Sam Wilkin ─ History Repeating: Why Populists Rise and Governments Fall

Why have populist politicians and platforms like Donald Trump, the Brexit campaign, the left-right coalitions that govern Italy and Greece, and Mexico's AMLO, suddenly surged? Political risk consultant Sam Wilkin tackles the question in History Repeating, a new book praised as "magisterial" by BusinessLine. Business Standard said it was "packed with hilarious accounts of seminal historical events, some redoubtable women and men, and solid insight into political instability." Sam is a senior advisor to the geopolitical consultancy Oxford Analytica, where he previously served as associate director of the consultancy practice. He is also a senior advisor to Oxford Economics, where he previously served as head of business research, and a visiting fellow at Brown. He is the author or co-author of two other books and has produced two edited volumes.

[@samwilkin8788]

I'm the fellow giving the talk in the video. Thank you for all the comments. I'll respond directly to those I have an answer for, but overall, it is gratifying to see positive comments from both Trump supporters and progressive Democrats. At least on social media, Americans can still talk to each other.

[@MultiApeksha]

Hello sir, if the rise of populism was due to the US subprime crisis how did Obama Barack get re-elected in 2012?

[@davidjohnzenocollins]

Good stuff. This is why I keep watching this channel. One example: at around 55 minutes, Sam Wilkin explains that the populist voter, convinced the system is broken, will not stray from their candidate because of policies his politician pursues. I am an example of that; I voted for Trump and will not leave him, even though I wish he would get behind single-payer healthcare.

[@SuperSpidey313]

David, he seemed to be during the 2016 election. It's what the people want, but not what the oliograchs want. I would have voted for Bernie over Trump any day. I hope I'll get another chance in 2020

[@davidjohnzenocollins]

@@SuperSpidey313 Yeah, Bernie is another populist. In 2016, I thought I don't care who becomes President as long as it's either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. #NotHer, though; just another corrupt establishment figure.

[@steveguild871]

Single-payer healthcare. No quicker way to send the economy into a tailspin. That's why Trump doesn't support it. It doesn't work in practice.

[@SuperSpidey313]

@@steveguild871 It does, actually. It works in Spain, Mexico, Canada, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, etc...to help with the transition to single payer healthcare you'd introduce it gradually. Age group by age group.

[@steveguild871]

@@SuperSpidey313 Lots of problems with single payer that you are glossing over. On average, longer wait times and lower quality. We are not even talking about the HUGE increase in taxes and fees that would need to be implemented. Besides, a lot of people don't want the govt running their healthcare, thank you very much. Huge, inefficient and corrupt govt bureaucracies where the customer is certainly not always their main focus. No competition breeds this type of inefficiency and corruption.

[@alvarivees5456]

1st design convention: granting "populism" as a valid identity category. Imagine both a normal distribution & regression to the mean: Wouldn't rigor define the the mean--and presumably, the majority about it, as normative along with those "deterministically" in compliance with regression to the mean, whereas the resistance to this regression (on the left in addition to the right) would as a sum add up as the conceptual populism while numerically cancel out politically unless either extreme is overrepresented vis-a-vis both the median and its majority as well as the opposing populist polar camp. Populism doesn't much matter: it's the silent sleeping lion, the core, the marginalized native stock, which gets tired of the excuses.

[@NickleJ]

Stephen Seagal was a Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Deputy. Jefferson does share a border with Orleans Parish, but is a very different place. We're not responsible!

[@SuperSpidey313]

The women's March was ineffective because it was only one day. Sustained protest is what leads to real change

[@marcuscrowley6496]

I enjoyed the penultimate Q&A. I think a strong panacea for populism is compulsory voting - something we do in Australia with an independent electoral commission - and strong civic education (vs propaganda) - something we don't do very well.

[@karinapflima]

This definition of populism lacks rigour to such an extent that might be considered unacceptable in academia. The diversity of political projects that are taken as an example in itself demonstrates that it is an unworkable concept. A good illustration is the characterisation of Peron as a populist. His government has effectively recognised social and economic rights that were achieved in the US and Western Europe by social democracy, e.g. labour rights, women's right to vote, healthcare, pension system. The legacy of the modernisation of both society and the state that his government promoted remains until our days. What is the similarity between this political project and Trump, Di Maio or Bolsonaro? It might be time to rethink the meaning of 'populism', and even to reconsider its cognitive validity. Classifying people around the world based on whether they fit or not in the post-war Western European/US template of politician might not be the best thing to do to understand reality.

[@samwilkin8788]

There is a huge and long-standing debate in academia on how to define populism. Is it a political strategy; is it a cultural style (flagrantly violating elitist norms); is it an ideology; is it an approach to policy (short-termist and irresponsible)? I've gone with the ideology-based definition, which is dominant in political science at the moment. This defines populism as an ideology of parties and leaders who claim to represent the people against a corrupt elite. That's what Peron and Trump have in common. In the news media, one primarily hears definitions that are discredited and not taken seriously in academia - populists present simple solutions to complex problems; populists are irresponsible; populists are charlatans; and so on. In the news media, one hears the term "populist" primarily being used with negative connotations. That is understandable as an elite response but a bit odd when one considers history - political movements have proudly defined themselves as "populist" over the years, including of course the American People's Party. Those political movements were eager to demonstrate that they were representing the people against a system rigged against them; there's nothing inherently negative about that.

[@alvarivees5456]

Perfect. Populism ought to be defined statistically, not as it is based on imputed identity. Populism should be defined transparently as a "resistance" or "non-conformity" to a regression to the mean. The farther one is from the mean, the more of a populist. Right & Left, both irrelevant. Just populists with respect to their respective mean.

[@david8905]

Eric Hoffer, a working class longshoreman in San Francisco, wrote "The True Believer" as a reflection on Stalinism (international socialism), and Nazism (national socialism). Trump is neither of those.

[@korolev-musictodriveby6583]

David David - And none were/are socialists . “ One day the Poor will have nothing to eat but the Rich “

[@samwilkin8788]

Your comment about Hoffer makes sense. As does your comment about Trump. Hoffer's book is a remarkable book, and worth reading. That said, it is not social science, and every time someone wishes to discredit a political movement they disagree with, his book gets rolled out as a way of belittling that movement, and usually an excuse to ignore whatever that political movement is trying to do. A working man's passionate argument against Nazism has, ironically enough, become a favorite of defenders of the status quo.

[@dutchjames9448]

Salvini! Italia!