Populism beyond left and right? Try again.

Odd that Desmond Fennell in the course of a good number of words in the IT on ‘populisms’ of the contemporary period doesn’t somehow manage to mention once a defining characteristic of almost all those parties that represent this in the places he mentions, those being France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Austria (and the UK too come to think of it). That is, that bar Italy, all are parties that place immigration and immigrants at the heart of their political discourse. No indeed, he writes:

The parties called “populist” by the media have not chosen that description of themselves. From France and Germany to Italy, Holland and Austria, from Brexiteers to Trumpists, they pursue causes within their own nations, and have in common only that they are opposed to the neoliberal establishments and worldview on cultural, ideological and economic grounds. Knowing what in fact “populist” means, they are not unhappy with that description of them, while resenting the elitist insinuations – uneducated, low-class, easily led by demagogues – of those who use it.

If that seems a bit self-serving, what of this old chestnut?

As these things happen, it will become clear that political commentary had best find a new terminology to replace those “left, right” terms taken from the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly of 1789-91 – not only those terms but also “progressive”, “conservative”, “reactionary” and so on which served their purpose in a different world.
A new, realistic terminology for writing about politics would mean progress and enlightenment in the precise meanings of those tired, much-abused words.

But there’s no great mystery where the particular ‘populists’ he writes about (and note no word about those like Syriza or Podemos or other left groups – clearly that’s a different populism to him) lie on the political spectrum. There’s no confusion at all.

They are what those like them have always been.