research assignment

            In Matthijs Rooduijn's 2013 article called "The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator", he identifies a criticism of the elite by the leader. This is a hallmark of populism, often colloquially called an "us versus them" mentality. Rooduijn argues that this is one of the most common techniques that populist leaders use, what he calls "the lowest common denominator". For the purpose of relevancy, I am only looking at Rooduijn's analysis of Perón. 
            Of course, another staple in being a populist leader is charisma, and Perón had plenty of charisma, but Rooduijn mentions that his language was very important. Rather than using flowery language that would alienate his working-class followers, he used language that they would understand with metaphors that made it interesting for the well-educated.
Rooduijn argues that Perón most emphasized the gap between the "good" (the people) and the "bad" (the oligarchy) and created a very large "us versus them" mentality among Argentines. However, I believe he missed out on the opportunity to address the hypocrisy in the sentiment of "us versus them". The people arguing that the people in power are bad often hold positions of power themselves, which can make populism seem disingenuous. 
            Rooduijn also argues that Perón opposed the oligarchy, but he was not polarizing. That is the secret to his success, but also to his downfall. Making everyone comfortable can be good for the image and for overall popularity, but it can also lead to broken promises that are all too common in Latin America. It's possible to straddle the center as Perón successfully did before but to do so is far too dangerous for anyone less charismatic than Perón.
            Although Rooduijn takes the perspective that polarization can be a bad thing, I disagree. It is a stronger stance to stand behind your beliefs rather than taking a middle stance and trying to please everyone. Of course, this is not the way to get elected, which is why I am not a politician, but it is a very effective way of getting one’s message out into the world. If people hate this political view, they will continue to talk about it and spread your message out into the world where more people will be able to access it and decide for themselves. The “us versus them” mentality is a hallmark of populism, and Perón used it effectively during his time as president, but near the end, he too often tried to straddle the line between the beliefs of his supporters.

            The “us versus them” mentality, or the blaming of one group of people, generally the elite, for the problems of the nation is one of the largest hallmarks of populism. This trope can be seen all the way from Perón to today, with the largest and most widely known example being the United States current political climate. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Power to the People

I feel like this week could be summed up with "ahhh, for once, not  another problem for Latin America!" This week's reading was very refreshing: there was no political turmoil or big wars to talk about, but an attempt to establish trust between the government and its people. I don't often think about how lucky I am to have a government that I trust, even if I'm not one hundred percent satisfied. I can trust that my government, on all three levels, will never put me through the same things as Latin American leaders have done in previous weeks. I really appreciate this week's material for not being so violent. I loved the part about the radios! Radios were a big thing in my house growing up (though not as big as here) and they were always tuned to cfox. I still have a clock radio as well, rather than using my phone as my alarm, just because I like waking up to music or talk-shows or what have you. My grandma always talks about radios when she was young, too, a
Read more

Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics

I love the question about race being a social construct. It always makes me think of Rachel Dolezal, who claimed to be black (but was really a white woman doing some form of complicated blackface) and then the hordes of (mostly) white people rushing in to ask "well, if race is a social construct, and gender is a social construct, then why is trans-racial not a real identity in the same way transgender is?" And the answer lies in the stain of racial violence, especially the one that carried on today. It is in the fact that NFL players who kneel during the anthem are "sons of bitches" and white supremacists are "some very fine people". I think the history of slavery in the Americas shapes it in a negative light. People of colour are routinely oppressed in the Americas, especially the United States, but there are also disturbing and saddening examples of colourism in Latin America. It's always hard for me to compare slavery in the Americas with other cou
Read more

two worlds meet

I like the idea of history as non-linear, as events that we in the present have put together in order in a certain way that leads us to here and now, even though it never actually happened that way. I don't remember learning specifically about Columbus in elementary school except as a quick "this guy discovered this place" sort of deal and most of the social studies courses I took in high school were very Canada-forward (which makes sense in a Canadian high school). I don't believe I ever read anything particular about him until this course. Most of what I know about Columbus is information given to me through a very liberal perspective; people denouncing Columbus Day in the US and different states changing the day to Indigenous Americans Day. From the information I gathered in this week, Columbus himself was not a villain, but he is where today's current villains got their start from. This was the beginning of a very long war against indigenous peoples and rac
Read more