Classical Liberalism and Populism: A Discussion

A Look at Nils Karlson's Book

I recently spent some time watching a video titled "Are Populists Destroying Democracy?" on the IEA's YouTube channel. The video featured an interview between the IEA's Editorial Director, Kristian Niemietz, and Swedish political scientist Nils Karlson, who has written a widely-discussed book called Reviving Classical Liberalism Against Populism (2024).

While Karlson's book offers a thorough examination of populism, it also delves into an intriguing question: can classical liberalism survive if it doesn't address people's quest for meaning? This query leads to other, equally thought-provoking questions, and Karlson does an excellent job of exploring these complex issues.

Disagreements on Populism

However, I find myself troubled by Karlson's treatment of populism. I've voiced my concerns to Karlson on numerous occasions, given our longstanding friendship. Our disagreements primarily stem from our differing views on the current threats to liberal civilization.

In my view, the term 'populism' is primarily used to criticize movements and trends that challenge the most potent and dangerous anti-liberal forces of our time. These forces pose a greater threat than figures such as Javier Milei, Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, or Viktor Orbán, who are often labeled as 'populists.'

As for identifying the most anti-liberal forces today and explaining why they pose such a significant threat to liberal civilization, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Meanwhile, Karlson's approach to populism boils down to: 'Populism is bad.' This perspective, in my opinion, inadvertently aids the most dangerous anti-liberal forces. Karlson, however, disagrees with me on this point.

Defining Populism

The interview begins with Niemietz asking Karlson to define populism. Karlson lays out several characteristics, all of which he believes are necessary to label a political leader or movement as 'populist.' One of these characteristics is that populism is inherently 'bad' from a classical liberal perspective.

Karlson doesn't provide a solid rationale for this characteristic. He simply asserts his definition and leaves it at that. This approach deviates from the more conventional understanding of populism. In my article "One Cheer for Populism," I offer a definition that aligns with long-standing semantic conventions:

A political movement is populist when it portrays itself as being in opposition to corrupt elites. The elites that matter here are especially those of governmental structures. Populists suggest that a governing class have ensconced themselves into positions of power, that the elites network with one another to serve their own interests rather than the common interest, that they have abused their powers.

Karlson's definition includes something similar. However, he adds characteristics that lead him to conclude 'populism is bad.'

Us Versus Them

One of the characteristics of populism that Karlson identifies is the framing of political groups as Us versus Them. This is ironic, considering Karlson does the same—Us classical liberals are necessarily at odds with Them populists.

Javier Milei is often labeled a populist, and by the conventional definition, he indeed fits the bill. Furthermore, Milei is widely recognized as a classical liberal. The question of how Milei fits into Karlson's understanding of populism arises in the video. Karlson should have responded by stating that, according to his terminology, Milei is not a populist since Milei is a classical liberal. However, Karlson does not say this. Perhaps he avoids this statement because it would highlight his idiosyncratic definition of 'populism.' In response to the Milei challenge, Karlson simply wishes Milei luck, which doesn't address the issue at hand.

Karlson's Contributions

Karlson has made and continues to make significant contributions to classical liberalism. He has long wrestled with the challenge of making true liberalism relevant to people. Everyone seeks to find meaning in their actions. How can classical liberalism become meaningful to people—not just coherent or persuasive, but meaningful in the sense that people are willing to make sacrifices to defend it? These issues, which make up the second half of Karlson's book, were likely the initial motivation for the book. However, in the process of writing the book, Karlson seems to have concluded that classical liberalism's greatest threat comes from something called 'populism.'

Bottom Line

Debates and discussions about political ideologies like classical liberalism and populism are essential for understanding the complexities of our modern political landscape. The differing views of Nils Karlson and myself highlight the nuances and complexities inherent in these ideologies. What are your thoughts on this topic? Do you agree with Karlson's definition of populism, or do you lean towards a different interpretation? Share this article with your friends and continue the conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.