Populism is a political discourse that juxtaposes "the people" with "the elites". Populism may comprise an ideology urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style deployed by members of political or social movements.

Academic definitions편집

Academic and scholarly definitions of populism vary widely and, among both journalists and scholars, the term is often employed in loose, inconsistent and undefined ways to denote appeals to ‘the people’, ‘demagogy’ and ‘catch-all’ politics or as a receptacle for new types of parties whose classification observers are unsure of. Another factor held to diminish the value of ‘populism’ in some societies is that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, unlike labels such as ‘conservative’ or ‘socialist’, the meanings of which have been ‘chiefly dictated by their adherents’, contemporary populists rarely call themselves ‘populists’ and usually reject the term when it is applied to them by others [1]. Some exceptions to this pattern of pejorative usage exist, notably in the United States, but it appears likely that this is due to the memories and traditions of earlier democratic movements (e.g. farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement) that were often called (and called themselves) populist. It may also be due to linguistic confusions of populism with terms such as "popular" [2].

Due to the attention on populism in the academic world, scholars have made advances in defining the term in ways which can be profitably employed in research and help to distinguish between movements which are populist and those which simply borrow from populism. One of the latest of these is the definition by Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell who, in their volume Twenty-First Century Populism, define populism as "an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice" [3]. Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programmes, issues or electorates, as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do[4], this conception of populism belongs to the tradition of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau[5], Pierre-Andre Taguieff [6], Yves Meny and Yves Surel [7] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than simply as an appendage of other ideologies (such as nationalism, neo-liberalism etc.). In fact, given its central tenet that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people, populism can sit easily with ideologies of both Right and Left. Indeed, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, many populists claim to be neither "left wing," nor "centrist" nor "right wing."[8][9][10]

Styles and methods편집

Some scholars argue that populist politics as organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelian" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving [11]. Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist[12] forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views. [13] The use of populist rhetoric in the United States has recently included references such as "the powerful trial lawyer lobby"[14][15], "the liberal elite," or "the Hollywood elite"[16]. An example of populist rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum was the theme of "Two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards.

Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, even while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide — agrarian and political — and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:



  • Populist democracy, including calls for more political participation through reforms such as the use of popular referendums.
  • Politicians' populism marked by non-ideological appeals for "the people" to build a unified coalition.
  • Reactionary populism, such as the white backlash harvested by George Wallace.
  • Populist dictatorship, such as that established by Getulio Vargas in Brazil.

Fascism and populism편집

It is believed by some that populist movements can be precursors for, or building blocks for, fascist movements.[17][18][19] Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism."[20] National socialist populism interacted with and facilitated fascism in interwar Germany.[21] In this case, distressed middle–class populists during the pre-Nazi Weimar period mobilized their anger at government and big business. The Nazis "parasitized the forms and themes of the populists and moved their constituencies far to the right through ideological appeals involving demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracism."[22] According to Fritzsche:

The Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle–class constituents and at the same time advocated a strong and resolutely anti-Marxist mobilization....Against "unnaturally" divisive parties and querulous organized interest groups, National Socialists cast themselves as representatives of the commonwealth, of an allegedly betrayed and neglected German public....[b]reaking social barriers of status and caste, and celebrating at least rhetorically the populist ideal of the people’s community...[23]

History in Europe편집

Classical populism편집

The word populism is derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of "nation," as in: "The Roman People" (populus Romanus), not in the sense of "multiple individual persons" as in: "There are people visiting us today"). Therefore, populism espouses government by the people as a whole (that is to say, the masses). This is in contrast to elitism, aristocracy, synarchy or plutocracy, each of which are an ideology that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses.[출처 필요]

Populism has been a common political phenomenon throughout history. Spartacus could be considered a famous example of a populist leader of ancient times through his slave rebellion against the rulers of Ancient Rome.[출처 필요] In fact, such leaders of the Roman Republic as Gaius Marius, Julius Caesar, and Caesar Augustus were called populares, as all used referendums to go over the Roman Senate's head and establish the laws that they saw fit.[출처 필요]

Early modern period편집

Populism rose during the Reformation; Protestant groups like the Anabaptists formed ideas about ideal theocratic societies, in which peasants would be able to read the Bible themselves. Attempts of establishing these societies were made during the Peasants' War (1524-1525) and the Münster Rebellion (1534-1535). However, the peasant movement ultimately failed as cities and nobles made their own peace with the princely armies, which restored the old order under the nominal overlordship of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, represented in German affairs by his younger brother Ferdinand.

The same conditions which contributed to the outbreak of the English Revolution of 1642-1651, also known as the English Civil War. It led to a proliferation of ideologies and political movements among peasants, self-employed artisans, and working class people in England. Many of these groups had a dogmatic Protestant religious bent. They included Puritans and the Levellers.[출처 필요]

Religious revival편집

Romanticism, the anxiety against rationalism, broadened after the beginnings of the European and Industrial Revolutions because of cultural, social, and political insecurity. Romanticism led directly into a strong popular desire to bring about religious revival, nationalism and populism. The ensuing religious revival eventually blended into political populism and nationalism, becoming at times a single entity and a powerful force of public will for change. The paradigm shift brought about was marked by people looking for security and community because of a strong emotional need to escape from anxiety and to believe in something larger than themselves.[출처 필요]

The revival of religiosity all over Europe played an important role in bringing people to populism and nationalism. In France, François-René de Chateaubriand provided the opening shots of Catholic revivalism as he opposed enlightenment's materialism with the "mystery of life," the human need for redemption.[출처 필요] In Germany, Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher promoted pietism by stating that religion was not the institution, but a mystical piety and sentiment with Christ as the mediating figure raising the human consciousness above the mundane to God's level.[출처 필요] In England, John Wesley's Methodism split with the Anglican church because of its emphasis on the salvation of the masses as a key to moral reform, which Wesley saw as the answer to the social problems of the day.[출처 필요]

Rejection of ultramontanism편집

Chateaubriand's beginning brought about two Catholic Revivals in France: first, a conservative revival led by Joseph de Maistre, which defended ultramontanism, also known as the supremacy of the Pope in the church, and a second populist revival led by Felicite de Lamennais, an excommunicated priest. This religious populism opposed ultramontanism and emphasized a church community dependent upon all of the people, not just the elite. Furthermore, it stressed that church authority should come from the bottom-up and that the church should alleviate suffering, not merely accept it, both principles that gave the masses strength.[출처 필요]

Latin America편집

Populism has been an important force in Latin American political history. In Latin America, many charismatic leaders have emerged since the 20th century. Populism in Latin America has been traced by some to concepts taken from Perón's Third Position.[24] Populist practitioners in Latin America usually adapt politically to the prevailing mood of the nation, moving within the ideological spectrum from left to right many times during their political lives. Latin American countries have not always had a clear and consistent political ideology under populism. Most of these countries cannot be as clearly and easily divided between liberals and conservatives, as in the United States, or between social-democrats and Christian-democrats as in European countries. Nevertheless, the more recent pattern that has emerged in Latin American populists has been decidedly socialist populism[25][26] that appeals to masses of poor by promising redistributive policies[27] and state control of the nation's energy resources[28].

Populism has been fiscally supported in Latin America during periods of growth such as the 1950s and 1960s and during commodity price booms such as in oil and precious metals. Political leaders could gather followers among the popular classes with broad redistributive programs during these boom times. Populism in Latin America has been sometimes criticized for the fiscal policies of many of its leaders, but has also been defended for having allowed historically weak states to buy off disorder and achieve a tolerable degree of stability while initiating large-scale industrialization. Thus though specific populist fiscal and monetary policies may be criticized by economic historians, populism has also allowed leaders and parties to co-opt the radical ideas of the masses so as to redirect them in a non revolutionary direction.[출처 필요]

Often adapting a nationalist vocabulary and rhetorically convincing, populism was used to appeal to broad masses while remaining ideologically ambivalent. Notwithstanding, there have been notable exceptions. 21st Century Latin-American populist leaders have had a decidedly socialist bent.[29][30]

When populists do take strong positions on economic philosophies such as capitalism versus socialism, the position sparks strong emotional responses regarding how best to manage the nation's current and future social and economic position. Mexico's 2006 Presidential election was hotly debated (even if only among its social elite) among Mexicans who supported and opposed populist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador.[31]


Populism in Latin American countries has both an economic and an ideological edge. The situation is similar in many countries with the legacies of poor and low-growth economies: highly unequal societies in which people are divided between a relative few wealthy families and masses of poor (with some exceptions such as Argentina, where strong and educated middle classes are a significant segment of the population).[32]

Other perspectives trace inequality to the formation of Latin America's governments and institutions, which were shaped by the Spanish crown upon the conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards. Latin America was not meant to be a colony for the settlers to live in and develop, like the United States, but a source of resources for the Spanish crown. After the nations obtained their independence, many colonial legacies survived.[출처 필요]

Populists can be very successful political candidates in such countries. In appealing to the masses of poor people prior to gaining power, populists may promise widely-demanded food, housing, employment, basic social services, and income-redistribution. Once in political power, they may not always be financially or politically able to fulfill all these broad promises. However, they are very often successful in stretching to provide many broad and basic services.[출처 필요]

Economics debate on populism and socialist populism편집

In Mexico, Brazil and Argentina in a relatively short period of time, populist leaders were perceived to have delivered more to their lower class constituents than previous governments. Critics of populist policies point to the infamous consequences of spending and lack of reform on these countries' respective finances involving growing debt, pressured currencies, and hyperinflation, which in turn led to high interest rates, low growth, and debt crisis. The 1980s in Latin America became referred to as a lost decade during which the region experienced low economic growth and few if any reductions in poverty while the Asian Tigers have been consistently developing through high rates of savings, investments, and educational achievements. Supporters of past economic policies would point to the uncontrollable economic consequences of high oil prices to much of the world economy during the 1970s and the unanticipated fall in commodity prices that would later complicate financing past spending. [출처 필요]

Reacting to the legacy of the debt-crisis and slow growth during the 1980s, many Latin American governments privatized state-owned enterprises, such as electricity and telecommunications during the wave of privatizations that occurred in those countries in the 1990s, and opened to trade. This has also been done outside Latin America, from Britain and the U.S. (during the Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan years) to Russia and China's (accelerating economic liberalization during the 1990s) to speed economic growth and employment.[출처 필요]

In the Argentinian Corralito crisis, the government was forced to withdraw after three days of popular riots. In Mexico, tortilla price increases have sparked protests demanding price-controls which the leadership instead handled with a gentleman's agreement with major manufacturers capping prices for a fixed time period.[출처 필요]

The economic debate continues as reforms to weak and closed Latin American economies opened up to external shocks and competition such as through privatizations and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in Mexico and other trade agreements and privatizations throughout Latin America. While orthodox economics point to longer term gains for quickly modernizing countries like Chile, slower moving countries have considered retracting from the initial shocks. Some blame a "neo-liberal" economic model favored by an unpopular US government. The "neo-liberal" tag, along with the label of the "Washington Consensus" have been used to criticize harsh economic policies on the one hand, and on the other hand some have used to demonize orthodox economic science and policies by tying them directly to the unpopular U.S. government which faces widespread distrust in Latin America[33][34]. Indeed throughout the world, orthodox economists generally agree that the older socialist policies favored by many populists have hindered Latin American economies[출처 필요] and that today further neo-liberal economic reforms would be needed to compete in the international arena for more jobs and faster growth. Support for socialism continues within economic circles that rely on pro-socialist works such as "Whither Socialism?" by Joseph Stiglitz.[출처 필요].

US policy편집

The US has intervened in Latin American governments on many occasions where populism has threatened its interests: the interventions in Guatemala, when the populist Arbenz government was overthrown by a coup backed by the American company United Fruit and the American ambassador in 1954, and Augusto Pinochet's Chilean coup in 1973 are just two cases of American intervention. Daniel Ortega's Sandinista government in Nicaragua was also viewed as a threat to US foreign policy during the Cold War, leading the United States to place an embargo on trade with the Sandinista's Soviet-sponsored regime in 1985[35][36] as well as supporting anti-Sandinista rebels. One last example of US intervention has been seen in Colombia particularly since the assassination of the populist leader Jorge Eliecer Gaitan in April 1948. Gaitan supported land reform and other socialist initiatives which posed a threat to American interests; it is for this reason that Gaitan's assassination is alleged to have been a CIA plot. To this day Colombia continues to be the US's most important ally in the region with continuous military aid under Plan Colombia.

Strength and current socialist tendency편집

Populism has nevertheless remained a significant force in Latin America. Populism has recently been re-appearing on the left with promises of far-reaching socialist changes as seen in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. These socialist changes have included policies nationalizing energy resources such as oil, and consolidation of power into the hands of the President to enable a socialist "transformation." The Venezuelan government often spars verbally with the United States and accuses it of attempting to overthrow its president Hugo Chavez after supporting a failed coup against him. Chavez himself has been one of the most outspoken and blunt critics of U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, the Venezuelan and U.S. governments continue to rely on each other for oil sales from Venezuela to the United States.[37]

In the 21st century, the large numbers of voters in extreme poverty in Latin America have remained a bastion of support for new populist candidates. By early 2008 governments with varying forms of populist governments with some form of left leaning social democratic or democratic socialist platform had come to dominate virtually all Latin American nations with the exceptions of Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico. [38] This political shift includes both more developed Nations such as Brazil with its ruling Workers' Party, Argentina's Front for Victory and the Socialist Party of Chile Populist candidates have been defeated in middle-income countries such as Mexico, in part by comparing them to Venezuela's controversial Hugo Chavez, whose socialist policies have been used to scare the middle class. Nevertheless, populist candidates have been more successful in poorer Latin American countries such as Bolivia (under Morales), Ecuador (under Correa) and Nicaragua (under Ortega). By the use of broad grassroots movements populist groups have managed to gain power from better organized, funded and entrenched groups such as the Bolivian Nationalist Democratic Action and the Paraguayan Colorado Party [39]

Wherever governments in Latin America maintain high rates of poverty and yet support unpopular privatizations and more orthodox economic policies without quickly delivering gains to enough people, they will continue to come under pressure from populist politicians who accuse them of focusing on securing more benefits for the upper and upper-middle classes rather than the people as represented by those in poverty and extreme poverty, and for being allied to foreign and business interests.[출처 필요]


In Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's candidacy sparked very emotional debates throughout the country regarding policies that affect ideology, class, equality, wealth, and society. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's most controversial economic policies included his promise to expand monthly stipends to the poor and elderly from Mexico City to the rest of the country and to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement to protect the Mexican poor. The ruling party in Mexico, the National Action Party (PAN), portrayed him as a danger to Mexico's hard-earned economic stability. In criticizing his redistributive promises that would create new entitlement programs somewhat similar to social security in the US (though not as broad in scope) and his trade policies that would not fully uphold prior agreements (such as NAFTA), the economic debate between capitalists and socialists became a major part of the debate. Felipe Calderon , the PAN candidate, portrayed himself as not just a standard-bearer for recent economic policy, but rather more fully as a more pro-active candidate so as to distance himself from the main criticisms of his predecessor Vicente Fox regarding inaction. He labeled himself the "jobs president" and promised greater national wealth for all through steady future growth, fiscal prudence, international trade, and balanced government spending. During the immediate aftermath of the tight elections in which the country's electoral court was hearing challenges to the vote tally that had Calderon winning, Obrador showed the considerable influence over the masses that are a trademark of populist politicians. He effectively led huge demonstrations filling the central plaza with masses of sympathizers who supported his challenge. The demonstrations lasted for several months and eventually dissipated after the electoral court did not find sufficient cause from the challenges presented to overturn the results.[40][41]

United States편집

Later there was the Greenback Party, the Progressive Party of 1912 led by Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party of 1924 led by Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and the Share Our Wealth movement of Huey Long in 1933-35.

George Wallace, Four-Term Governor of Alabama, led a populist movement that carried five states and won 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 presidential election. Campaigning against intellectuals and liberal reformers, Wallace gained a large share of the white working class vote in Democratic primaries in 1972.[42][43][44]

Populism continues to be a force in modern U.S. politics, especially in the 1992 and 1996 third-party presidential campaigns of billionaire Ross Perot. The 1996, 2000, 2004, and the 2008 presidential campaigns of Ralph Nader had a strong populist cast. The 2004 campaigns of Dennis Kucinich[45][46][47][48] and Al Sharpton also had populist elements. The 2004 and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been described by many[49] (and by himself) as a «one economic community, one commonwealth»[50] populist.[출처 필요]In the 2008 presidential elections Governor Mike Huckabee had an economic populist message supporting Main Street America and supporting the fairtax.

Comparison between earlier surges of Populism and those of today are complicated by shifts in what are thought to be the interests of the common people. Jonah Goldberg and others argue that in modern society, fractured as it is into myriad interest groups and niches, any attempt to define the interests of the "average person" will be so general as to be useless.[출처 필요]

Over time, there have been several versions of a Populist Party in the United States, inspired by the People's Party of the 1890s. This was the party of the early U.S. populist movement in which millions of farmers and other working people successfully enacted their anti-trust agenda.[출처 필요]

In 1984, the Populist Party name was revived by Willis Carto, and was used in 1988 as a vehicle for the presidential campaign of former Ku Klux Klan leader, and later member of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, David Duke. Right-wing Patriot movement organizer Bo Gritz was briefly Duke's running mate. This maligned incarnation of Populism was widely regarded as a vehicle for white supremacist recruitment. In this instance, populism was maligned using a definition of "the people" which was not the prevailing definition.[출처 필요]

Another populist mechanism was the initiative and referendum driven term-limits movement of the early 1990s. In every state where the people were able to bypass the established power structure and put term-limits on the ballot, the measure to limit incumbency in Congress passed. The average margin of victory was 67%, giving this populist insurgency a landslide by American electoral standards. It was fitting, perhaps, that the unelected, irremovable, life-tenured U.S. Supreme Court would be the agent of resistance, in 1995 striking down all the congressional term limits enacted by the people. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton.[출처 필요]

In 1995, the Reform Party of the United States of America (RPUSA) was organized after the populist presidential campaign of Ross Perot in 1992. In the year 2000, an intense fight for the presidential nomination made Patrick J. Buchanan the RPUSA standard-bearer. As result of his nomination ans party candidate there were many party splits, no only from Buchanan supporters after he left the party but also moderates, progressivists and libertarians around Jesse Ventura who refused to colaborate with the Buchanan candidacy[51]. Since then the party's fortunes have markedly declined.[출처 필요]

In the 2000s, new populist parties were formed in America, including the Populist Party of Maryland, which ran candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. Senate and state delegate in the 2006 elections, Populist Party of America in 2002, and the American Populist Renaissance in 2005. The American Moderation Party, also formed in 2005, adopted several populist ideals, chief among them working against multinational neo-corporatism.


Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, a Lutheran Minister, a professor at the University of Berlin and the "father of gymnastics," introduced the Volkstum, a racial nation that draws on the essence of a people that was lost in the Industrial Revolution. Adam Mueller went a step further by positing the state as a bigger totality than the government institution. This paternalistic vision of aristocracy concerned with social orders had a dark side in that the opposite force of modernity was represented by the Jews, who were said to be eating away at the state.[출처 필요] Populism also played a role in mobilizing middle class support for the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany.[52]. In this case, distressed middle–class populists during the pre-Nazi Weimar period mobilized their anger at government and big business. According to Fritzsche:

The Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle–class constituents and at the same time advocated a strong and resolutely anti-Marxist mobilization.... Against “unnaturally” divisive parties and querulous organized interest groups, National Socialists cast themselves as representatives of the commonwealth, of an allegedly betrayed and neglected German public....[b]reaking social barriers of status and caste, and celebrating at least rhetorically the populist ideal of the people’s community... [23]


In the late 18th century, the French Revolution, though led by wealthy intellectuals, could also be described as a manifestation of populist sentiment against the elitist excesses and privileges of the Ancien Régime.

In France, the populist and nationalist picture was more mystical and metaphysical in nature. Historian Jules Michelet fused nationalism and populism by positing the people as a mystical unity who are the driving force of history in which the divinity finds its purpose. For Michelet, in history, that representation of the struggle between spirit and matter, France has a special place because the French became a people through equality, liberty, and fraternity. Because of this, he believed, the French people can never be wrong. Michelet's ideas are not socialism or rational politics, and his populism always minimizes, or even masks, social class differences.

In the 1950s, Pierre Poujade was the leader of the right-wing populist movement UDCA.

Jean Marie Le Pen (who was UDCA's youngest deputy in the 1950s) can be characterized as right-wing populist.

See also편집



  1. Canovan, Margaret, 1981,Populism, New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, p.5
  2. Boyte, Populism and John Dewey
  3. Albertazzi, Daniele and Duncan McDonnell, 2008, Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy, New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan, p.3
  4. Kitschelt, Herbert (with McGann, Anthony), 1995, The Radical Right in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michighan Press
  5. Laclau, Ernesto, 2005, On Populist Reason, London: Verso
  6. Taguieff, Pierre-Andre, 2002, L'illusion populiste, Paris: Berg International
  7. Meny, Yves and Surel, Yves, 2002, Democracies and the Populist Challenge, London: Palgrave Macmillan
  8. Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism.
  9. Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe.
  10. Kazin, Michael. 1995.The Populist Persuasion: An American History.
  11. Harry C. Boyte, "A Different mariKind of Politics," Dewey Lecture, University of Michigan, 2002
  12. "The basic ideology of the middle class is populism.... Their ideal was an independent small property owning class consisting of merchants, mechanics, and farmers. This element...now designated as middle class, sponsored a system of private property, profit, and competition on an entirely different basis from that conceived by capitalism....From its very inception it opposed "big business" or what has now become known as capitalism." David Saposs, quoted in "Political Man", Lipset
  13. Richard L. Wood, Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America, 2002
  14. Ignore the Lawyers, Help the People - The powerful trial lawyers lobby must not be allowed to stymie tort reform.
  15. Trial Lawyer Lobby Scores Several Big Victories — But Signs Of Hope In A Tough Election Year
  16. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/27/and-the-winner-isthe-hollywood-elite/ And The Winner Is…The Hollywood Elite, January 27th, 2009 at 5.46pm
  17. Ferkiss 1957.
  18. Dobratz and Shanks–Meile 1988
  19. Berlet and Lyons, 2000
  20. Mary Rupert 1997: 96.
  21. Fritzsche 1990: 149-150.
  22. Berlet 2005.
  23. Fritzsche 1990: 233-235)
  24. links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816(195311)15%3A4%3C582%3APA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23
  25. Héctor E. Schamis - Populism, socialism and democratic institutions
  26. ARTICLE: Populism and Anti-Americanism in Modern Latin America, by Justin Lance
  27. ARTICLE: Populism and Anti-Americanism in Modern Latin America, by Justin Lance
  28. Populist Left in South America, The Big Question: Should We Be Worried by the Rise of the Populist Left in South America?, By David Usborne, The Independent UK, Thursday 04 May 2006
  29. Héctor E. Schamis - Populism, socialism and democratic institutions
  30. ARTICLE: Populism and Anti-Americanism in Modern Latin America, by Justin Lance
  31. January 24, 2007: Mexican Political Polarization Limited to Elites Despite Contested Election, APSA Press Release
  33. The Rebirth of Populism in Latin America Poses A Powerful Challenge to the Neoliberal Order, August 22nd 2006, by John Green - COHA
  34. Martinez, Elizabeth and Garcia, Arnoldo. “What is Neo-liberalism?” Global Exchange. February 26th, 2000.
  35. Anti-Sandinistas Say U.S. Should End Embargo - New York Times
  36. Nicaragua:: The Sandinista government -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
  37. Venezuela-US trade under the microscope, By Greg Morsbach
  38. More leftist leaders in Latin America - Americas - MSNBC.com
  39. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24244610/ Latin America gets another leftist leader Fernando Lugo's victory in Paraguay adds to the leftward tilt
  40. Dog Brothers Public Forum, Mexico
  41. The Challenge of Closely Fought Elections, Whitehead, Laurence Project MUSE - Journal of Democracy, Volume 18, Number 2, April 2007
  42. Behind the backlash: white working-class politics in Baltimore, 1940-1980 Por Kenneth D. Durr, pg 183
  43. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/rogers.htm America's Forgotten Majority, June 2000, by Joel Rogers and Ruy Teixeira
  44. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=412666 George C. Wallace, Stormfront
  45. Willie Nelson's populist beliefs lead him to underdog Kucinich., Star-Telegraf
  46. Gore Vidal for Dennis Kucinich: A farsighted populist and pacifist., The Nation November 8, 2007 01:44 PM
  47. Kucinich Took On Powerful Interests in Mayoral Race, by Cheryl Corley, September 26, 2007
  48. http://blog.4president.us/2004/dennis_kucinich/index.html 2004 Presidential Campaign Blog. Dennis Kuchinich
  49. February 7, 2007, three forms of populism in the 2008 campaign (scroll down)
  50. February 7, 2007, three forms of populism in the 2008 campaign (scroll down)
  51. Reform Party of the United States of America
  52. Fritzsche 1990: 149-150, 1998


  • Albertazzi, Daniele and Duncan McDonnell. 2008. Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 023001349X ISBN 978-0230013490
  • Berlet, Chip. 2005. “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Boggs, Carl. 1982.“The New Populism and the Limits of Structural Reform,” Theory and Society Vol. 12:3 (May)
  • Boggs, Carl. 1986. Social Movements and Political Power: Emerging Forms of Radicalism in the West. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Boyte, Harry. C. and Frank Riessman, Eds. 1986. The New Populism: THe Politics of Empowerment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Boyte, Harry C. 1989. CommonWealth: A Return to Citizen Politics. New York: Free Press.
  • Boyte, Harry C. 2004. Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Boyte, Harry C. 2007. "Populism and John Dewey: Convergences and Contradictions," Seventh Annual University of Michigan Dewey Lecture.
  • Brass, Tom. 2000. Peasants, Populism and Postmodernism: The Return of the Agrarian Myth London: Frank Cass Publishers.
  • Coles, Rom. 2006. "Of Tensions and Tricksters: Grassroots Democracy Between Theory and Practice,” Perspectives on Politics Vol. 4:3 (Fall), pp. 547–561
  • Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 0-15-173078-4
  • Denning, Michael.1997. The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century. London: Verso.
  • Emibayer, Mustafa and Ann Mishe. 1998.“What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology Vol. 103:4, pp. 962–1023
  • Grieder, William. 1993. Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy. Simon % Schuster.
  • Khoros, Vladim1r. 1984. Populism: Its Past, Present and Future. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
  • Kling, Joseph M. and Prudence S. Posner. 1990. Dilemmas of Activism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Laclau, Ernesto. 1977. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism. London: NLB/Atlantic Highlands Humanities Press.
  • Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On Populist Reason. London: Verso
  • Rupert, Mark. 1997. "Globalization and the Reconstruction of Common Sense in the US." In Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, S. Gill and J. Mittelman, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taggart, Paul. 2000. Populism. Buckingham: Open University Press. ISBN 0-335-20045-1.


  • Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St. Martins Press. ISBN 0-312-08390-4, ISBN 0-312-12195-4
  • Fritzsche, Peter. 1990. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505780-5
  • Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

United States편집

  • Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-568-1, ISBN 1-57230-562-2
  • Dobratz, Betty A, and Stephanie L. Shanks–Meile. 1988. “The Contemporary Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party: A Comparison to American Populism at the Turn of the Century.” Humanity and Society, 20–50.
  • Evans, Sara M. and Harry C. Boyte. 1986. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Ferkiss, Victor C. 1957. “Populist Influences on American Fascism.” Western Political Quarterly 10(2):350–73.
  • Fink, Leon. 1983. Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1976. Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
  • Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1978. The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
  • Hahn, Steven. 1983. Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850-1890. New York and London: Oxford University Pres
  • Jeffrey, Julie Roy.1975. "Women in the Southern Farmers Alliance: A Reconsideration of the Role and Status of Women in the Late 19th Century South." Feminist Studies 3.
  • Kazin, Michael. 1995. The Populist Persuasion: An American History. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03793-3, ISBN 0-8014-8558-4
  • Marable, Manning. 1986. "Black History and the Vision of Democracy," in Harry Boyte and Frank Riessman, Eds., The New Populism: The Politics of Empowerment. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Palmer, Bruce. 1980. Man Over Money: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  • Rupert, Mary. 1997. "The Patriot Movement and the Roots of Fascism." Pp. 81–101 in Windows to Conflict Analysis and Resolution: Framing our Field, Susan Allen Nan, et al., eds. Fairfax, Va.: Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.
  • Stock, Catherine McNicol. 1996. Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3294-4
  • Miscoiu, Sergiu, Craciun, Oana, Colopelnic, Nicoleta. 2008. Radicalism, Populism, Interventionism. Three Approaches Based on Discourse Theory. Cluj-Napoca: Efes.

External links편집