Populism is Like Botulism

Populism is Like Botulism

[Note: I submitted an earlier version of this article to the Star Tribune, which published it in July.]

Botulism? Where on earth did you come up with botulism, Quentin? It was in Iowa, where I grew up with parents who taught their children at least four things to fear: rabies, which is what you died of if bit by a skunk; trichinosis, which is what you died of if you ate raw pork; tetanus, which is what you died of if you stepped on a rusty nail; and, finally, botulism, which is what you died of if you ate green beans from a punctured tin can.

Not wanting to die as a youth, I was highly cognizant of all four threats. To this day, especially, I try not to eat any canned vegetables.

So, that is where I came up with botulism as something really horrible – nearly always fatal (we were encouraged to believe) – as a comparison for the political menace of populism. For headline purposes, it also helps that they rhyme.

Populism

Populism is a political mindset that elevates “the people” over “the elite.” It is anti-big corporations, anti-government, anti-main stream media, anti-internationalism, anti-cultural change, anti-politician, anti-“the rich,” and anti-“the highly educated.” More than anything, populism is anti-establishment. There can be left-wing populism and right-wing populism. Either way, the world is divided into the good people as “we” and evil as “they.” Populism undertakes to redistribute economic, political, and cultural power from “them” to “us.”

Candidates seeking to ride populism to electoral victory play upon voters’ widespread fears and feelings of victimhood. They use simplistic phrases such as “We, the People.” Examples include the revolutions in France and Russia two and one century ago, the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany, the recent Brexit crusade in the United Kingdom, and the current MAGA/America First/Christian nationalism movements in the United States.

Let’s Avoid Death by Populism

Botulism is a rare and potentially fatal disease. It can cause paralysis and the inability to breathe. And, to a political blogger – for these reasons and more – botulism almost begs for analogies to its rhyming twin, populism.

The germs that cause botulism can originate from the soil (which we can analogize to rural areas), or from water (coastal cities). So, too, the germination of populism, which can arise in economically struggling small towns or inner cities. The toxins from either source are equally insidious. Honey can be another incubator of botulism spores, and the same word suggests thoughts of the political sweet talk and economic desires that can inspire populism.

The similarity continues with the early symptoms of both menaces. Botulism first manifests itself with weakness, fatigue, and difficulty seeing and speaking. Populism starts the same way, in that federal politicians notice their nation looking fragile and their constituents feeling tired of it. Populism then spreads when inarticulate candidates who lack vision appeal instead to base emotions such as fear and hatred. Sometimes, these politicians rise to power despite their struggles as visionaries or speakers.

Botulism, like most diseases, is most lethal when left untreated. The political histories in France, Russia, and Germany reveal that it took devastating wars, starvation, and citizen deaths by the tens of millions before those nations were stabilized. To a lesser extent, Great Britain also has suffered since populism forced Brexit.

Treatment for botulism is with an antitoxin and supportive care. The question for America today is this: What could be the parallel remedy for populism?

Journalism and political science professors taught me that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” for rooting out corruption in high places – such as government. This adage was an argument for transparency and freedom of the press. One would think this could be at least a partial antitoxin to ease the ill effects of populism, as the media could shine its light on the falsehoods and overpromises being offered to “the people.”

The problem today, however, is that many (most?) media outlets cater only to the portion of the public that already agrees with them. Therefore, the people are not seeing and hearing that their own would-be political leaders are playing on their emotions and misleading them. It disinfects nothing for each media outlet to shine a light on the wrongs of only one party.

With media treatment likely spreading the toxins of populism, a better therapy is for “the people” to fight off the disease naturally and prayerfully with supportive care from those close to them. That care can include frequently reminding our loved ones that we really do need America’s institutions like democracy, the Constitution, legal immigration, our higher education and cultural organizations, our 50-state union, our successful businesses and capitalists, our international allies, a free press, and all three branches of our federal government.

To those who see such things as “elite” and “the establishment,” we should point out the benefits of striving to join, reinforce, and reform them from within rather than enabling those who would burn them down.

Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics. 

Look for his posts each week, as this blog will explore and promote the idea of principle in politics, both as to individual elected leaders and our federal government as an institution.

Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.

7 Comments
  • Anonymous
    Posted at 12:08h, 24 September Reply

    Always enjoy your posts. And almost always agree with them!

  • Gary Russell
    Posted at 13:49h, 24 September Reply

    Another good observation, Quentin. To run for office and get elected, we seem to hear the message of “it’s awful and I will change it”. How refreshing it would be to hear “we are a great country but have a few things to work on”. Like most business leaders do. Logic instead of emotion.

  • Trudy Johnson
    Posted at 14:40h, 24 September Reply

    Great article!!

  • dknight
    Posted at 21:44h, 24 September Reply

    I am hoping for you to post an article that I can agree with. But–not there yet. The word “populism” once had a positive connotation. Now populism is a bad thing? We are supposed to trust institutions, the government and the media? Slow down a bit. There has been boatloads of “disinformation” and “misinformation” peddled by the media and our own government in just the last few years. Russia, Russia and the Hunter laptop was not real. Huh? Even the leftist, pro-democrat/anti-republican media on CNN and MSNBC, together with the NY Times and Wash Post, have admitted, with gritted teeth, that the Hunter Biden laptop, with evidence of the president’s son running around the world to bribe countries for his dad, is a real thing. The FBI knew the laptop was real and concealed the same until long after the last election. These same media and government types also reluctantly have admitted that there was no Russia nonsense. These are just two recent examples of blatantly bad conduct by our government and media. Once upon a time, the dems and the media questioned authority and giant government, now they are cheerleaders for government power. We must always question government and those in power. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the media. Our nation’s history has plenty of corruption in it. Populism is a cry for freedom. It is a good thing. What happened in Germany and Russia in the last century, two nations struggling from the aftermath of WWI, with socialist/communist uprisings, does not match our current situation. The Europeans have not been models to follow, in terms of foreign or domestic policy. If populism controls big government and encourages individual liberty, then we should all be for it. We have to watch those in power all the time–doing so is not ‘anti-establishment”–it is wise.

  • Quentin
    Posted at 23:16h, 24 September Reply

    You always make your counterpoints well, Darrin. I’m sure someday we will agree. Regarding populism, I don’t like politicians using “tear down all aspects of the establishment” as a substitute for explaining how their own policy positions are superior to those of the opposition candidate. The media, institutions, businesses, the rich, and other elements of the establishment are not running for office. Campaigning against them as if they were is a red herring argument (or scarecrow, perhaps).

  • Anonymous
    Posted at 02:48h, 25 September Reply

    Yep–but it is often just campaign rhetoric. We need to all work with the “establishment”. But questioning it is not, by itself, “anti-establishment”. Rather, it is necessary. Along the same line, criticizing government overreach or corruption is not “anti-government” or “anti-tax”. Giant institutions try to keep themselves insulated from change by claiming that valid criticism or necessary reform is “anti-establishment” or “populist”. It is all about power.

  • Missy
    Posted at 16:57h, 28 September Reply

    I enjoy reading your posts, Quentin. Thanks for sharing your articulate and rational thoughts. 🙂

Post A Comment