POL113 Study Flashcards
(35 cards)
. What populists support and what they oppose
Populists generally support policies and rhetoric that appeal to “the common man” versus what they perceive as a corrupt elite. They often oppose the current political establishment, globalization, and immigration policies that they consider threatening to national integrity or identity.
Definition of populism. What are its main features?
Populism is a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. The main features include: - A dichotomous view of society (the pure people vs. the corrupt elite) - A general opposition to the established political system - A direct connection between the populist leader and the people, often bypassing traditional media and political institutions
The reasons why populism is on the rise?
Reasons for the rise of populism may include: - Economic dislocation and inequality - Perceived loss of national sovereignty - Reaction to rapid social changes, including immigration and cultural shifts - Distrust in traditional political institutions and elites
How populist political parties govern once they come to power? According to Mueller.
According to Jan-Werner Mueller, populist political parties can be characterized by an anti-pluralist stance when they govern, claiming they alone represent the people. They often undermine checks and balances, disregard the rule of law, and delegitimize political opposition.
What are the core/main claims of populism according to Mueller?
Mueller identifies the core claims of populism as the idea that they, and only they, represent the will of the people. This leads them to view all opposition as illegitimate and to believe that they have a moral monopoly on political representation.
Mueller’s definition of discriminatory legalism
Discriminatory legalism refers to a technique used by populist leaders to selectively enforce legal norms and rules to punish political opponents while ignoring illegal actions by their allies.
Mueller’s definition/account of how populists colonize the state once they gain power.
Mueller argues that populists colonize the state by placing loyalists in key positions, dismantling systemic checks and balances, and creating an environment in which state resources are used to maintain political power.
According to Friedman, what principles allows us to benefit from government/minimize its negative/dangerous impact?
Friedman suggests that principles which limit the role of government and ensure individual freedoms—such as a free-market economy, a rule of law, the decentralization of power, the protection of individual rights, and a clear and limited scope of government—help to minimize the potential negative impacts of government.
Proper role of government according to Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman believed that the proper role of government is to protect the freedom of individuals, enforce the rule of law and property rights, and control the money supply to prevent inflation. Apart from these, the government should have a minimalistic intervention in economic affairs.
The markets vs. the state. What are markets able to supply? The virtues/strengths of relying on the markets.
Markets are typically able to supply a wide range of goods and services efficiently due to competition. The virtues of relying on the markets include:
Efficiency: Resources are allocated based on supply and demand.
Innovation: Competitive pressures encourage innovation.
Consumer Sovereignty: Consumers ultimately drive what is produced by their purchase choices.
Flexibility: Markets can adjust more readily to changes in consumer preferences and technology.
Hayek’s criticism of conservatism (the two slides at the end of the lecture on libertarianism)
Friedrich Hayek’s criticism of conservatism centers on its potential to impede progress and innovation. While conservatism may defend liberty from rapid changes, it can also resist necessary reformations. Hayek argues that conservatism, by being bound to traditions, may limit the growth fostered by a dynamic market economy and the spontaneous order that he advocates.
The main features of Schumpeter’s account of classical democracy
Joseph Schumpeter’s account of classical democracy emphasized the role of the common will and the common good in guiding political decisions. According to this view, democracy is a process where the people determine their political leaders, who act in the best interests of the populace, supposedly reflecting a collective will. Classical democracy rests on the political virtue and participation of the citizenry.
Schumpeter’s account of human nature in politics and why Schumpeter thinks it does not support classical democracy?
Schumpeter criticized the classical model, arguing that it was premised on an unrealistic understanding of human nature. He held that average citizens lack the specialized knowledge, emotional detachment, and interest level required to make the continuous, informed, and rational decisions classical democracy demands. This led him to conclude that classical democracy was an unattainable ideal.
Why the classical account (democracy) survived despite its shortcomings/defects?
The classical account of democracy has endured, partially because of its inherent appeal—it emphasizes noble ideals such as political equality, citizen participation, and the common good. This model also persists in political discourse and educational curricula due to its historic root in the democratic practices of places like ancient Athens.
Why does Schumpeter criticize the classical model of democracy? What arguments does he make against it?
Schumpeter criticizes the classical model for being idealistic and unachievable. He argues that individuals are not necessarily driven by the rational pursuit of the common good, but rather by individual interests and emotions. Furthermore, he suggests that citizens are ill-equipped for the direct governance the classical model requires, lacking the time, resources, and inclination for such engagement.
Schumpeter’s account of minimalist democracy and its main features
Schumpeter describes minimalist (or “realist”) democracy primarily as a method for selecting leaders. Key features of this model include: - Free, competitive elections - Institutional checks and balances - The electorate’s role reduced to choosing among competing leaders or parties - The professionalization of policy-making, leaving complex decisions to elected officials and bureaucrats - Reduced emphasis on the “will of the people” as a concrete policy guide
Citizens’ rationality in different contexts (human nature in politics)
Citizens may exhibit rationality differently in various contexts due to factors such as information availability, cognitive biases, influence of mass media, and the complexity of political decisions. Schumpeter and others suggest that citizens behave more rationally as consumers in markets than as voters in political processes, since market choices are often more directly linked to their personal interests and have more immediate and tangible consequences.
Schumpeter’s commitment to minimalist democracy
Schumpeter supported minimalist democracy because he believed it was a more practical and realistic governance system than the classical ideal. It limits the demand on citizens’ time and expertise and leverages the specialized skills of elected officials and bureaucrats to make complex policy decisions.
Main features/aspects of minimalist democracy
Key aspects include: - Electoral competition as the defining characteristic - A pragmatic view of politics as an arena for competing interests - Emphasis on procedures for selecting leaders rather than the direct implementation of the popular will - A focus on individual freedoms and rule of law over the concept of a common will
Different models of democracy discussed in the first part of the democracy lecture.
1.Pluralist and neo-pluralist models
2.Participatory democracy
3.Legal democracy
4.Competitive elitism (minimalist)
Why does G.A. Cohen find socialism attractive?
G.A. Cohen admired socialism for its ethos of equality, community, and fairness. He argued that socialism allows for a society organized around the welfare of all its members and oppresses neither the workers nor the consumers because it eliminates the power dynamics and exploitative nature inherent in capitalist systems.
Different versions of the equality of opportunity discussed by Cohen
Cohen discussed the concepts like “bourgeois equality of opportunity,” which requires eliminating formal and legal barriers to success, and “left-liberal equality of opportunity” or “fair equality of opportunity,” which also entails compensating for social and economic disadvantages to level the playing field.
Cohen’s two socialist principles
Cohen’s socialist principles may refer to his views on egalitarianism: (1) The socialist principle of community, which rejects economic structures that cause power relations and class divisions; and (2) the principle of equality of opportunity, which aims for a society where each individual’s chance of success is not influenced by factors such as socioeconomic background.
Oakeshott’s definition of conservatism/its main features
Michael Oakeshott viewed conservatism not as a creed or doctrine but as a disposition, valuing tradition and order and exhibiting a general skepticism toward the idea of transformational change based on abstract principles. Conservatism for him emphasized the importance of the familiar, the tried and tested over the new and unknown, and the view that change should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
