D
aniel Hannan one of the intellectual architects of Brexit distinguishes between two types of populist movements in a recent New Criterion piece. One kind is deeply fearful. Unable to comprehend the impersonal forces governing a fast-changing world followers cast about for villains to explain their declining fortunes — the railroads the gold standard banks Jews. The villains change but what is constant is the search for villains to rail against.
The agrarian revolt of the late 19th century inAmericatriggered by the move from a rural to an urban economy is one example of such a disruption. The present shift from a manufacturing to an information economy is another case of a major dislocation.
The second kind of populism simply wants to reclaim for the people control over their lives from societal elites. Such movements are deeply democratic outward-looking and optimistic. Hannan would put most Brexit supporters in that category. As an example of the loss of self-rule that led to Brexit Hannan points out that a seismic shift on the scale of the recent American presidential election could never have taken place in the European Union where the president is appointed in secret around a sumptuous dinner table with no input from voters. And even when voters in theNetherlandsandFrancerejected a proposed European constitution it was imposed under another name.
Hannan’s description of the type of populist movement he supports comports to a large extent with Professor Angelo Codevilla’s descriptions of the Tea Party. Tea Party supporters — the “country class” in Codevilla’s terminology — are those who wish to organize and run their lives without the interference of the government. By contrast the “ruling class” — the leaders of both parties Big Labor and Big Business alike government bureaucrats and lobbyists — is fully oriented toward government power.
