5 Ways that You Can Maintain Relational Health Throughout the Upcoming Election Season.
A primer on how populism negatively impacts our everyday relationships
Nikki Haley isn’t the only politician who’s rejecting the impact of slavery.
Last month, in our increasingly temporary home, The Netherlands, Dutch voters elected (by a fairly wide margin) the Freedom Party, directed by Homelander-wannabe Geert Wilders, to lead the Dutch government. He is currently negotiating with other Dutch conservative parties to develop a majority that would allow Homelander Wilders to be Prime Minister. In order to do so, according to Fox News (who, not surprisingly, has an interest in covering far-right governments worldwide), Wilders is giving up his position of closing mosques and banning the Quran.
He is, however, demanding that the Dutch government revoke the apology that not-quite-as conservative former Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, posted about The Netherlands’ involvement in slavery in Suriname, Aruba, Curacao, and smaller places, opening the door for a 200 million Euro project that focuses on educational and commemorative resources, similar to what Germany is doing with Nazi history, which we saw a lot of two weeks ago when we spent Christmas in Berlin.
It remains to be seen if he will compromise on this stance in order to get other conservative parties to partner with the Freedom Party.
Wilders is a growing number of worldwide populists. Americans are especially familiar with them; Trump is by no means the only American politician who may practice as a populist. Viktor Orban doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon in Hungary. Boris Johnson’s populist rhetoric led the UK out of the European Union.
At Relationship 101, our Substack provides resources about how to be a more effective communicator, so you can have the most enriching relationships possible. One of the most important relationship skills is defining your terms, as opposed to using a fancy word (i.e. populism, decolonize, or evidence-based) undefined, abstract, and in its abstractness, open to being used to condescend toward and exploit others.
What is populism?
For this article, we’ll rely on the research of Charlene McKibben, who recently wrote the article Populism on the Periphery of Democracy: Moralism and Recognition Theory, published in October’s Critical Review of International, Social, and Political Philosophy. McKibben wrote this while studying Queen’s University in Belfast; Northern Ireland is no stranger to its own versions of localized populism with The Troubles and the pitting of Protestants and Catholics against each other. I highly recommend reading Rory Carroll’s recent micro-history There Will Be Fire: Margaret Thatcher, the IRA, and Two Minutes That Changed History.
McKibben defines populism as:
“A system of ideas that amount to an antagonistic relationship between a homogeneous, sovereign, and morally pure group with a unified will against an outsider group which has wronged ‘the people’” (p. 900).
McKibben explains that populism centers around three major characteristics or ideas:
That power gets returned to the sovereign “people” (her quotes, not mine)
That “pure people” are defined in sharp contrast to others, typically around race, culture, language, or other eugenic-adjacent characteristic.
A populist represents the “general will” (my quotes) of “the people” (her quotes)
The policies that populist leaders design are divisive and exclusive; in the 21st century, they tend to organize around immigration, “law and order”, and voting limitations, bypassing the principles of democracy to maintain prolonged amounts of power. They tend to reject policy that focuses on public health, education, and the development of infrastructure.
As Americans are observing from the House of Representatives, not a lot procedurally gets done; Business Insider reminds us that McCarthy’s House of Representatives is the least effective House in American history, and that was before McCarthy got overthrown by Matt Gaetz and his minions.
In populist systems, political action happens mostly through rhetorical devices. They talk about “the people” through propaganda tactics. McKibben describes their strategy this way, with assistance from Benjamin Moffitt and Simon Tormey:
“The creation of, and appeal to, the people as the opponent of “the elite”, the transformation of moments of political and economic failures into large-scale crises, and their disregard for “appropriate” or “acceptable” ways of acting” (p. 902).
This strategy sounds awfully familiar to folks like me and Julia who grew up in Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal spaces: the practice of moralism.
What is moralism?
A quick note before we answer this question. In relationships, there are two roles that are simultaneously happening: the giver, or the person who’s sharing and disclosing information about themselves, and the receiver, the person who’s listening to and observing how the giver shares information.
Another part of our work with Relationship 101 pertains to how to effectively give feedback as the receiver, especially when the person(s) that you’re in a relationship with do something to harm you, harm someone else, or harm themselves.
I appreciate the way that McKibben answers this question:
“In instances when blame is inappropriate and excessive, when blame exhibits a distinctly punitive character, it becomes a representation of moralism. It demonstrates a defect or fault in the process of judging the actions of others, and a failure to recognize the moral status of the target of moralistic blame. By presenting certain groups of persons as enemies of “the people” and adopting terms such as “corrupt”, “rotten”, and “inept”, this emotionalized form of blame creates a sense of threat and urgency” (p. 908).
McKibben equates moralism to blame, name calling, contempt. Julia and I explore the impact of blame on a dyadic relational perspective in our introduction to the podcast series Partnership Building:
The relational problem with blaming someone is that it speeds the conversation to an unmanageable pace, leaving the receiver with only two very bad options:
Defend, either by criticizing back, using a “whataboutism” to divert the conversation, or justifying their reaction.
Shut down and disengage.
This dynamic can end one of three ways:
One person saying something so heinous that the conversation ends with one or both person in tears or rage.
One person abruptly walking away, leaving the other person hanging.
Both partners pausing on the conversation as soon as the pace starts to pick up and agreeing to return to the conversation at a later time and location.
This cycle happens in every relationship, and involves both an apology and repair process, to be defined by the couple. The longer the negative interaction lasts, the harder it is to create an apology and repair process.
The problem with populism is that the populist leader has no intention of apologizing, accepting responsibility, or strategies for building structures that create equity and justice for all people.
McKibben explains three ways that populist leaders divert this:
Present voters with a specific person or group who can be blamed—a scapegoat—for grievances that have a kernel of truth, but are typically blown out of proportion and un-cited or under-cited.
Blame people who may challenge or confront the populist, absolving themselves and those who follow the populist of blame.
Consolidate power by inviting others to practice cruelty, selfishness, retribution, and a holier-than-thou attitude. After all, if the masses are fighting with each other, they cannot organize against the populist leader.
Without accountability, an apology process, and a strategy to create communal repair processes, we, the people, are left with two bad options:
Defend, either by criticizing back, using a “whataboutism” to divert the conversation, or justifying their reaction.
Shut down and disengage.
All the while doing your absolute best to not carry the relationship dynamics of populism into your own relationships. This is going to be especially important starting this summer during the American political party conventions.
We close today’s newsletter by naming five ways that you can begin navigating the relational impacts of populism in the next few weeks:
Be intentional about appreciation. Who are the five people in your life that are the most significant to you? Take time to let them know what you appreciate about them.
Write out what you want to say before you say it. McKibben distinguishes moral criticism as “a well-reasoned and thoughtful critique of another person’s actions, restrained by a basic sense of respect” (p. 906). If you can’t give adequate time to a conversation, designate some time that you can give that interaction more time and attention. (Or don’t participate in that conversation.)
Respect the humanity of others. Be aware of emotions like anger and rage and their tendency to communicate through blame and “You statements”. Ask good questions that help you understand more about where other folks are coming from.
Think systemically. Populism avoids accountability, encouraging folks to bicker among themselves while the populist continues to consolidate power. Make the topic of conversations about systems and institutions, rather than individual people or groups of people.
Don’t feed the trolls. If someone, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, makes a comment that disparages the humanity of another person or group, do not engage, especially through the social media platform. Send texts or private messages that talk about the existence of the negative interaction cycle. Don’t be afraid to block people, or tell others that you’re suspending or limiting communication with them.
Please subscribe to Relationship 101!
Let’s heal together!
Jeremiah and Julia