Why TikTok Can't Take All the Blame For Populism

The Problem of Hollow Centrism

Javier Milei, dressed as anarcho-capitalist superhero ‘General Ancap’, scourge of Keynsian economics.

Catch-up service:
The BBC’s Friends Are Its Worst Enemies
Are Parents Too Close To Their Children?
Postcard From Venice
5 AI Failure Modes Shared By Humans
Why Are LLMs fixated on the number 7?
The Emperor’s New Diplomacy
Successful Politicians Are Pattern-Breakers

We talk about it a lot these days, but what is “populism”? If you don’t have a ready answer, don’t worry, neither do the experts. Political scientists have great trouble defining populism because it doesn’t seem fit on a left-right axis. Most populist movements are on the right, but some are on the left (Zack Polanski, the new Green Party leader, is recognisably of this species). So is populism an ideology, or just a style of communicating?

I lean towards the latter kind of answer - writing about it earlier this year, I pinned it on TikTok. So does the Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath. Last month, Heath published his theory of the case in a long Substack post. Heath frames populism in psychological terms - as a style of politics which bypasses our capacity for rational reflection.

He borrows Daniel Kahneman’s distinction between two systems in the brain: System One - automatic, intuitive, reflexive - and System Two: reasoning, analytical, reflective. System One is fast and efficient. System Two is slower and more effortful. It’s also more energy-intensive, so we’ve evolved to avoid using it when we can. (Kahneman likens System Two to the ability of cats to swim. They can do it, but they’d prefer not to if at all possible. This is actually my attitude to swimming too.)

According to Heath, populism says, in effect, that it’s OK, you don’t have to think. Your first instinct is right. Immigrants do take the jobs of people that live here. Crime is on the rise. Or from the left: If we tax the rich more they can pay for everything. Nuclear energy is dangerous, just like nuclear weapons. (My examples).

Mainstream politicians are wary of adopting simplistic positions because they know they’re not true and lead to disastrous outcomes. Whether through study or experience they have learnt that good policy is often counter-intuitive. But this expert knowledge puts them at a distance from most voters. Populists exploit the gap between elite and popular opinion by championing honest common sense against disingenuous obfuscation. They lead a righteous revolt, not just against elites, but against System Two itself - against the onerous business of thinking.

The populist communication style follows from this. Video-based social media favours intuitive, emotional, outrage-based propositions, which is why populists can use it so effectively. Populists talk differently too, liberated as they are from any constraints of analytical precision, or the verbal self-control which elites have used to signal seriousness. Right-wing populists also engage in cultural revolt against the condescension of people who revel in telling you to “educate yourself” about the latest politically correct terminology.

Heath is always interesting and I found his argument persuasive, but I had reservations about it which I couldn’t put my finger on. I worked out what they are after reading a shorter piece by the economist Tim Harford, who uses Heath’s theory as the basis for his latest Financial Times column. There’s a sentence in Harford’s summary of Heath which is so jarring that it made me realise what the problem is.

After the jump, the rest of this piece, plus an instant 21st century classic album, plus thoughts on the next BBC Director-General, plus notes on Starmer-Streeting, plus a juicy Rattle Bag. Paid subscribers make The Ruffian possible. Sign up today!