in Part V.

Panizza’s (2005) second approach to research on populism adopts historicist

accounts with the aim of linking populism to speciﬁc historical periods, social

formations, historical processes, or sets of historical circumstances. Mudde and

Kaltwasser’sPopulism: A Very Short Introduction (2017) utilizes this formula-

tion when positioning populism speciﬁcally in the context of liberal democracies.

Historical approaches can emphasize institutions or individual agency in

accounting for populist mobilizations. Mudde and Kaltwasser observe that efforts

to valorize “popular agency,”with human action seen as driving history, are

often adopted by U.S. historians when explaining populism as a mobilization of

the common people around a more communitarian democracy. However, this

valorization of people’s movements does not exhaust historicized approaches,

which can also address the socio-economic conditions of possibility for popu-

lism, an approach more concerned with institutions and events than historical

agency, as explained in Part III.

The third and last approach to populist research outlined by Panizza (2005)

adopts a “symptomatic”reading that may incorporate empiricist and historical

accounts, but focuses on “populism as an anti-status quo discourse that simpliﬁes

the political space by symbolically dividing society between ‘the people’(as the

‘underdogs’) and its ‘other’” (pp. 2–3). “The people”and “the other”are political

constructs symbolically produced in language. The incompleteness, or “lack”

inherent in language and our identiﬁcations with it, enables and fuels populist

mobilizations. Panizza argues that what is critically important is the process that

articulates demands, positioning demands and identities into an antagonistic rela-

tionship with the social order. Panizza describes this process as an “awakening”

because the articulation not only expresses preexisting angst, but also names and

deﬁnes antagonistically. In this fashion, Panizza articulates populism within the

post-structuralist approach introduced by Laclau (2005) and Mouffe (2018).

There is yet another approach to populism that can be added to this list:

populism as a political style or performance. This approach is distinguished by

its emphasis on populism as a strategy exploited by political entrepreneurs,

rather than a set of ideas distinguishable by form or content. For example,

Mofﬁtt (2016) emphasizes the impact of new media technologies, new modes

12 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

of political representation and identiﬁcation, and the sheer ubiquity of populist-

style messaging as producing populism today as a globalized “political style”

performed, embodied and enacted across political and cultural contexts (p. 3).

Mofﬁtt, following thinkers such as Castells (2019), sees the populist style as

well adapted to the plebian networked instantaneity and emotional volatility

of contemporary communications, which prioritize performativity, celebrity,

entertainment, and moral outrage over more traditional expressions of reasoned

discussion and debate. Communication is not simply epiphenomenon, not

simply a mere reﬂection of some underlying populist essence, as it constructs

the populist “leader”(as key performer), “the people”(as audience), and the

“crisis”(as breakdown and/or threat) (pp. 4–5). Mofﬁtt’s framework is compat-

ible with others outlined here, especially the symptomatic and communication

approaches, but has special relevance for bringing contemporary communica-

tion environments and practices into focus.

Returning now to the questions launching this Introduction, we can see that

what it means to be populist is ultimately contingent upon the researcher’sanalyt-

ical perspective. Historical and empiricist approaches are more likely to delimit

key characteristics of populist mobilizations by examining their communication

practices and political activities and contextualizing them within extant events and

institutional relations. Historicists tend to address distinctive or unique historical

conditions of possibility (including unique people, events, and organizational con-

ﬁgurations), while empiricists are typically more interested in generalizing from

unique circumstances in order to explain and predict reoccurring forms/types

of social organizing. In contrast, the symptomatic approach is less interested in

populism as a unique or generalizable social form or forms because it approaches

populism as a process—that is, it approaches populism as an antagonistic process

of articulation (delineating “the people”and “the other”) and identiﬁcation. This

collection introduces readers to research representing each of these approaches,

ﬁnding value in their distinct formulations and methodologies.

References

Castells,M.(2019).Rupture: The crisis of liberal democracy.R.Marteau(Trans.).

Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York, NY: Alfred

A. Knopf.

Hofstadter, R. (1964). The paranoid style in American politics: And other essays.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jacobs, R. N., & Townsley, E. (2018). Media meta-commentary and the performance of

expertise. European Journal of Social Theory,21(3), 340–356.

Jäger, A. (2017). The semantic drift: Images of populism in post-war American historiog-

raphy and their relevance for (European) political science. Constellations,24,310–323.

Jones, P. K. (2018). Insights from the infamous: Recovering the social-theoretical ﬁrst

phase of populism studies. European Journal of Social Theory,22(4), 458–476.

doi:10.1177/1368431018772507

Introduction to collection 13

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York, NY: Crown.

Lippmann, W. (1965). Public opinion. New York, NY: Free Press.

Locke, J. (1689/1980). Second treatise of government. C. B. Macpherson (Ed.). Indian-

apolis, IN: Hackett.

Machiavelli, N. (1532/1988). The prince. Q. Skinner & R. Price (Eds.). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representa-

tion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. London, UK: Verso.

Mudde, C. (2018, November 22). How populism became the concept that deﬁnes our age.

The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/

populism-concept-deﬁnes-our-age

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Nichols, W. (2017). “Populism”revealed as 2017 word of the year by Cambridge University

Press (2017, November 30). Retrieved from www.cam.ac.uk/news/populism-revealed-as-

2017-word-of-the-year-by-cambridge-university-press

Panizza, F. (Ed.). (2005). Populism and the mirror of democracy. London, UK: Verso.

Rice-Oxley, M., & Kalia, A. (2018, December 3). How to spot a populist. The Guardian.

Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/03/what-is-populism-trump-

farage-orban-bolsonaro

Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2016). The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican

conservatism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Taggart, P. (2000). Populism. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disﬁgured: Opinion, truth, and the people. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

14 Amit Ron and Majia Nadesan

Notes

Chapter 4

1“The popular”as is common in cultural studies, is distinct from a blunt noun like “the

people.”It refers to the terrain of struggle over the people, more like becoming-people.

The word creates a parallel with “public”and “mob,”each of which can be both noun

and adjective.

Chapter 7

1“The Illinois Black Panthers’leader talks about his aims,”box 301, folder RS

Hampton, Fred, 1966–1969, item Chicago Sun Times, May 25, 1969, Red Squad

papers.

2“Genocide,”box 280, folder Black Panther Party—Special Supplement II Ca.

1968–1969, item 1–7, Red Squad papers.

3 Fred 1969a; Fred 1969b; Fred 1969c; Fred 1969d; Fred 1969e.

4“Interview Report,”box 229, folder 1125-C, item 49, Red Squad papers. The Red

Squad also names John Henry Altofer, who ran for governor, as a person that the

BPP turned to for funds in an emergency.

5 I decided to keep Hampton’s quote here, even though, as a white man I realize it

changes the context when the words appear in my paper. I wanted to avoid censoring

Hampton’s words as he has been censored too much already in the historical record.

Chapter 8

1 For his part, Laclau embraces this logic of identiﬁcation, writing, “An assemblage of

heterogeneous elements kept equivalentially together only by a name is, however,

necessarily a singularity…almost imperceptibly, the equivalential logic leads to sin-

gularity, and singularity to identiﬁcation of the unity of the group with the name of

the leader. To some extent, we are in a situation comparable to that of Hobbes’s sov-

ereign”(2007, p. 100).

2 I distinguish these terms to recognize “inclusion”can itself be oppressive, as when

indigenous people are given no choice but to be “included”in a settler colonial society

(see Singh, 2018).

3 For example, Chantal Mouffe proposes to create a shared peoplehood through “confront-

ing a common adversary: the oligarchy.”See Mouffe (2018, p. 24).

Chapter 13

1 I use replication data from Becker et al. (2017). Local authority budget data were

compiled by the Financial Times. Immigration and employment data come from the

Annual Public Survey available from the Ofﬁce of National Statistics. Alternate

models included percent change in migrants from non-E.U. countries and combined

immigration, with no substantive changes to results. The ﬁrst model includes

respondents from England, Scotland, and Wales (n = 20,492). The second model

only includes respondents from England (n = 12,922), because UKIP is predominantly

active in that country. All models include BES survey weights.

2 The change in state spending on public higher education comes from the University

of Illinois’Grapevine database. Foreign-born population by state comes from the

Migration Policy Institute’s (MPI) tabulation of data from the 2010 and 2016 American

Community Surveys and 1990 and 2000 Censuses.

Chapter 20

1 Lev Tikhomirov, one of the leaders of Zemlya i Volya, in his memoirs quoted in

Pipes (1964, p. 445).

2 Despite its anti-plebeian origin.

3 Rousseau reduces the dictator’s limits to the inability to make laws. Social Contract,

IV.6.

4 Between 2009 and 2012, the top 1% of U.S. households captured 95% of total income

gains, while the bottom 90% saw income fall by 16% (Saez & Piketty, 2003/2016).

5 Akin to Lincoln’s 11-week constitutional dictatorship analyzed in Rossiter (1948).

6 According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, the majority of representative govern-

ments suffer from a “systemic grand corruption [that] violates human rights, prevents

sustainable development and fuels social exclusion”(Corruption Perceptions Report,

2016).

Chapter 23

1 Communication studies can also beneﬁt from such quantiﬁcation to determine levels

of expressed populism. Tabloid media is found to be no more populist than elite

media and letters to the editor of newspapers appear to be more populist than other

editorials.

2 U.S. Presidential challengers are also shown to use more populist language before

toning down their message closer to the general election and potential incumbency

(Bonikowski and Gidron, 2016b).

References

Castells,M.(2019).Rupture: The crisis of liberal democracy.R.Marteau(Trans.).

Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York, NY: Alfred

A. Knopf.

Hofstadter, R. (1964). The paranoid style in American politics: And other essays.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jacobs, R. N., & Townsley, E. (2018). Media meta-commentary and the performance of

expertise. European Journal of Social Theory,21(3), 340–356.

Jäger, A. (2017). The semantic drift: Images of populism in post-war American historiog-

raphy and their relevance for (European) political science. Constellations,24,310–323.

Jones, P. K. (2018). Insights from the infamous: Recovering the social-theoretical ﬁrst

phase of populism studies. European Journal of Social Theory,22(4), 458–476.

doi:10.1177/1368431018772507

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York, NY: Crown.

Lippmann, W. (1965). Public opinion. New York, NY: Free Press.

Locke, J. (1689/1980). Second treatise of government. C. B. Macpherson (Ed.). Indian-

apolis, IN: Hackett.

Machiavelli, N. (1532/1988). The prince. Q. Skinner & R. Price (Eds.). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representa-

tion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. London, UK: Verso.

Mudde, C. (2018, November 22). How populism became the concept that deﬁnes our age.

The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/

populism-concept-deﬁnes-our-age

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Nichols, W. (2017). “Populism”revealed as 2017 word of the year by Cambridge University

Press (2017, November 30). Retrieved from www.cam.ac.uk/news/populism-revealed-as-

2017-word-of-the-year-by-cambridge-university-press

Panizza, F. (Ed.). (2005). Populism and the mirror of democracy. London, UK: Verso.

Rice-Oxley, M., & Kalia, A. (2018, December 3). How to spot a populist. The Guardian.

Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/03/what-is-populism-trump-

farage-orban-bolsonaro

Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2016). The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican

conservatism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Taggart, P. (2000). Populism. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disﬁgured: Opinion, truth, and the people. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Arditi, B. (2003). Populism, or, politics at the edges of democracy. Contemporary Politics,

9(1), 17–31.

Carroll, L. (1872/1934). Through the looking-glass. London: Macmillan and Co.

Dzur, A. W. (2012). Punishment, participatory democracy, & the jury. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition,39(3), 541–563.

Mudde, C. (2018, November 22). How populism became the concept that deﬁnes our age.

The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/

populism-concept-deﬁnes-our-age

Nietzsche, F. (1887/1967). On the genealogy of morals [and] Ecce Homo. W. Kaufman &

R. J. Hollingdale (Trans.), W. Kaufmann (Ed.). New York, NY: Vintage.

Van Krieken, R. (2019). Menno ter Braak on democracy, populism and fascism: Ressentiment

and its vicissitudes. Theory, Culture & Society,36(3), 87–103.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York,

NY: Zone Books.

Brubaker, R. (2017). Why populism? Theory and Society,46(5), 357–385.

Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political

Studies,47(1), 2–16.

Dzur, A. W. (2012). Punishment, participatory democracy, & the jury. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Goodwyn, L. (1978). The populist moment: A short history of the agrarian revolt in

America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Grattan, L. (2016). Populism’s power: Radical grassroots democracy in America. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, L. C., & Saito, K. (2015). A four-party view of US environmental concern.

Environmental Politics,24(2), 212–227.

Hofstadter,R. (1955). The age of reform. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Hofstadter, R. (1967). The paranoid style in American politics and other essays. New

York, NY: Vintage Books.

Jäger, A. (2018). The myth of ‘populism’.Jacobin. Retrieved from www.jacobinmag.

com/2018/01/populism-douglas-hofstadter-donald-trump-democracy

Jansen, R. S. (2011). Populist mobilization: A new theoretical approach to populism.

Sociological Theory,29(2), 75–96.

Judis, J. B. (2016). The populist explosion: How the great recession transformed American

and European politics. New York, NY: Columbia Global Reports.

Kaltwasser, C. R., Taggart, P., Ochoa Espejo, P., & Ostiguy, P. (2017). Populism: An over-

view of the concept and the state of the art. In C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P. Ochoa

Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 1–24). New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Lowndes, J. (2017). Populism in the United States. In C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P.

Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 232–247).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Müller, J. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ochoa Espejo, P. (2017). Populism and the people. Theory & Event,20(1), 92–99.

Panizza, F. (2005). Introduction. In F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the mirror of democracy

(pp. 1–31). New York, NY: Verso Books.

Pierson, P. (2017). American hybrid: Donald Trump and the strange merger of populism

and plutocracy. The British Journal of Sociology,68(S1), S105–S119.

Postel, C. (2007). The populist vision. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rummens, S. (2017). Populism as a threat to liberal democracy. In C. R. Kaltwasser, P.

Taggart, P. Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp.

554–570). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Urbinati, N. (2017). Populism and the principle of majority. In C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Tag-

gart, P. Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp.

571–589). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wenman, M. A. (2003). What is politics? The approach of radical pluralism. Politics,23(1),

57–65.

Cooley, C. ([1909] 1962). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York,

NY: Schocken Books.

Durkheim, E. ([1895] 1966). The rules of sociological method. New York, NY: The Free

Press.

Durkheim, E. ([1912] 1995). The elementary forms of religious life. New York, NY: The

Free Press.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressure in informal groups: A

study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fine,G.(2012).Tiny publics: A theory of group action and culture.NewYork,NY:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Garrido, M. (2017). Why the poor support populism: The politics of sincerity in Metro

Manila. American Journal of Sociology,123(3), 1–39.

Mauss, M. ([1902] 1972). A general theory of magic. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.

Albertazzi, D., & McDonnell, D. (2015). Populists in power.London, UK: Routledge.

Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence,

KS: University Press of Kansas.

Barkun, M. (2003). A culture of conspiracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Blumenthal, M. (2017, November 8). Meet Clint Watts, a dubious Russia meddling

“expert”lobbying the U.S. government to “quell information rebellions”.AlterNet.

Retrieved from www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/clint-watts-fake-russia-expert.

Bowden, J. (2018, July 14). DHS secretary: No sign Russia targeting midterm elections at

2016 level. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/

397049-dhs-secretary-no-sign-russia-targeting-midterm-elections-at-levels.

Bratich, J. (2008). Conspiracy panics: Political rationality and popular culture. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Bratich, J. (2011). Pox populi: Network populism, network sovereigns, & experiments in

people-powers. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies,11(4), 341–345.

Bratich, J. (2015). Transnational ﬂashpublics: Social media and affective contagions from

Egypt to occupy Wall Street. In M. Vujnovic & V. Mele (Eds.), Globalizing cultures:

Theories, paradigms, actions (pp. 174–195). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Butsch, R. (2008). The citizen audience. New York, NY: Routledge.

Collins, B. (2018, January 1). Facebook pushes ‘false ﬂag’Amtrak conspiracies in trending

section. Daily Beast. Retrieved from www.thedailybeast.com/facebook-pushes-false-ﬂag-

amtrak-conspiracies-in-trending-section.

Creel, G. (1920). How we advertised America. New York, NY and London, UK: Harper

& Brothers.

De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. S. Rendall (Trans.). Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Deseriis, M. (2017). Technopopulism: The emergence of a discursive formation. TripleC,

15(2), 441–458.

Ebner, J. (2019, February 18). Stop the online conspiracy theorists before they break

democracy. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/

feb/18/online-conspiracytheorists-democracy.

Etymology. (2019). Cybernetics. Retrieved from www.etymonline.com/word/cybernetics?

ref=etymonline_crossreference.

Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A social history of spin. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Foucault, M. (1988). The concern for truth. In L. D. Kritzman (Ed.), Politics, philosophy,

culture (pp. 255–267). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gerbaudo, P. (2017). From cyber-autonomism to cyber-populism: An ideological history

of digital activism. TripleC,15(2), 478–491.

Greenwald, G. (2018, February 19). A consensus emerges: Russia committed an “act of

war”on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The Intercept. Retrieved from https://theinter

cept.com/2018/02/19/a-consensus-emerges-russia-committed-an-act-of-war-on-par-

with-pearl-harbor-and-911-should-the-u-s-response-be-similar/.

Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of post-truth, post-politics, and attention economies. Communi-

cation, Culture & Critique,8(2), 327–333. doi:10.1111/cccr.12097.

Hebdige, D. (1988). Hiding in the light: On images and things. London, UK and New

York, NY: Routledge.

Hedges, C. (2017, November 12). RT America torched in Witch Hunt ’17. Truthdig.

Retrieved from www.truthdig.com/articles/rt-america-torched-witch-hunt-17/.

Hofstadter, R. (1964). The paranoid style in American politics and other essays.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Johnstone, C. (2017, November 17). I’ve been banned from Facebook for sharing an art-

icle about false ﬂags. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/

ive-been-banned-from-facebook-for-sharing-an-article-about-false-ﬂags-678c24358fde.

Kazin, M. (2016, March 22). How can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both be “popu-

list”?New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/maga

zine/how-can-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-be-populist.html.

Kelly, M. (1995, June 19). The road to paranoia. The New Yorker. Retrieved from www.

newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/19/the-road-to-paranoia.

Lindorff, D. (2017, November 6). The attack on “fake news”is really an attack on alter-

native media. Salon. Retrieved from www.salon.com/2017/11/06/the-attack-on-fake-

news-is-really-an-attack-on-alternative-media/.

Lipset, Seymour M., & Raab, Earl. (1970). The politics of unreason: right-wing extrem-

ism in America, 1790–1970. New York: Harper.

Martin, A. (2018, January 23). Facebook: Russia used us as ‘information weapon’for US

election. Retrieved from https://news.sky.com/story/facebook-russia-used-us-as-infor

mation-weapon-for-us-election-11219181.

Martineau, P. (2018, February 28). Youtube is taking down conspiracy theorist channels

and popular gun videos. The Outline. Retrieved from https://theoutline.com/post/3550/

youtube-bans-conspiracy-theorist-channels-takes-down-popular-gun-videos.

Mezzoﬁore, G. (2017, November 6). Google algorithm surfaces Twitter conspiracy theories

about Texas gunman. Mashable. Retrieved from https://mashable.com/2017/11/06/

google-algorithm-texas-church-shooting-conspiracy-theories/?europe=true.

Overstreet, H., & Overstreet, B. (1964). The Strange Tactics of Extremism. New York:

WW Norton.

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Persio, S. (2017, October 15). Clinton compares Russian interference in election to 9/11.

Newsweek. Retrieved from www.newsweek.com/clinton-compares-russian-interfer

ence-election-911-685474.

Roose, K. (2017, November 8). YouTube’s rapid response partisans game the news of tra-

gedy. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/busi

ness/youtube-rapid-response-partisans.html.

Schlesinger, A. (1962). The vital center: Our purposes and perils on the tightrope of

American liberalism. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.

Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Shirazi, N., & Johnson, A. (2018). Episode 42: “Populism”—The media’s favorite catch-all

smear for the left. Citations Needed (podcast). Retrieved from https://citationsneeded.

libsyn.com/episode-42-populism-the-medias-favorite-catch-all-smear-for-the-left.

Sullivan, M. (2017, October 4). When Facebook and Google are ‘weaponized,’the victim

is reality. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/

when-facebook-and-google-are-weaponized-the-victim-is-reality/2017/10/04.

Terranova, T. (2007). Futurepublic: On information warfare, bio-racism and hegemony as

noopolitics. Theory, Culture & Society,24(3), 125–145.

Tveten, J. (2017, October 11). How the “fake news”scare is marginalizing the left. In

These Times. Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/article/20596/fake-news-left-face

book-twitter-tech-companies.

Von Drehle, D. (2018, February 18). The disinformation factory threatening national

security. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-disin

formation-factory-threatening-national-security/2018/02/16/e7dcdaa0-134f-11e8-

9065e55346f6de81_story.html?utm_term=.793af66b1337.

Warner, M. (1990). The letters of the republic: Publication and the public sphere in eight-

eenth-century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wikipedia. (2019). Demagogue. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue.

Achen, C., & Bartels, L. (2016). Democracy for realists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian

personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Connolly, W. (2005). Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Curato, N. (2016). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte’s rise

to power. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs,35(3), 91–109. doi:10.1177/

186810341603500305

Esposito, R., & Campbell, T. (2006). The immunization paradigm. Diacritics,36(2),

23–48.

Galston, A. (2018). Anti-pluralism: The populist threat to liberal democracy. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Grassegger, H., & Krogerus, M. (2017, January 28). The data that turned the world upside

down. Motherboard. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/

mg9vvn/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

Guadagno, R., Rempala, D., Murphy, S., & Okdie, B. (2013). What makes a video go

viral? An analysis of emotional contagion and internet memes. Computers in Human

Behavior,29(6), 2312–2319.

Gunnell, J. (1996). The genealogy of American pluralism: From Madison to

behavioralism. International Political Science Review,17(3), 253–265.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York, NY: Alfred

A. Knopf.

Hofstadter, R. (1964). The paranoid style in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Honig, B. (1995). Towards an agonistic feminism: Hannah Arendt and the politics of

identity. In J. Butler & J. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 215–235).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York, NY: Crown.

Miller, R. (2009). The populist vision: A roundtable discussion. Kansas History: A Jour-

nal of the Central Plains,32,18–45.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2017). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representa-

tion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2014). Agonistic democracy and radical politics. Pavilion Magazine.

Retrieved from http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-

radical-politics/

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. London, UK: Verso.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Myers, E. (2010). From pluralism to liberalism: Rereading Isaiah Berlin. The Review of

Politics,72(4), 599–625.

Ribeiro, M., Calais, P., Almeida, V., & Meira, W. (2017). “Everything I disagree with is

#fakenews”: Correlating political polarization and spread of misinformation. Proceedings

of Data Science + Journalism,17,1–8. doi:10.475/123 4

Runciman, D. (2018). How democracy ends. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Albertazzi, D., & MacDonnell, D. (2008). Introduction. In D. Albertazzi & D. MacDonnell

(Eds.), Twenty-ﬁrst century populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy (p.

3). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Alinsky, S. (1946). Reveille for radicals. New York, NY: Random House.

Boyte, H. (1981). Populism and the left. Democracy,1(2), 53–66.

Boyte, H. (1989). CommonWealth: A return to citizen politics. New York, NY: Free Press.

Boyte, H. (1998). Off the playground of civil society: Freeing democracy’s powers for the

21st century. Durham, NC: Duke University. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uno

maha.edu/slceciviceng/20

Boyte, H. (2004). Everyday politics: Reconnecting citizens and public life. Philadelphia,

PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Boyte, H. (2008). The citizen solution: How you can make a difference. St. Paul, MN:

Minnesota Historical Society. Retrieved from www.crmvet.org/nars/boyte08.htm

Boyte, H. (2011). Constructive politics as public work: Organizing the literature. Political

Theory,39(5), 630–660.

Boyte, H. (2012). Populism—Bringing culture back in. The Good Society,21(2), 300–319.

Boyte, H. (2015). Civic populism: The people’s politics of Geno Baroni. Solutions, 6(1),

11–16.

Boyte, H. (2017). John Dewey and citizen politics: How democracy can survive artiﬁcial

intelligence and the credo of efﬁciency. Published version of 2017 John Dewey Lecture,

San Antonio, TX. Education and Culture,33(2), 13–47.

Boyte, H. (2018). Awakening democracy through public work: Pedagogies of empowerment.

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Boyte, H., & Finders, M. (2016). “A liberation of powers”: Agency and education for

democracy. Educational Theory,66(1–2), 127–145.

Boyte, H., Levin, Y., Kemp, J., & Woodson, R. (2012). Civil society and the future of

conservatism. Washington, DC: Bradley Forum. Hudson Institute. Retrieved from

www.hudson.org/content/researchattachments/attachment/1087/11-27_civil_society_

transcript.pdf

Boyte, H. (2019). “The shutdown taught us about the dignity of work.”The Nation, January

29, 2019.

Bretherton, L. (2012a). Community organizing: Empowering the citizens? Lecture at

Lyon University, Lyon, France. Text in author’s possession.

Bretherton, L. (2012b). The political populism of Saul Alinsky and broad-based

organizing. The Good Society,21(2), 261–278.

Bretherton, L. (2015). Resurrecting democracy: Faith, citizenship and the politics of a

common life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cherron, K. (2009). Freedom’s teacher: The life of Septima Clark.ChapelHill,NC:

University of North Carolina Press.

Cocke, D. (2016). Three days after the election. Roadside Theater. Retrieved from https://

roadside.org/news/three-days-after-election

Crick, B. (1962). In defense of politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dzur, A. (2018). Democracy inside: Participatory innovation in unlikely places. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Dzur, A., & Boyte, H. (2019). Professionalism, democracy and civic education: A conver-

sation with Harry Boyte. National Civic Review. Retrieved from www.nationalciviclea

gue.org/ncr-article/professionalism-democracy-and-civic-education-a-conversation-

with-harry-boyte/

Evans, S., & Boyte, H. (1992). Free spaces: The sources of democratic change in America

(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ferleger, L., & Lavallee, M. (2018). How black businesses helped save the civil rights

movement. Institute for New Economic Thinking. Retrieved from www.ineteconomics.

org/perspectives/blog/how-black-businesses-helped-save-the-civil-rights-movement

Foner, E. (1984). Why is there no socialism in the United States? History Workshop,17,63.

Fraser, S. (1990). The “labor question”. In S. Fraser & G. Gerstle (Eds.), The rise and fall

of the New Deal order, 1930–1980. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gecan, M. (2004). Going public: An organizer’s guide to citizen action. New York, NY:

Anchor Books.

Gerstle, G. (2002). Working-class Americanism: The politics of labor in a textile city,

1914–1960. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Grattan, L. (2014). Populism. In The encyclopedia of political thought. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?

AllField=Laura+Grattan+Populism&ContentGroupKey=10.1002%2F9781118474396

Johnson, C. (2019). Who’s afraid of left-wing populism? Anti-policing struggles and the

frontiers of the American left. New Politics,XVII(2). Retrieved from https://newpol.

org/issue_post/whos-afraid-of-left-populism/

Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslo Taylor and the gospel of efﬁciency.

New York: Viking Press.

Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., & Sullivan, F. (2017). Sixty percent of rural millennials lack

access to a political life. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/

study-60-percent-of-rural-millennials-lack-access-to-a-political-life-74513

Kloppenberg, J. (1998). The virtues of liberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York, NY: Random House.

Lipset, S. (1960). Political man: The social bases of politics. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Lipset, S., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national

perspectives. New York, NY: Free Press.

Mantena, K. (2012). Another realism: The politics of Gandhian nonviolence. American

Political Science Review,106(2), 455–470.

May, L. (2000). The big tomorrow: Hollywood and the politics of the America way.

Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Ocasio-Cortes, A. (2019). House Resolution recognizing the duty of the federal government

to create a Green New Deal. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/

house-resolution/109/text. Accessed online July 23, 2019.

Payne, C. (1995). I’ve got the light of freedom: The organizing tradition and the Mississippi

freedom struggle. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Roberts, D. (2019). Green New Deal explained. Vox. Retrieved from www.vox.com/

energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Rodgers, D. (2000). Atlantic crossings: Social politics in a progressive age. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Sirianni, C. (2020, forthcoming). Sustainable cities in American democracy. Kansas Uni-

versity Press. Manuscript in author’spossession.

Taylor, G. (2012). Prometheus unbound: Populism, the property question, and social

invention. The Good Society,21(2), 261–278.

Wills, J. (2017). The geo-constitution: Understanding the intersection of geography and

political institutions. Progress in Human Geography,43(3), 416–435.

Bloom, J., & Martin, W. (2016). The history and politics of the Black Panther Party. Oakland,

CA: University of California Press.

Brubaker, R. (2017). Why populism? Published online in Theory and Society, October 26,

2017, 1–51. doi:10.1007/s11186-017-9301-7

Christmas, F. (1969, August 23). Panther Chief Fred Hampton tells party’s goals. Chicago

Defender. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Churchill, W., & Vander Wall, J. (2002). Agents of repression: The FBI’s secret wars against

the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Cambridge, MA: South End

Press.

Fanon, F. (1952/2008). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Fesperman, W. (1969, July 26). Young patriots at UFAF conference. The Black Panther,

p. 8. Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Flood, D. (2014). A Black Panther in the Great White North: Fred Hampton visits

Saskatchewan, 1969. Journal for the Study of Radicalism,8(2), 21–49.

Four days of rage: The power play that failed. (1969, November 23). Chicago Tribune.

ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Fred. (1969a, June 28). Fascist terror used on 12-year-olds. The Black Panther,p.9.

Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Fred. (1969b, June 28). Pig gets jail sentence for beating citizen. The Black Panther,p.9.

Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Fred. (1969c, June 28). Pigs blind black youth. The Black Panther, p. 9. Retrieved from

Black Thought and Culture.

Fred. (1969d, August 2). Youths subject to pig violence. The Black Panther, p. 19.

Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Fred. (1969e, September 20). National Guard bias report gag. The Black Panther, p. 10.

Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Free food for the people: Young patriots. (1969, October 25). The Black Panther.

Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Genocide. (1968–1969). Box 280, folder Black Panther Party—Special Supplement II

Ca., item 1-7, Red Squad papers.

Hampton, F. (1995). Fred Hampton Speaks. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), 1995. The Black Panthers

speak (pp. 137–144). New York, NY: Da Capo Press.

Heynen, N. (2009). Bending the bars of empire from every ghetto for survival: The

Black Panther Party’s radical antihunger politics of social reproduction and scale.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers,99(2), 406–422.

Interview Report. Box 229, folder 1125-C, item 49, Red Squad papers.

Interview with Cha Cha Jimenez chairman—Young Lords organization. (1969, June 7).

The Black Panther, p. 12. Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

It’stimetoﬁght back. (1966–1969). Box 301, folder RS Hampton, Fred, Item 24-1, Red

Squad papers.

Jimenez, C. (1969, August 2). We’re ﬁghting for freedom together. There’sno other way.

The Black Panther, p. 9. Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Lazú, J. (2013). The Chicago Young Lords: (Re)constructing knowledge and revolution.

Centro Journal,25(2), 28–59.

Marable, M. (1985). Black Power in Chicago: An historical overview of class stratiﬁcation

and electoral politics in a black urban community. Review of Radical Political Economics,

17(3), 157–182.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Ogbar, J. (2005). Black Power: Radical politics and African American identity. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Our enemy’s friends are also our enemies. Bobby Seale & David Hillard, interview with

The Barb 8/4/69. (1969, August 9). The Black Panther, p. 12. Retrieved from Black

Thought and Culture.

Patriots and Panthers stand united against fascism. (1969, July 26). The Black Panther,p.

11. Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Randy. (1969, December 19). Fred Hampton murdered by fascist pigs. The Black Panther,

p. 2. Retrieved from Black Thought and Culture.

Reports: Information regarding the United Front against Fascism conference, held in Oak-

land CA from 18–20 July 1969, sponsored by the Black Panther Party. Box 229, folder

1125-D, Item 1, Red Squad papers.

Rules of the Black Panther Party. Box 229, folder 1125A, Item 79-3, Red Squad papers.

Shulman, G. (2008). American prophecy: Race and redemption in American political

culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Smith, R. (2003). Stories of peoplehood: The politics and morals of political membership.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sonnie, A., & Tracy, J. (2011). Hillybilly nationalists, urban race rebels, and Black

Power. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publishing.

The duty of the people. (1969–1969). Box 280, folder RS Black Panther Party—Special

Supplement II, ca., item I-19 Red Squad papers.

Williams, J. (2013). From the bullet to the ballot: The Illinois chapter of the Black

Panther Party and racial coalition politics in Chicago. Chapel Hill, NC: University

of North Carolina Press.

Adorno, T. (1997). Aesthetic theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bump, P. (2017). Places that backed Trump skewed poor; voters who backed Trump

skewed wealthier. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/

news/politics/wp/2017/12/29/places-that-backed-trump-skewed-poor-voters-who-

backed-trump-skewed-wealthier/

Cavell, S. (1986). The uncanniness of the ordinary. In Tanner lectures on human values

(pp. 83–117). Retrieved from https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/c/

cavell88.pdf

Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life.S.Rendall(Trans.).Berkeley,CA:

University of California Press.

Connolly, W. (2017). Aspirational fascism: The struggle for multifaceted democracy

under Trumpism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cryle, P., & Stephens, E. (2017). Normality: A critical genealogy. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.

Dumm, T. (1999). A politics of the ordinary. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Espejo, P. O. (2017). Populism and the people. Theory & Event,20(1), 92–99.

Freud, S. (2003). The uncanny. D. McClintock (Trans.). A. Phillips (Ed.). New York, NY:

Penguin.

Garza, A. (2014). A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. The Feminist Wire.

Retrieved from www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

Hall, S. (1996). Race, articulation, and societies structured in dominance. In H. A. Baker,

M. Diawara, & R. Lindeborg (Eds.), Black British cultural studies: A reader (pp. 16–60).

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kazin, M. (1998). The populist persuasion (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Laclau, E. (2007). On populist reason. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Lanker, B. (1999). I dream a world: Portraits of black women who changed America.

New York, NY: Stewart, Tabori & Chang.

Lowndes, J. (2019). Populism and race in the United States from George Wallace to

Donald Trump. In C. de la Torre (Ed.), Routledge handbook of global populism (pp.

190–200). New York, NY: Routledge.

McKean, B. (2016). Toward an inclusive populism? On the role of race and difference in

Laclau’s politics. Political Theory,44(6), 797–820.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism performance, political style, and represen-

tation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Mudde, C. (2009). Populist radical right parties in Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Müller, J. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mutz, D. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential

vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,115 (19), E4330–E4339.

Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Singh, J. (2018). Decolonizing radical democracy. Contemporary Political Theory

OnlineFirst, 1–26. doi:10.1057/s41296-018-0277-5.

Stern, M. (2018). Steve Bannon, in his $1,400 hotel suite, rails against the ‘elite.’The

Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/bannon-in-his-dollar1400-

suite-rails-against-the-elite

Streeck, W. (2017). The return of the repressed. New Left Review,104,5–18.

Urbinati, N. (2013). The populist phenomenon. Raisons Politque,51(3), 137–154.

Wilstein, M. (2017). Bernie Sanders warns Democrats not to hang their hopes on Robert

Mueller. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-

warns-democrats-not-to-hang-their-hopes-on-robert-mueller

Brubaker, R. (2017). Why populism? Theory and Society,46(5), 357–385.

Connoly, W. (2017). Aspirational fascism: The struggle for multifaceted democracy

under Trumpism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Demertzis, N. (2006). Emotions and populism. In S. Clarke, P. Hoggett, & S. Thompson

(Eds.), Emotion, politics and society (pp. 103–122). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dolgert, S. (2016a, August 12). For ressentiment: An alternative to Trumpism. Public Sem-

inar. Retrieved from www.publicseminar.org/2016/08/for-ressentiment-an-alternative-to-

trumpism/

Dolgert, S. (2016b). The praise of ressentiment: Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love

Donald Trump. New Political Science,38(3), 354–370. doi:10.1080/07393148.2016.11

89030.

Frank, T. (2016). Listen liberal: Or, what ever happened to the party of the people? New

York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso.

Lipsett, S. (1955). The radical right: A problem for American democracy. The British

Journal of Sociology,6(2), 176–209.

Mofﬁt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and represen-

tation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2018). Studying populism in comparative perspective:

Reﬂections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative Political

Studies,51(13), 1667–1693.

Olson, J., Herman, C., & Zanna, M. (Eds.). (1986). Relative deprivation and social com-

parison: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 4). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International

Business Policy,1(1), 12–33.

Salmela, M., & von Scheve, C. (2017). Emotional roots of right-wing political populism.

Social Science Information,56(4), 567–595.

Stavrakakis, Y. (2014). The return of “the people”: Populism and anti-populism in the

shadow of the European crisis. Constellations,21, 505–517.

van Krieken, R. (2019). Menno ter Braak on democracy, populism and fascism: Ressentiment

and its vicissitudes. Theory, Culture & Society,36(3), 87–103.

Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. (2016). The China shock: Learning from labor market

adjustment to large changes in trade. Annual Review of Economics,8, 205–240.

Bergesen, A., & Suter, C. (2018a). Globalization/geopolitics cycles. In A. Bergesen & C.

Suter (Eds.), The return of geopolitics. Berlin and Zürich, Germany: LIT Verlag.

Blaylock, H. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons.

Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Paciﬁc Sociological

Review,1(1), 3–7.

Clark, R., & Cason, T. (2015). Getting on good terms: Examining cross-national variation

in the terms of trade, 1990–2012. Sociology of Development,1(3), 374–399.

Frank, A. (1966). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review,18(4), 17–31.

Hakobyan, S., & McLaren, J. (2016). Looking for local labor market effects of NAFTA.

Review of Economics and Statistics,98(4), 728–741.

Hicks, M., & Devaraj, S. (2015, 2017). Myth and reality of manufacturing in America.

Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research.

Rodney, W., Babu, A., & Harding, V. (1981). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washing-

ton, DC: Howard University Press.

Rodrik, D. (2017). Straight talk on trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rodrik, D. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International

Business Policy. doi:10.1057/s42214-018-0001-4

Rodrik, D. (2019). Globalization’s wrong turn: And how it hurt America. Foreign Affairs,

98(4), 26–33.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of

the European world-economy in the 16th century. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Wimmer, A., Cederman, L., & Min, B. (2009). Ethnic politics and armed conﬂict. A conﬁg-

urational analysis of a new global dataset. American Sociological Review,74(2),

316–337.

Auerbach, J. (1966). Labor and liberty: The LaFollette Committee and the New Deal.

Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company.

Beam, J. (1963). The public career of Arsene P. Pujo, Louisiana Congressman,

1903–1913 (Unpublished master’s thesis). McNeese State University, Lake

Charles, LA. Retrieved from http://ereserves.mcneese.edu/depts/archive/FTBooks/

beam.htm

Beck-Young, N. (2000). Wright Patman: Populism, liberalism & the American Dream.

Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.

Brandeis, L. (1914). Other people’s money and how bankers use it.NewYork,NY:Frederick

A. Stokes.

Bruner, R., & Carr, S. (2009). The Panic of 1907: Lessons learned from the market’s

perfect storm.NewYork,NY:Wiley.

Champagne, A., Harris, D., Riddlesperger, J., & Nelson, G. (2009). The Austin-Boston con-

nection: Five decades of House Democratic leadership, 1937–1989. College Station,

TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Chernow, R. (2010). The house of Morgan: An American banking dynasty and the rise of

modern ﬁnance. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Collins, R. (1996). The economic crisis of 1968 and the waning of the “American Century.”

American Historical Review,101(2), 396–422.

Collins, R. (2000). More: The politics of economic growth in postwar America. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Cox, C. (1981). Monopoly explanations of the great depression and public policies

toward business. In The great depression revisited (pp. 174–207). Boston, MA:

Springer, Dordre.

Davis, B. (1971). The fear of conspiracy: Images of un-American subversion from the

revolution to the present. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.

Delton, J. (2013). Rethinking the 1950s: How anticommunism and the Cold War made

America liberal. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Democrats in disguise. (1873, August 14). New York Times,p.5.

Freyer, T. (1992). Regulating big business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America,

1880–1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Giglio, J. (2006). The Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Lawrence, KS: Kansas University

Press.

Hawley, E. (1966). The New Deal and the problem of monopoly: A study in economic

ambivalence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kazin, M. (1995). The populist persuasion: An American history. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Kazin, M. (2006). A godly hero: The life of William Jennings Bryan. New York, NY: Knopf.

Levine, B. (2011). Get up, stand up: Uniting populists, energizing the defeated, and battling

the corporate elite. Chelsea, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Livingston, J. (1989). Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, class, and corporate

capitalism, 1890–1913. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.

McMath, R. (1993). American populism: A social history, 1877–1898. New York, NY:

Hill & Wang.

Müller,J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Political affairs: An anti-monopoly convention in Iowa. (1874, June 25). New York Times,

p. 1.

Sheldon, R. (2011). The Pujo Committee on the “Money Trust,”1912–1913. In Congress

investigates: A critical and documentary history, 287-350, New York: Chelsea House.

Truitt, W. (2006). The corporation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Wolraich, M. (2014). Unreasonable men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican rebels

who created progressive politics. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Bobrow-Strain, A. (2012). White bread: A social history of the store-bought loaf. New

York, NY: Beacon Press.

Broadway, M., & Stull, D. (2004). Slaughterhouse blues: The meat and poultry industry

in North America. New York, NY: Cengage Press.

Cowden, T. (1970). [Rural development-annual report 1969–1970] United States Department

of Agriculture, University of Arkansas Special Collections, (Box 6, Folder: “Rural Devel-

opment”), Fayetteville, AR.

Crawford, T., & Wray, M. (2017 January 24). Trump syllabus 3.0. Retrieved from www.

publicbooks.org/trump-syllabus-3-0/

Everts, F. (1986). Oral history collection, Shiloh Museum of the Ozarks. Springdale, AR:

Shiloh Collection.

Grifﬁth, D., & Kissam, E. (1995). Working poor: Farmworkers in the United States.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Henderson, T. (2011). Beyond borders: A history of Mexican migration to the United

States. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform. New York, NY: Knopf Publishing.

Joint Committee on the Economic Report. (1960). Impact of federal policies on the South.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Kabat, P. (1985). The farmer in the cell. The Progressive,49(3), 50.

Kandel, W., & Parrado, E. (2004). Industrial transformation and Hispanics in the American

South: The case of the poultry industry. In D. Arreola (Ed.), Hispanic spaces, Latino

places: A geography of regional and cultural diversity (pp. 255–277). Austin, TX:

University of Texas.

Kirby, J. (1986). Rural worlds lost: The American South, 1920–1960. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University Press.

Local Union 304. (1970). [Civil rights questionnaire] Records of the amalgamated meat

cutters and butcher workmen of North America (Folder 27, Box 41). Madison, WI:

Wisconsin Historical Society.

Local Union 304. (1972). [Civil rights questionnaire] Records of the amalgamated meat

cutters and butcher workmen of North America (Folder 27, Box 41). Madison, WI:

Wisconsin Historical Society.

Local Union 475. (1974). [Civil rights questionnaire] Records of the amalgamated meat

cutters and butcher workmen of North America (Folder 27, Box 41). Madison, WI:

Wisconsin Historical Society.

Local Union 5. (1968). [Civil rights questionnaire] Records of the amalgamated meat cutters

and butcher workmen of North America (Folder 27, Box 41). Madison, WI: Wisconsin

Historical Society.

MacGillis, A. (2016). The original underclass. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/

magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

McCune, W. (1956). Who’s behind our farm policy? New York, NY: Praeger.

Neth, M. (1995). Preserving the family farm: Women, community, and the foundations of

agribusiness in the Midwest, 1900–1940. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Patashnik, E. (2008). Reforms at risk: What happens after major policy changes are

enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Production and Marketing Administration. (1951). [The Fifth Plate] Charles F. Brannon

Papers, (Box, 43, Folder, “PMA-General 1952”). Independence, MO: Harry S.

Truman Presidential Library.

Stetchel’s Hatchery. (1959). [How is a hatchery contract now being used in the Arkansas

River Valley?] Records of the amalgamated meat cutters and butcher workmen of

North America (Box 80, Folder, “Stetchel’s Hatchery, 1958–1959”). Madison, WI:

Wisconsin Historical Society.

Stockman, D. (1986). The triumph of politics: How the Reagan revolution failed. New

York, NY: Harper and Row.

Strifﬂer, S. (2005). Chicken: The dangerous transformation of America’s favorite food.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sugrue, T. (2005). The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar Detroit.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sullivan, J. (2018). America’s farmers are in crisis and they’re looking to Trump for

relief. The New Yorker. Retrieved from www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/amer

icas-farmers-are-in-crisis-and-theyre-looking-to-trump-for-relief

Supermarket Merchandising (1960). A Decade of Growth. Supermarket Merchandising.

Supermarket News (1969). The Way Forward. Supermarket News.

Taylor, A., & Taylor, H. (1952). The story of agricultural economics in the United States,

1840–1932. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1948). Graphic summary of farm tenure in the

United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1949b). [Analysis of U.S. food surpluses] Charles

F. Brannon Papers, (Box 26, Folder “Farm Program—July 1949”). Independence, MO:

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1951). [Report of the Administrator of the

Production and Marketing Administration] Charles F. Brannan Papers, (Box 43,

Folder “Production and Marketing Administration, 1950–1951”). Independence,

MO: Harry. S. Truman Presidential Library.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1987). The U.S. farm sector: How is it

weathering the 1980s? Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of

difference. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anbinder, T. (1994). Nativism and slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the politics

of the 1850s. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reﬂections on the origin and spread of

nationalism. London, UK: Verso Books.

Balch, A., & Balabanova, E. (2016). Ethics, politics and migration: Public debates on the

free movement of Romanians and Bulgarians in the UK, 2006–2013. Politics,36(1),

19–35.

Becker, S., Fetzer, T., & Novy, D. (2017). Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive

district-level analysis. Economic Policy,32(92), 601–650.

Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The history of a dangerous idea. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Bonikowski, B. (2017). Ethno-nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective

resentment. The British Journal of Sociology,68(S1), S181–S213.

Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Buchanan, P. (2006). State of emergency: The third world invasion and conquest of America.

New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books.

Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (2017). ‘People in this country have had enough of experts’:

Brexit and the paradoxes of populism. Critical Policy Studies,11(1), 101–116.

Connor, W. (1994). Ethnonationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

de Koster, W., Achterberg, P., & van der Waal, J. (2013). The new right and the welfare

state: The electoral relevance of welfare chauvinism and welfare populism in the

Netherlands. International Political Science Review,34(1), 3–20.

Della Porta, D., Fernández, J., Kouki, H., & Mosca, L. (2017). Movement parties against

austerity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Edsall, T. (2012). The age of austerity: How scarcity will remake American politics. New

York, NY: Doubleday.

Gietel-Basten, S. (2016). Why Brexit? The toxic mix of immigration and austerity.

Population and Development Review,42(4), 673–680.

Golder, M. (2016). Far right parties in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science,19(1),

477–497.

Goodwin, M. (2011). New British fascism: Rise of the British National Party. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Goodwin, M., & Milazzo, C. (2017). Taking back control? Investigating the role of immi-

gration in the 2016 vote for Brexit. The British Journal of Politics and International

Relations,19(3), 450–464.

Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual

Review of Political Science,17(1), 225–249.

Hochschild, A. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the

American right. New York, NY: The New Press.

Hood, C., & Himaz, R. (2017). Acenturyofﬁscal squeeze: 100 years of austerity, politics,

and bureaucracy in Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hughey, M. (2012). Show me your papers! Obama’s birth and the whiteness of belonging.

Qualitative Sociology,35(2), 163–181.

Institute for Fiscal Studies. (2015). Recent cuts to public spending. Retrieved from www.ifs.

org.uk/tools_and_resources/ﬁscal_facts/public_spending_survey/cuts_to_public_spending

Kaushal, N. (2019). Blaming immigrations. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Kymlicka, W., & Banting, K. (2006). Immigration, multiculturalism, and the welfare

state. Ethics & International Affairs,20(3), 281–304.

Lav, I., & Leachman, M. (2017). At risk: Federal grants to state and local governments.

Retrieved from Center for Budget Policy and Priorities: https://www.cbpp.org/sites/

default/ﬁles/atoms/ﬁles/3-13-17sfp.pdf

Local elections 2014: Results updated live. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguar

dian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/may/22/local-elections-2014-live-results-

updated

Manza, J., & Crowley, N. (2017). Working class hero? Interrogating the social bases of

the rise of Donald Trump. The Forum,15(1), 3–28.

Manza, J., & Crowley, N. (2018). Ethnonationalism and the rise of Donald Trump.

Contexts,17(1), 28–33.

Mason, R. (2015). Nigel Farage: Immigration has left Britain almost unrecognisable. The

Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/31/nigel-farage-

ukip-immigration-britain-unrecognisable-general-election-poster

Mellon, J., & Evans, G. (2016). Class, electoral geography and the future of UKIP:

Labour’s secret weapon? Parliamentary Affairs,69(2), 492–498.

Miscevic, N. (2018). Nationalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of phil-

osophy. Retrieved from Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University: https://plato.

stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/nationalism/

OECD. (2019). General government spending (indicator). doi:10.1787/a31cbf4d-en

Oliff, P., & Leachman, M. (2011). New school year brings steep cuts in funding for

schools. Retrieved from Center for Budget Policy and Priorities: https://www.cbpp.org/

sites/default/ﬁles/atoms/ﬁles/9-1-11sfp.pdf

Reich, D. (2015). Sequestration and its impact on non-defense appropriations. Retrieved

from Center for Budget Policy and Priorities: https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/ﬁles/

atoms/ﬁles/2-19-15bud.pdf

Rydgren, J. (2007). The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology,33(1),

241–262.

Sheingate, A. (2003). Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political

development. Studies in American Political Development,17(2), 185–203.

Smith, A. (2009). Ethno-symbolism and nationalism: A cultural approach. London, UK:

Routledge.

Swinford, S., & Donnelly, L. (2016). EU referendum: Spend Brussels billions on NHS

instead, Boris Johnson and Michael Grove to urge. The Telegraph. Retrieved from:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/eu-referendum-spend-brussels-billions-on-nhs-

instead-boris-johns/

The UK’s European elections 2019. (2019). BBC News. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/

news/topics/crjeqkdevwvt/the-uks-european-elections-2019

Van der Waal, J., de Koster, W., & Van Oorschot, W. (2013). Three worlds of welfare

chauvinism? How welfare regimes affect support for distributing welfare to immigrants

in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice,15(2),

164–181.

Vote 2014 election results for the EU Parliament UK regions. (2014). BBC News.

Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

Williams, E., Leachman, M., & Johnson, N. (2011). State budget cuts in the new ﬁscal

year are unnessecarily harmful: Cuts are hitting hard at education, health care, and

state economies. Retrieved from Center for Budget Policy and Priorities https://www.

cbpp.org/sites/default/ﬁles/atoms/ﬁles/7-26-11sfp.pdf

Williamson, V. (2017). Read my lips: Why Americans are proud to pay taxes. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Williamson, V., Skocpol, T., & Coggin, J. (2011). The Tea Party and the remaking of

Republican conservatism. Perspectives on Politics,9(1), 25–43.

Winlow, S., Hall, S., & Treadwell, J. (2016). The right of the right: English nationalism

and the transformation of working-class politics. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Zeskind, L. (2012). A nation dispossessed: The Tea Party movement and race. Critical

Sociology,38(4), 495–509.

Anderson, B. (2011). The American University of Beirut: Arab nationalism and liberal

education. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Aslanidis, P. (2017). Populism and social movements. In C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P.

Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 305–335).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Baun, D. (2017). The Gemmayzeh incident of 1949: Conﬂict over physical and symbolic

space in Beirut. Arab Studies Journal,25(1), 92–122.

Baun, D. (2018). Lebanon’s youth clubs and the 1936 Summer Olympics: Mobilizing

sports, challenging imperialism and launching a national project. The International

Journal of the History of Sport,34(13), 1347–1365.

Bowman, G. (2005). Constitutive violence and the nationalist imaginary: The making of

“the people”in Palestine and “former Yugoslavia”. In F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and

the mirror of democracy (pp. 118–143). London, UK: Verso Books.

el-Khazen, F. (2000). The breakdown of the state in Lebanon, 1967–1976. New York,

NY: I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.

Fisk, R. (2002). Pity the nation: The abduction of Lebanon (4th ed.). New York, NY:

Nation Books.

Jumblatt, K. (2006). Filastin: Qadiyya Sha‘b wa Tarikh al-Watan. S. al-Nijar Nasir (Ed.).

Moukhtara, Lebanon: al-Dar al-Taqadumiyya.

Kata’ib Party. (1975, March 5). Al-‘Amal. Accessed at Jafet Library, American University

of Beirut.

Khalaf, S. (2002). Civil and uncivil violence in Lebanon: A history of the internationalization

of communal conﬂict. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Lebanese Communist Party. (1925, May 25). Al-Insaniyya. Accessed at Jafet Library,

American University of Beirut.

Lebanese Communist Party. (multiple issues cited in-text from 1973, 1975 and 1976).

Al-Nida’. Accessed at Jafet Library, American University of Beirut.

Lebanese National Movement. (1969, April 20). Biyanal-Ahzabwaal-Fi’at al-Taqadumiyya

ﬁLubnan hawl al-Mu’amara ‘ala al-‘Amal al-Fida’i. Linda Sadiqah Collection, American

University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

Mayer, A. (2000). The furies: Violence and terror in the French and Russian revolutions.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Panizza, F. (2013). What do we mean when we talk about populism. In C. de la Torre &

C. Arnson (Eds.), Latin American populism in the twenty-ﬁrst century (pp. 85–115).

Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Picard, E. (1996). Lebanon, a shattered country: Myths and realities of the wars in

Lebanon. F. Phillip (Trans.). New York, NY: Holmes & Meier.

Progressive Socialist Party. (multiple issues cited in-text from in 1952 and 1975). Al-Anba’.

Salibi, K. (1976). Crossroads to civil war: Lebanon, 1958–1976. Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan

Books.

Stein Janice, G. (1996). Image, identity, and conﬂict resolution. In C. Croker & F. Osler

Hampson (Eds.), Managing global chaos: Sources of and responses to international

conﬂict (pp. 93–111). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Suleiman, M. (1967). Political parties in Lebanon: The challenge of a fragmented political

culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Canovan, M. (2002). Taking politics to the people: Populism as the ideology of democracy.

In Y. Mény & Y. Surel (Eds.), Democracies and the populist challenge (pp. 25–42).

Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

De Cleen, B., Glynos, J., & Mondon, A. (2018). Critical research on populism: Nine rules

of engagement. Organization,25(5), 649–661.

Elmgren, A. (2018). The double-edged sword: The political appropriation of the concept

of populism. Journal of Political Ideologies,23(3), 320–341.

Ginsburg, T., Foti, N., & Rockmore, D. (2014). “We the peoples”: The global origins of

constitutional preambles. The George Washington International Law Review,46(2),

305–340.

Gustainis, J. (1990). Demagoguery and political rhetoric: A review of the literature. Rhetoric

Society Quarterly,20(2), 155–161.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. London, UK: Verso.

Simonton, M. (2019). The demagogues of ancient Greece: Populism and the people, c.

500 BCE–c. 100 CE. Unpublished manuscript.

Whedbee, K. (2004). Reclaiming rhetorical democracy: George Grote’s defense of Gleon

and the Athenian demagogues. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,34(4), 71–95.

Aslanidis, P. (2016a). Is populism an ideology? A refutation and a new perspective. Political

Studies,64(1), 88–104.

Aslanidis, P. (2016b). Populist social movements of the great recession. Mobilization: An

International Journal,21(3), 301–321.

Aslanidis, P. (2017). Avoiding bias in the study of populism. Chinese Political Science

Review,2(3), 266–287.

Aslanidis, P. (2018). Populism as a collective action master frame for transnational

mobilization. Sociological Forum,33(2), 443–464.

Billig, M. (2003). Political rhetoric. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford

handbook of political psychology (pp. 222–250). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political

psychology. Political Psychology,22(1), 115–125.

Brewer, M. B. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization,

ingroup bias, and outgroup prejudice. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social

psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 695–715). New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future

challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology,30(6), 745–778.

Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘identity.’Theory and Society,29(1), 1–47.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. P., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Conover, P. J. (1984). The inﬂuence of group identiﬁcations on political perception and

evaluation. The Journal of Politics,46(3), 760–785.

Dalton, R. J., & Welzel, C. (Eds.). (2014). The civic culture transformed: From allegiant

to assertive citizens. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A.

W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp.

379–398). London: Sage.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gerbaudo, P. (2017). The mask and the ﬂag: Populism, citizenism and global protest.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical

review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2(1), 204–222.

Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involve-

ment, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review,109(1),

1–17.

Jenkins, R. (2008). Rethinking ethnicity (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Kinder, D. R., & Kam, C. D. (2010). Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of

American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions

of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review,49(5), 583–600.

Miller, A. H., Gurin, P., Gurin, G., & Malanchuk, O. (1981). Group consciousness and

political participation. American Journal of Political Science,25(3), 494–511.

Morgan, E. S. (1988). Inventing the people: The rise of popular sovereignty in England

and America. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Oakes, P. (2001). The root of all evil in intergroup relations? Unearthing the categorization

process. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:

Intergroup processes (pp. 3–21). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Purdue, C. W., Gurtman, M. B., Dovidio, J. F., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and them:

Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology,59(3), 475–486.

Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (1996). Self-category constructions in political rhetoric: An ana-

lysis of Thatcher’s and Kinnock’s speeches concerning the British miners’strike (1984–

5). European Journal of Social Psychology,26(3), 353–371.

Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation and

mobilization. London: Sage.

Rooduijn, M. (2018). What unites the voter bases of populist parties? Comparing the

electorates of 15 populist parties. European Political Science Review,10(3), 351–368.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup

conﬂict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Tulsa, OK: University of

Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psycho-

logical analysis. American Psychologist,56(4), 319–331.

Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. Euro-

pean Review of Social Psychology,15(1), 59–99.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information,

13(2), 65–93.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and

intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology,1(2), 149–178.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conﬂict. In S. Worchel

& W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Thoits, P. A., & Virshup, L. K. (1997). Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social

identities. In R. D. Ashmore & L. J. Jussim (Eds.), Rutgers series on self and social

identity, Vol. 1. Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 106–133). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Redis-

covering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cogni-

tion and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,20(5), 454–463.

Boatright, R., & Flynn, M. (2016). The poverty of ‘corruption’: On reframing the debate

on money in politics. Albany Government Law Review,9(2), 341–383.

Cain, B. (2015). Democracy more or less: America’s political reform quandary. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people? Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political

Studies,47(1), 2–16.

Clinton, H. (2017). What happened. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Grzymala-Busse, A. (2017). Global populisms and their impact. Slavic Review,76(1), 3–8.

Inness, A. (2017). Draining the swamp: Understanding the crisis in mainstream politics as

a crisis of the state. Slavic Review,76,30–38.

Kazin, M. (1995). The populist persuasion: An American history. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mudde, C. (2010). The populist radical right: A pathological normalcy. West European

Politics,33(6), 1167–1188.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Oakeshott, M. (1991). Rationalism in politics and other essays. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty

Fund.

Oliver, J., & Rahn, W. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,667, 189–206.

Ostiguy, P., & Roberts, K. (2016). Putting Trump in comparative perspective: Populism and

the politicization of the sociocultural low. Brown Journal of World Affairs,23(1), 25–50.

Scruton, R. (2017). Representation and the people. In R. Kimball (Ed.), Vox populi: The

perils and promises of populism (pp. 119–134). New York, NY: Encounter Books.

Stanley, J. (2015). How propaganda works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Steger, W. (2017). The second great populist wave in the turbulent 2016 presidential

nominations. Paper presented at the State of the Parties conference. University of

Akron, Akron, OH.

Strauss, L. (2007). Notes on Carl Schmitt: The concept of the political. In C. Schmitt (Ed.),

The concept of the political (G. Schwab, Trans., pp. 97–122). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press (original work published 1932).

Teachout, Z. (2014). Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s snuff box to citi-

zens united. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Albertazzi, D., & McDonnell, D. (2008). Twenty-ﬁrst century populism: The spectra of

western European democracy. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Arditi, B. (2007). Politics on the edges of liberalism: Difference, populism, revolution,

agitation. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Bates, T. (2014, March 8). Ukraine’s fraught relationship with Russia: A brief history.

The Week,p.2.

Bonikowski, B., Halikiopoulou, D., Kaufmann, E., & Rooduijn, M. (2019). Populism and

nationalism in comparative perspective: A scholarly exchange. Nations and National-

ism,25(1), 58–81.

Canovan, M. (1981). Populism. London, UK: Junction Books.

Czarnecki, R. (2013). Gra na przeczekanie (Waiting game). Gazeta Polska Cudzoziemiec,

p. 11.

Dahl, R. (2000). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Danilova, M. (2013, December 9). Riot police storm opposition ofﬁces in Ukraine. The

Columbus Dispatch following a report of Ukrainian and the Associated Press.

Freedom House. (2018, December 22). Nations in transit, 2017: The false promise of

populism. Freedom House. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/article/nations-

transit-2017-false-promise-populism

Giraudi, G. (2018). Populism: What is and what we need a multidimensional approach to

understand it. European Scientiﬁc Journal,14,16–29.

Gurov, B., & Zankina, E. (2013). Populism and the construction of political charisma:

Post- transition politics in Bulgaria. Problems of Post-Communism,60(1), 3–17.

Hawkins, K. (2009). Is Chávez populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative

perspective. Comparative Political Studies,29,75–96.

Interfax-Ukraine. (2013a). Over 10,000 demonstrators rallying on Independence Square

in Kyiv. Report of Interior Ministry of Ukraine. Kiev.

Interfax-Ukraine. (2013b). Azarov: No use of force against peaceful demonstrators

planned, roads being cleared. Report of Interior Ministry of Ukraine.

Kirsenko, M. (2014). Metaﬁzyka Majdanu-rozwazania historyczne (Maidan metaphysics-

historical analysis). In R. Potocki, M. Domagala, & D. Miloszewska (Eds.), Czas Majdanu

(pp. 45–66). Warsaw, Poland: Europejskie Centrum Analiz Geopolitycznych.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso Press.

Lanzone, M. (2014). The “post-modern”populism in Italy: The case of the ﬁve star move-

ment. Research in Political Sociology,22,53–78.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York, NY: Crown.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism. Performance, political style, and repre-

sentation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (Eds.). (2012). Populism in Europe and the Americas.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press. Reprinted in 2017 by Penguin Books, Random House, New York, NY.

Potocki, R. (2014). EuroMajdan jako zagadnienie badawcze (Euromaidan as research

topic). In R. Potocki, M. Domagala, & D. Miloszewska (Eds.), Czas Majdanu (pp.

66–96). Warsaw, Poland: Europejskie Centrum Analiz Geopolitycznych.

Potocki, R., Domagala, M., & Miloszewska, D. (2014). Dekonstrukcja Euro (Maidanu)

(Deconstruction of Euromaidan). In R. Potocki, M. Domagala, & D. Miloszewska

(Eds.), Czas Majdanu (pp. 10–36). Warsaw, Poland: Europejskie Centrum Analiz

Geopolitycznych.

Przeworski, A. (2018). Mozemy lepiej! (We can do better!). Interview with Adam Prze-

worski. Polityka,p.1.

Roberts, K. (1995). Neoliberalism and the transformation of populism in Latin America:

The Peruvian case. World Politics,48(1), 82–116.

Roberts, K. (2006). Populism, political conﬂict, and grass-roots organization in Latin

America. Comparative Politics,38(2), 127–148.

Roberts, K. (2010). Latin America’s populist revival. SAIS Review,27(1), 3–15.

Schamis, H. (2006). Populism, socialism, and democratic institutions. Journal of Democracy,

17(4), 20–34.

Seventy-ﬁve were injured during November 30 dispersal of Euromaidan. (2013). Kyiv

Post,p.1.

Taggart, P. (2004). Populism and representative politics in contemporary Europe. Journal

of Political Ideologies,9(3), 269–288.

Tarchi, M. (2015). Italy, the promised land of populism. Contemporary Italian Politics,7(3),

273–285.

Ukrainian opposition calls for early elections and a national strike. (2013). The Ukrainian

Week,p.1.

Wejnert, B. (2014). Populism and democracy not the same but interconnected. Research

in Political Sociology,22, 143–161.

Wejnert, B. (2016 [2014]). Diffusion of democracy. Past and future of global democracy.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wojciechowski, M. (2006). Pomaranczowy Majdan (Orange Maidan). Warsawa, Poland:

W.A.B.

Woods, D. (2014). The many faces of populism. Diverse, but not disparate. Research in

Political Sociology,22,1–25.

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York, NY: Vintage.

Aslanidis, P. (2016). Populist social movements of the great recession. Mobilization: An

International Quarterly,21(3), 301–321.

Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. (2006). The starﬁsh and the spider: The unstoppable

power of leaderless organizations. New York, NY: Portfolio.

Brooker, M. (2017). Occupy, spillover, and spillout: Activist trajectories through a social

movement campaign. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological

Association. Montreal, Canada.

Carender, K. (2009a, May 12). Blogger user proﬁle: Liberty Belle. Retrieved from www.

blogger.com/proﬁle/15903210730564785945

Carender, K. (2009b, May 12). Come and take it. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/

watch?v=_IYLqtYEYeI&feature=player_embedded

Garcia Bedolla, L. (2010). A majority minority state. New York Times. Retrieved from

www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/21/where-are-the-angry-california-voters/

california-is-essentially-a-majority-minority-state

Goodwyn, L. (1978). The Populist moment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gould-Wartofsky, M. (2015). The occupiers: The making of the 99 percent movement.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W.

Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp.

143–163). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kazin, M. (2018). The fall and rise of the US populist left. Dissent. Retrieved from www.

dissentmagazine.org/article/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-u-s-populist-left

Lepore, J. (2010). The whites of their eyes: The Tea Party’s revolution and the battle over

American history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mayer, J. (2010). Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war

against Obama. New Yorker. Retrieved from www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/

30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Meyer, D. (2004). Protest and political opportunity. Annual Review of Sociology,30, 125–145.

Meyer, D. (2014). The politics of protest: Social movements in America (2nd ed.).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, D. (2018). Conclusion: Trumpism, the resistance, and the future of American

democracy. In D. Meyer & S. Tarrow (Eds.), The resistance: The dawn of the anti-

Trump opposition movement (pp. 246–264). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Meyer, D., Pullum, A., & Sagi, R. (2012). The accretion and dispersion of issues in social

movement coalitions. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological

Association, Denver, CO.

Michels, R. (1915/1962). Political parties. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (1977). Poor people’s movements. New York, NY: New York

Vintage.

Publius. (1788). The Federalist papers. Retrieved from www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/

1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/

Raban, J. (2010). At the Tea Party. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nybooks.com/

articles/archives/2010/mar/25/at-the-tea-party/?pagination=false

Rauch, J. (2010). How Tea Party organizes without leaders. Retrieved from www.freere

public.com/focus/f-bloggers/2591379/posts

Rauch, J. (2011). Group think: Inside the Tea Party’s collective brain. National Journal.

Retrieved from www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/2010/09/group-think-inside-

the-tea-partys-collective-brain.html

Sitrin, M. (Ed.). (2006). Horizontalism: Voices of popular power in Argentina. Oakland,

CA and Edinburgh, UK: AK Press.

Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican

conservatism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Staggenborg, S. (1988). The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the

pro-choice movement. American Sociological Review,53(4), 585–605.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and teargas: The power and fragility of networked protest.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Van Dyke, N., & Meyer, D. (Eds.). (2014). Understanding the Tea Party movement.

Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Vogel, K. (2010). Tea partiers air doubts about Armey. Politico. Retrieved from www.polit

ico.com/news/stories/0310/34990.html

Vogel, K. (2012). Inside the Armey, FreedomWorks split. Politico. Retrieved from www.

politico.com/story/2012/12/dick-armey-freedomworks-president-clashed-over-book-

deal-084599

Ward, D. (2010, October 8). American revolution part 2. Retrieved from www2.canada.

com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=c9c9297c-283d-49f0-b5be-

ed35bf2bed17&p=3

Wilson, J. (1973). Political organizations. New York, NY: Basic.

Zernike, K. (2010). Boiling mad: Inside Tea Party America.NewYork,NY:TimesBooks.

Abramowitz, J. (1953). The Negro in the populist movement. The Journal of Negro His-

tory,38(3), 257–289.

Adelman, J. (1992). Reﬂections on Argentine labour and the rise of Perón. Bulletin of

Latin American Research,11(3), 243–259.

Arditi, B. (2007). Politics on the edges of liberalism. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univer-

sity Press.

Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Polit-

ical Studies,47(1), 2–16.

Corruption Perceptions Report (2016). Transparency International. Retrieved from https://

www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016

Dresser, D. (1991). Neopopulist solutions to neoliberal problems. La Jolla, CA: Univer-

sity of California San Diego Center for U.S.–Mexican Studies.

Durden, R. (2015). The climax of populism: The election of 1896. Lexington, KY: Univer-

sity Press of Kentucky.

Geuna, M. (2017). Extraordinary accidents in the life of republics: Machiavelli and dicta-

torial authority. In D. Johnston, N. Urbinati, & C. Vergara (Eds.), Machiavelli on liberty

and conﬂict. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 280–306.

Howarth, D., Norval, A., & Stavrakakis, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Discourse theory and political

analysis: Identities, hegemony and social change. Manchester, UK: Manchester Uni-

versity Press.

Jansen, R. (2011). Populist mobilization: A new theoretical approach to populism. Socio-

logical Theory,29(2), 75–96.

Kazin, M. (1998). The populist persuasion: An American history. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Knight, A. (1998). Populism and neo-populism in Latin America. Journal of Latin Ameri-

can Studies,30(2), 223–248.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.

Machiavelli, N. (1513–1517). Discourses on the ﬁrst decade of Titus Livius. In The chief

works and others. A. Gilbert (Trans.), (1989). Durham, NC: Duke University Press,

Vol 1, 175–529.

McCormick, J. (2011). Machiavellian democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Mofﬁtt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and repre-

sentation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Palmer, D. (1996). ‘Fujipopulism’and Peru’s progress. Current History,95(598),

70–75.

Peirano, L. (2002). Peruvian media in the 1990s: From deregulation to reorganization. In

E. Fox & S. Waisbord (Eds.), Latin politics, global media. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press, 153–163.

Pettit, P. (1999). Republicanism: Atheory of freedom and government. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-ﬁrst century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Pipes, R. (1964). Narodnichestvo: A semantic inquiry. Slavic Review,23(3), 441–458.

Roberts, K. (1995). Neoliberalism and the transformation of populism in Latin America.

World Politics,4(8), 82–116.

Rosanvallon, P. (2011). Democratic legitimacy: Impartiality, reﬂexivity, proximity. Prince-

ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rossiter, C. (1948). Constitutional dictatorship: Crisis government in the modern democ-

racies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Saez, I., & Piketty, T. (2003/2016). Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998.

Quarterly Journal of Economics,118 (1), 1–41.

Schmitt, C. (2014). Dictatorship. from the origin of the modern concept of sovereignty to

proletarian class struggle. M. Hoelzl & G. Ward (Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press (original work published 1921).

Skinner, Q. (1978). Machiavelli and the maintenance of liberty. Politics,18(2), 3–15.

Turner, F. (1921). The frontier in American history. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

Urbinati, U. (2014). Democracy disﬁgured: Opinion, truth, and the people. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Venturi, F. (1960). Roots of revolution. A history of the populist and socialist movements

in nineteenth century Russia. New York, NY: Knopf.

Vergara, C. (2019). Populism as Plebeian Politics: Inequality, Domination, and Popular

Empowerment. Journal of Political Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12203

Viroli, M. (1990). Machiavelli and the republican idea of politics. In G. Bock, Q. Skinner,

& M. Viroli (Eds.), Machiavelli and republicanism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 143–172.

Watkins, F. (1940). The problem of constitutional dictatorship. In C.J. Freidrich & E.S. Mason

(Eds.) Public policy: A yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard

University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weyland, K. (2001). Clarifying a contested concept: Populism in the study of Latin

American politics. Comparative Politics,34(1), 1–22.

Weyland, K. (1996). Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America. Studies in Compara-

tive International Development, 31, 3–31.

Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Aslanidis, P. (2015). Is populism an ideology? A refutation and a new perspective. Political

Studies,64(IS), 1–17.

Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political

Studies,47,2–16.

Canovan, M. (2004). Populism for political theorists? Journal of Political Ideologies,9(3),

241–252.

Canovan, M. (2005). The people. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Flynn, B. (2005). The philosophy of Claude Lefort: Interpreting the political. Evanston,

IL: Northwestern University Press.

Freeden, M. (1998). Is nationalism a distinct ideology? Political Studies,XLVI, 748–765.

Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding

concept formation in the social sciences. Polity,31(3), 357–393.

Gidron, N., & Bonikowski, B. (2013). Varieties of populism: Literature review and

research agenda. Working Paper Series, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs,

Harvard University, No. 13-0004. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2459387

Ionescu, G., & Gellner, E. (1969). Populism: Its meaning and national characteristics.

London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Kaltwasser, C. (2012). The ambivalence of populism: Threat and corrective for democracy.

Democratization,19(2), 184–208.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Lefort, C. (1986). The political forms of modern society: Bureaucracy, democracy, totali-

tarianism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McCormick, J. (2011). Machiavellian democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

McCormick, J. (2017). The contemporary crisis of democracy and the populist cry of pain.

Retrieved from www.academia.edu/22225287/Democracy_Plutocracy_and_the_Populist_

Cry_of_Pain

Mill, J. (1977). Considerations on representative government. In J. M. Robson (Ed.), Col-

lected works of John Stuart Mill: Volume XVIII (pp. 371–577). Toronto, CA: University

of Toronto Press; London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul (pp. 371–577.).

Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition,39(4), 541–563.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2012). Populism and (liberal) democracy: A framework for

analysis. In C. Mudde & C. R. Kaltwasser (Eds.), Populism in Europe and the

Americas threat or corrective for democracy? (pp. 1–26). Cambridge and New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2013). Populism. In M. Freeden & M. Stears (Eds.), The

Oxford handbook of political ideologies (pp. 493–512). Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism? Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Pappas, T. (2016). Modern populism: Research advances, conceptual and methodological pit-

falls, and the minimal deﬁnition. In Cairo. (ED.) Oxford research encyclopedia of politics

(pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.17

Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. The American Polit-

ical Science Review,64(4), 1033–1553.

Urbinati, N. (1998). Democracy and populism. Constellations,5(1), 110–124.

Urbinati, N. (2013). The populist phenomenon. Raisons Politiques,3(5), 137–154.

Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disﬁgured: Opinion, truth, and the people. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Urbinati, N. (2019). Political theory of populism. Annual Review of Political Science,22,

111–127.

Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary demo-

cratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science,11, 387–412.

Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014). How populist are the people? Measuring

populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies,47(9), 1324–1353.

Akkerman, A., Zaslove, A., & Spruyt, B. (2017). “We the people”or “We the peoples”?

A comparison of support for the populist radical right and populist radical left in the

Netherlands. Swiss Political Science Review,23(4), 377–403.

Andreadis, I., & Ruth, S. P. (2018). Using surveys to measure populist attitudes of polit-

ical elites. In K. Hawkins, R. Carlin, L. Littvay, & C. R. Kaltwasser (Eds.), The idea-

tional approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis (pp. 112–121). London,

UK: Routledge.

Andreadis, I., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2017). European populist parties in government: How

well are voters represented? Evidence from Greece. Swiss Political Science Review,23

(4), 485–508.

Aslanidis, P. (2016). Is populism an ideology? A refutation and a new perspective. Political

Studies,64(1_suppl), 88–104.

Aslanidis, P. (2017). Avoiding bias in the study of populism. Chinese Political Science

Review,2(3), 266–287.

Aslanidis, P. (2018). Measuring populist discourse with semantic text analysis: An appli-

cation on grassroots populist mobilization. Quality & Quantity,52(3), 1241–1263.

Bimes, T., & Mulroy, Q. (2004). The rise and decline of presidential populism. Studies in

American Political Development,18(2), 136–159.

Bonikowski, B., & Gidron, N. (2016a). Multiple traditions in populism research: Toward

a theoretical synthesis. APSA Comparative Politics Newsletter,26(12), 7–14.

Bonikowski, B., & Gidron, N. (2016b). The populist style in American politics: Presidential

campaign discourse, 1952–1996. Social Forces,94(4), 1593–1621.

Caiani, M., & Graziano, P. (2016). Varieties of populism: Insights from the Italian case.

Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica,46(2), 243–267.

Hawkins, K., & Castanho Silva, B. (2018). Textual analysis: Big data approaches. In K.

Hawkins, R. Carlin, L. Littvay, & C. Kaltwasser (Eds.), The ideational approach to

populism: Concept, theory, and analysis (pp. 27–47). London, UK: Routledge.

Hawkins, K., Riding, S., & Mudde, C. (2012). Measuring populist attitudes. Political

Concepts Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series,55,1–35.

Hibbing, J., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy. Americans’beliefs about how

government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. New York, NY: Verso Books.

Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. (2013). Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: Comparing

contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition,48(2), 147–174.

Pauwels, T. (2011). Measuring populism: A quantitative text analysis of party literature in

Belgium. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties,21(1), 97–119.

Polk, J., Rovny, J., Bakker, R., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., & Steenbergen, M.

(2017). Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for pol-

itical parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data. Research & Pol-

itics,4(1), 1–9.

Rooduijn, M. (2014). The mesmerising message: The diffusion of populism in public

debates in Western European media. Political Studies,62(4), 726–744.

Rooduijn, M., De Lange, S., & Van der Brug, W. (2014). A populist zeitgeist? Pro-

grammatic contagion by populist parties in Western Europe. Party Politics,20(4),

563–575.

Schulz, A., Müller, P., Schemer, C., Wirz, D., Wettstein, M., & Wirth, W. (2017). Measuring

populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,

30(2), 316–326.

Silva, B., Andreadis, I., Anduiza, E., Blanusa, N., Corti, Y., Delﬁno, G., …Littvay, L.

(2018). Public opinion surveys: A new scale. In K. Hawkins, R. Carlin, L. Littvay, &

C. Kaltwasser (Eds.), The ideational approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis

(pp. 150–178). London, UK: Routledge.

Spruyt, B., Keppens, G., & Van Droogenbroeck, F. (2016). Who supports populism and

what attracts people to it? Political Research Quarterly,69(2), 335–346.

Stavrakakis, Y., Andreadis, I., & Katsambekis, G. (2017). A new populism index at work:

Identifying populist candidates and parties in the contemporary Greek context. European

Politics and Society,18(4), 446–464.

Van Hauwaert, S., & Van Kessel, S. (2018). Beyond protest and discontent: A cross-

national analysis of the effect of populist attitudes and issue positions on populist party

support. European Journal of Political Research,57(1), 68–92.

Van Kessel, S. (2015). Populist parties in Europe: Agents of discontent? New York, NY:

Springer.

Wiesehomeier, N. (2018). Expert surveys. In K. Hawkins, R. Carlin, L. Littvay, & C. R.

Kaltwasser (Eds.), The ideational approach to populism: Concept, theory, and ana-

lysis (pp. 90–101). New York, NY: Routledge.

Aisch, G., Bloch, M., Lai, K., & Morenne, B. (2017, May 7). How France voted. The

New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/07/world/

europe/france-election-results-maps.html.

Aslanidis, P. (2017). Populism and social movements. In C. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P.

Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 305–326).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cramer, K. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and

the rise of Scott Walker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Di Marco, Laura. (2012). La Cámpora : historia secreta de los herederos de Néstor y

Cristina Kirchner. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.

Eribon, D. (2013). Returning to Reims. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Frank, T. (2004). What’s the matter with Kansas? New York, NY: Henry Holt and

Company.

Gest, J. (2016). The new minority. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gidron, N., & Hall, P. (2017). The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of

the populist right. The British Journal of Sociology,68, S57–S84. doi:10.1111/1468-

4446.12319

Hochschild, A. (2016). Strangers in their own land. New York, NY: New Press.

Laclau, E. (2006). On populist reason. London, UK: Verso Books.

Lewis, P., Caelainn, B., Clarke, S., Voce, A., Levett, C., & Gutiérrez, P. (2019,

March 6). The rise and rise of populist rhetoric. The Guardian. Retrieved from

www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/06/revealed-the-rise-and-rise-

of-populist-rhetoric

Lodge, M., & Tabor, C. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition,39(3), 541–563.

doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x

Nichter, S. (2008). Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot.

American Political Science Review,102(1), 19–31. doi:10.1017/S0003055408080106

Ostiguy, P. (2017). Populism: A socio-cultural approach. In C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart,

P. Ochoa Espejo, & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 73–97).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pacewicz, J. (2016). Here’s the real reason Rust Belt cities and towns voted for Trump.

Washington Post.

Riofrancos, T. (2018, November 23). Populism without the people: On Chantal Mouffe.

N+1 Magazine. Retrieved from https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/popu

lism-without-the-people/

Szwarcberg, M. (2015). Mobilizing poor voters: Machine politics, clientelism, and social

networks in Argentina. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Taggart, P. (2000). Populism. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Van Hauwert, S., & Van Kessel, S. (2018). Beyond protest and discontent: A cross-national

analysis of the effect of populist attitudes and issue positions on populist party support.

European Journal of Political Research,57,68–92. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12216

Zarazaga, R. (2014). Brokers beyond clientelism: A new perspective through the Argentine

case. Latin American Politics and Society,56(3), 23–45. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2014.

00238

Geography of Contestation: A Study on the Yellow Vest Movement and the Rise of Populism in France

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022
J REGIONAL SCI

The rise of a geography of discontent highlighted in recent studies points to a strong association between voting for populist parties and territories with socioeconomic difficulties. While discontent has primarily been addressed through the analysis of populist votes, we provide additional elements of analysis by comparing these populist votes to the Yellow Vest movement, and we distinguish the populist votes coming from the far-left party from those coming from the far-right party. Our results show that the Yellow Vest movement cannot be confused with French populist supporters and that their sensitivity to territorial dimensions also differs from that of the latter, especially in terms of access to public services. Their behavior highlights that the geography of protest takes multiple shapes and cannot be reduced to a simple opposition between urban and mostly rural or peripheral areas. This raises serious concerns about the dynamics of territories and the deleterious effects of metropolization and the closure of public services in peri-urban and rural territories that are not specific to France.

Cultural bomb: Empowering non-military defense

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

This study delves into the concept of the “cultural bomb” within the framework of non-military defense empowerment strategies in Indonesia. This approach can potentially change society’s views and attitudes towards various security threats as a realization of strengthening the defense and security system of the universal people (Sishankamrata) per article 30 paragraph (2) of the 1945 constitution. By leveraging media, education, and information technology, the cultural bomb acts as a social weapon that operates powerfully in the “space of mind,” shaping behavior and actions nonviolently. The issue of cultural threats pertains to the infiltration and imposition of foreign cultural values and practices that undermine local traditions and national identity, leading to social fragmentation and weakness. This study proposes the concept of a “cultural bomb” as a policy framework to address and mitigate these cultural threats. The research employs a qualitative approach using the Delphi technique, engaging experts from cultural studies and defense strategies to reach a consensus on the strategic application of the cultural bomb. The results indicate that the cultural bomb can effectively strengthen national identity and awareness of national defense by promoting local values and cultural resilience, thus enhancing societal cohesion and mitigating the impact of foreign cultural influences. The paper outlines the components of a cultural bomb, analyzes its application in international contexts, and discusses its implications in efforts to strengthen national identity and foster a sense of national defense awareness. Focusing on the “war over space of mind” ideology, it introduces “cultural hacking” as a strategic initiative to address cultural power imbalances in the post-truth era.

Relocating Populism and Populist Discourse in Dystopian Film and Fiction

Chapter

Nov 2024

Cenk Tan

Opomenutá místa a prostorové aspekty voleb: nativismus, populismus a geografie nespokojenosti

Thesis

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Jonáš Suchánek

Téma migrace se po uprchlické vlně v letech 2015 a 2016 dostává do popředí evropského mediálního a politického diskurzu a spolu s ním také anti-imigrační a nativistické narativy. Populistické radikálně pravicové strany v následujících letech v mnoha zemích dosáhly na svá volební maxima a po výhře Donalda Trumpa v prezidentských volbách 2016 a po referendu Brexit rovněž v akademické sféře enormně narostl zájem o studium populismu. Jedním z hlavních konceptuálních přístupů, který významně přispěl do akademické debaty zkoumající příčiny radikalizace a polarizace společnosti a z nich plynoucí volebních manifestací, bylo kontextuální pojetí specifických periferních oblastí skrze optiku takzvaných opomenutých míst, potažmo skrze geografii nespokojenosti. Navzdory tomuto kontextuálnímu chápání volebních procesů ale dané výzkumy jen zřídka využívají moderní prostorové metody a navíc se z valné většiny zaměřují primárně na Spojené státy americké a země západní a severní Evropy. Tato disertační práce tak přináší do disciplíny volební geografie důkladnou časoprostorovou analýzu českého (a slovenského) volebního prostoru na detailní úrovni obcí, což umožňuje ověřit validitu výše zmíněných konceptů, jež nachází uplatnění v jiných zemích. Kromě identifikace volebních vzorců radikální pravice a jejich stability mezi lety 1992 až 2021 se tato práce dále zabývá hlavní českou nativistickou stranou Svoboda a přímá demokracie, českými prezidentskými volbami v roce 2023 a volební účastí ve slovenských parlamentních volbách. K podrobné exploraci vlivu prostoru a následnému vysvětlení stěžejních vztahů mezi vybranými volbami a sociálními, ekonomickými a demografickými proměnnými je pak použito moderních kvantitativních prostorových metod. Mezi dílčí stěžejní výsledky lze napříč všemi studiemi zařadit důležitou roli vzdělání, která je následována převážně ekonomickými faktory. Za relativně překvapivé a objevné pak lze v případě SPD považovat identifikaci významného vlivu religiozity a naopak bezmála irelevantní roli reálné imigrace. Toto zjištění stojí v určitém kontrastu s empirickými výsledky předchozích studií, které zkoumají vliv podílu migrantů na volební výsledky v jiných zemích Evropy. V obecné rovině pak lze všechny tyto instance chápat skrze konceptuální pojetí opomenutých míst, potvrdit stále trvající důležitou roli geografie a v neposlední řadě poukázat na přidanou hodnotu prostorových metod.

Relocating Populism and Populist Discourse in Dystopian Film and Fiction

Chapter

Full-text available

Sep 2023

Cenk Tan

Populism and populist discourse form a significant and recurrent element that manifests an essential role in dystopian film and fiction. The genre of dystopian film and fiction have often been characterized for their depiction of narratives based on authoritarian and/or totalitarian leadership. This chapter provides an overview of populism and populist discourse in dystopian film and fiction by identifying some of the major titles in Western cinema and literature. The chapter concludes that dystopian film and fiction serve as an effective premonition to raise consciousness against anti-democratic rule.

Odio, polarización social y clase media en Las Mañaneras de López Obrador

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022

El odio se ha convertido en un elemento clave en el discurso de los políticos populistas para apoyar su agenda. Tal es el caso del presidente mexicano, López Obrador (AMLO), quien ha utilizado medios de comunicación oficiales y redes sociales para acosar a sus críticos y a la oposición política. Un elemento distintivo en su estrategia mediática es “La Mañanera”, una conferencia matutina en la que se informa sobre la agenda presidencial, sin embargo, este espacio ha servido también para exculpar a sus familiares y militantes de su partido, así como para criticar a periodistas, organizaciones sociales, opositores y, desde el segundo semestre de 2021, a la clase media mexicana. El propósito de este artículo es emplear el corpus teórico del Enfoque Discursivo-Histórico (DHA) para estudiar la construcción discursiva de la “clase media” en Las Mañaneras de López Obrador, cómo AMLO usa el resentimiento social para atacar a sus críticos y cuáles son los principales elementos retóricos empleados contra la clase media. Los resultados finales mostrarán la capacidad de los gobiernos populistas de utilizar estereotipos tradicionales, el resentimiento colectivo y una interpretación parcial de la historia nacional para acosar a los disidentes y lograr altos niveles de aprobación pública.

From the People, Like the People, or For the People? Candidate Appraisal Among the French Yellow Vests

Article

Apr 2022

Whereas populist citizens are usually described as being driven by individual discontent, this article builds on the notion that they are also spurred by sociotropic concerns. Taking the French Yellow Vests populist movement and its flagship referendum on popular initiative as a case study, we address the mechanism by which discontent is directed into an instrumental orientation, and how this mechanism translates into voting choice. Using a conjoint experiment, we find that a candidate supportive of citizen initiative referendum garners the most support, especially among protesters with strong people‐centric attitudes, even when competing with a candidate signaling her ideological proximity by means of an antielite statement. Results therefore enrich extant literature on voter‐politician congruency by suggesting that congruency between people‐centrism and the prospects of more direct democracy is a way for populist citizens to make their vote choice.

Resurgence, Populism, and Politics ‘From Below’

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2021

Keith Cherry

Populist politics are an increasingly prominent feature of contemporary politics around the world. In settler colonies, Indigenous resurgence is also an increasingly important feature of political contestation. Both discourses involve questions of peoplehood, pluralism, and collective agency. The goal of this paper is to explore these phenomena side by side, and ask what they reveal about the present political conjuncture. I argue that both political projects involve a constructive element, as actors build spaces of political contestation beyond the state. In this way, each movement involves an often overlooked contest between politics ‘from above’ and ‘from below’. Ultimately, I conclude that the above/below distinction reveals important cleavages that are obscured by the traditional left/right distinction that structures much political analysis.

Dissertation: Thinking Beyond Extremism: A Methodological Reorientation to Studying Right-wing Nationalism and the Far-right Movement in Canada

Thesis

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Justin E.C. Tetrault

Right-wing nationalist movements have gained traction in Westernized countries such as France, Greece, Hungary, Austria, the United States, and Germany, where political figures or groups have mobilized nationalist ideas and right-wing populist sentiment to gain governmental power and/or influence public policy (Mudde 2014, BBC News 2019, Perry & Scrivens 2018: 177). Contrary to Canada’s benevolent international reputation, Canadians have demonstrated increasingly exclusionary politics in the last decade. Anti-Islam rhetoric, for instance, has substantial legitimacy in popular discourse and Canadians are increasingly skeptical of the country’s federal multiculturalism policy (Angus Reid 2017, Braun 2018, Andrew-Gee 2015; Angus Reid 2010, Canseco 2019, Todd 2017). Academics, journalists, and public figures assert that Canada is experiencing “similar trends” to Western Europe’s wave of right-wing populism, pointing to the “growing threat” posed by Canadian far-right groups, also referred to as “right-wing extremists”, “hate groups”, and sometimes the “alt-right” (Perry & Scrivens 2018: 177, Boutilier 2018, Mastracci 2017, McKenna 2019, Habib 2019). Upon closer scrutiny, dominant scholarly and popular discourse tends to reduce this discussion to a problem of white nationalist ideology and the public safety risks posed by these groups, such as terrorism, hate crime, threats and intimidation, and hate speech. Experts struggle to explain how right-wing and far-right groups operate as a social movement seeking mainstream legitimacy in Canada, and the dominant fixation on “extremism” in the form of white nationalism and criminality sometimes obfuscates significant trends in right-wing organizing. Using Canada’s yellow vests movement as a case study, this project identifies and critiques three broader trends in scholarship on right-wing and far-right social movements: 1) the passive acceptance of the ambiguous concept “hate” as an explanation for right-wing mobilizing; 2) the growing popularity of criminological or security-centric methods for understanding how right-wing groups mobilize as a social movement; and 3) Eurocentric scholarship that defines right-wing populism as inherently ethnonationalist and illiberal. I use empirically informed analysis based on semi-ethnographic data to argue that the preceding three trends can hinder our understanding of right-wing politics and nationalist movements. My ethnographic approach involves 35 semi-structured interviews with 42 Canadian right-wing activists (RWAs) (ten of which I consider “far-right” or white nationalists), and over 40 hours of observational fieldwork at 20 right-wing political rallies and meetings in Alberta, almost all of which were organized by my participants. My findings show that, contrary to dominant expert narratives, the Canadian right-wing nationalist movement is not primarily white nationalist nor promotes vigilante violence. Instead, the most successful right-wing nationalist groups in Canada foreground liberal ideas and fetishize law and order politics (rather than being anti-state/anti-authority), with the objective of ultimately delegating violence to the state, such as demanding increased policing and surveillance of certain marginalized groups, such as Muslims and undocumented immigrants. Moreover, rather than right-wing groups being “anti-” or “ill-” liberal, my findings show how aspects of liberalism and liberal multiculturalism can serve as fertile ground for chauvinist nationalism and right-wing populism. Dominant approaches to studying right-wing and far-right groups are rarely attuned to capturing the messiness of social movements (Plows 2008, Law 2006). By examining how right-wing nationalism is practiced on the ground and debated between and among groups, this project shows how ethnographic methods are an effective tool for capturing the fluid structure, political contradictions, rapid changes, unanticipated elements, and mainstream appeal that characterizes contemporary right-wing nationalist movements.

Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture

Book

Feb 2008

Jack Bratich

Toward an Agonistic Feminism: Hannah Arendt and the Politics of Identity

Chapter

Feb 1998

Bonnie Honig

Series Blurb Oxford Readings in Feminism provide accessible, one-volume guides to the very best in contemporary feminist thinking, assessing its impact and importance in key areas of study. Collected together by scholars of outstanding reputation in their field, the articles chosen represent the most important work on feminist issues, and concise, lively introductions to each volume crystallize the main line of debate in the field. The categories of public and private have been at the centre of feminist theory for the past three decades. Focusing on the gendered relations of sexuality and the body, family life and democratic citizenship, feminists have redirected public debate on questions of privacy and publicity. They have challenged leading theories of the public sphere, adding immeasurably to the historical and cross-cultural understanding of public and private life, from the rise of liberal and democratic institutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to today's media-saturated public sphere. This volume presents the results of this multi-disciplinary feminist exploration. Contributors demonstrate the significance of the public/private distinction in feminist theory, its articulation in the modern and late modern public sphere, and its impact on identity politics within feminism in recent years. Feminism, the Public and the Private offers an essential perspective on feminist theory for students and teachers of women's and gender studies, cultural studies, history, political theory, geography and sociology.

Self and Nation: Categorization, Contestation and Mobilization

Book

Jan 2001

Mobilizing Poor Voters: Machine Politics, Clientelism, and Social Networks in Argentina

Book

Nov 2015

Mariela Szwarcberg

Democracy has provided opportunities for political representation and accountability, but it has also created incentives for creating and maintaining clientelistic networks. Why has clientelism consolidated with the introduction of democracy? Drawing on network analysis, Mobilizing Poor Voters answers this question by describing and explaining the emergence, maintenance, and disappearance of political, partisan, and social networks in Argentina. Combining qualitative and quantitative data gathered during twenty-four months of field research in eight municipalities in Argentina, Mobilizing Poor Voters shows that when party leaders distribute political promotions to party candidates based only on the number of voters they mobilize, party leaders incentivize the use of clientelistic strategies among candidates competing to mobilize voters in poor neighborhoods. The logic of perverse incentives examined in this book explains why candidates who use clientelism succeed in getting elected and re-elected over time, contributing to the consolidation of political machines at the local level.

“Fujipopulism” Peru’s Progress

Article

Feb 1996

David Scott Palmer

Populism and Liberal Democracy

Chapter

Jan 2022

Kire Sharlamanov

The subject of the analysis of this chapter is the relationship between populism and liberal democracy. Populism often does not see liberal democracy as an overall, consistent political system, but seeks to create the gap between the democratic and liberal principles on which liberal democracy is based. Thus, while accepting the democratic principle of majority rule, populism finds it difficult to accept the liberal principles of limitation and separation of powers, respect for human rights, and so on. In this way, by promoting democratic and ousting liberal principles, populists are trying to establish an illiberal democracy. In addition to the theoretical, we are looking at the model of establishing an illiberal democracy on a practical level. Namely, in the last part of this chapter we analyze the way in which the populists behave and apply the policies when they come to power. As a template, they usually seek to monopolize the public administration, establish control over the media, and continually demonize the elite.

CHAPTER TEN. Peruvian Media in the 1990s: From Deregulation to Reorganization

Chapter

Dec 2002

Luis Peirano

Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People

Book

Feb 2014

Nadia Urbinati

Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United

Book

Sep 2014

Zephyr Teachout

Machiavelli and the republican idea of politics

Chapter

Jan 1991

Maurizio Viroli

Now in paperback, this highly acclaimed volume brings together some of the world's foremost historians of ideas to consider Machiavelli's political thought in the larger context of the European republican tradition, and the image of Machiavelli held by other republicans. An international team of scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds (notably law, philosophy, history and the history of political thought) explore both the immediate Florentine context in which Machiavelli wrote, and the republican legacy to which he contributed.

Mapping Populism: Approaches and Methods

Recommended publications

Mapping the Subcontinental Lithosphere with Garnet Populations

Interpreting Whole-Genome Marker Data

Figure S1

Mapping of QTL affecting functional and type traits in the Dutch Holstein population