”

I

’m not sure if any word has
been used as frequently as
“populism” in regard to politics

this year. Politicians, experts, media
outlets and everyone in between hasve
been using “populism” to describe
the recent and frequently
unnerving
political

volatility
around
the

world. I know the Oxford
Dictionary has already
chosen “post-truth” as
its word of the year, but
I think “populism” is a
worthy runner-up.

The
United
States

just recently had a taste
of its own populism.
You have most likely
seen the word thrown around in the
news as many have been quick to label
Presidential-elect
Donald
Trump’s

triumph as a continuation of the populist
wave that has stormed through other
Western democracies, but what does
it actually mean?

“Populism” comes from the Latin

word for “people” and at its core
is a political ideology promoting a
government for and by ordinary
people as opposed to elitists. Populism
began in the late 1800s as a revolt by
farmers in Middle America. It was an
effort to call out the blatant neglect by
both the Democratic and Republican
Parties of the time and rally against
the establishment government. Since
then, populism has seen its rise and
fall throughout political history in
both the United States and the world
as a whole. As The Economist notes,
populism takes on different forms but
is always “united in pitting the people
against the powerful.”

Populist movements are often

driven by charismatic leaders with a

knack for appealing to working class
people who, like the farmers of the
1800s, see neglect in the status quo.
You probably learned and quickly
forgot about William Jennings Bryan
and the Populist movement in your

U.S. history class. Yet,
just as history is bound to
repeat itself, if you take a
look at political systems
around the world, you’ll
see a modern brand of
populism on the rise.

These
recent

movements
address

economic reforms but,
unlike their 19th-century
counterparts, encompass
reactions
to
cultural

changes. Populism is both a left- and
right-wing phenomenon with some
sects promoting xenophobic and
nationalistic policies and others taking
on a more progressive approach. The
New York Times created a telling
infographic that highlights the many
platform overlaps in the growing
populist movements, all of which
begin
with
“anti-:”
anti-austerity,

anti-globalization, anti-eurozone, anti-
immigration and so on. However, this
isn’t to say that all populist groups are
inherently xenophobic or ethnocentric,
but they all are working to upend the
political status quo, thus the “anti.”


Just this week, Italy’s prime minister,

Matteo Renzi, announced his plans
to resign. After 60 percent of Italians
voted to reject constitutional reforms,
Renzi admitted defeat and resigned.
This marks another European shift to
populism and an opportunity for Renzi’s
opponents, led by the populist Five Star
Movement, to take advantage of the
vacancy. The resignation by no means
ensures the establishment of a populist

government in Italy, but it is a victory
for the movement nonetheless. As Five
Star member Manlio Di Stefano told the
Washington Post, “This is something
that is going on all over Europe, if you
look at the momentum … Every term is
the same, every government is the same,
so people are reacting.”

Donald Trump’s shocking victory

was a result of similar populist
sentiments felt by Americans. You
have probably heard all the rationales
and explanations for his victory, many
of which emphasize his play on the
populist ideals of many Americans.
With the rapid globalization of this
century resulting in diverse populations
— new industries and a more connected
and open international community
— populism represents a movement
to close some of those doors and push
countries to look inward.

Yet, Donald Trump’s victory

shouldn’t have been as surprising as
it was. While Americans had never
experienced a Trump-esque victory,
other countries have seen many like it.
All over the world and eerily popular
in the West, anti-establishment
movements and political outsiders
have been brought to the forefront.
The Brexit vote of last summer, the
rise of Germany’s Alternative Party,
Podemos in Spain and National Front
in France were all sure warning signs
that the status quo is changing. In fact,
after Trump’s victory, many populist
leaders praised the president-elect.

Populism is also not attributed

to one group of people. Instead, it
appeals to varying demographics.
Trump’s support was drawn from
all
different
American
realms,

and he was strategic in playing on
populist sentiments, especially the
dissatisfaction of Americans with their

government. But similar sentiments
had already been on the rise in Europe.
It’s not so often that political systems
around the world have commonalities.
Demographics and sheer experience
create strikingly different political
environments between countries. Yet,
it seems like many countries are making
a shift toward populism. Citizens are
pushing for politics to focus internally
as their countries have been looking
outward for the past decade.

So, what does this all mean?

For liberal-minded folk, populism,
especially in a xenophobic form, doesn’t
sit well. In the United States, liberals and
moderates have been trying to analyze
Trump supporters and understand the
“why” behind their votes. However, the
international rise of a modern populism
is a visible sign of dissatisfaction and
uncertainty. People are tired of our
current political norms and are pushing
for an altered status quo.

Populism may just be a fad — an

aberration to the norm of politics. As
shocking as it is, it also follows a trend
in human history. No country, no
matter how much liberals hope and
pray, stays on the progressive track
for too long. The United States has
been good at taking two steps forward
and one step back, moving forward
nonetheless, but not continuously.
Change is scary; it is threatening.
The changes of the 21st century in
both economic and cultural contexts
have been felt around the world, and
populism is a human reaction to it.
So even if populist movements never
make it to their nation’s highest office,
they have been seen and they have
been heard.

4 — Friday, December 9, 2016
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

LAURA SCHINAGLE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN

and REGAN DETWILER

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan

Regan Detwiler
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Ben Keller

Minsoo Kim

Payton Luokkala

Kit Maher

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy

Jason Rowland

Lauren Schandevel

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE IOVINO AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

A modern rise in populism

I

n one of my classes this
semester, we were told
to
repurpose
a
paper

we had written in a previous
course. The one I selected was
a short research paper about
the unique divisiveness of
climate change in the United
States. As someone with no
background in science, I felt
that I couldn’t reconstruct an
entirely new paper about that
topic and looked elsewhere for
something still pertinent to
the framing of climate change.

It
doesn’t
take
much

research to know that there
is an array of different outlets
that Americans turn to for
their news, and many of those
outlets maintain a distinct
narrative. I couldn’t help but
wonder: Has the media always
looked this way? Given the
fiasco of this election cycle
and the role news broadcasters
play
in
prioritizing
which

issues the public is concerned
with, I found myself delving
into the history of the U.S.
media, and one particular
aspect of this evolution caught
my eye: the rapid polarization
of our country’s media.

In
1949,
the
Federal

Communications Commission
identified what it perceived
as a major flaw in the media
landscape of the time: Three
networks — ABC, NBC and
CBS — held near full control
over nationwide broadcasting.
In order to prevent bias, which
many viewed as an eventual
inevitability,
the
Fairness

Doctrine was enacted. It stated
that for any contemporary
issues of public importance,
these networks (and any other
licensed broadcasters) must
present a balanced perspective
to their viewers, addressing
both
sides
of
contentious

topics.

For the better part of four

decades, this policy was crucial
in
preventing
unfettered,

uncontested
criticism
or

support of people and ideas
in the news and kept the most
powerful sources of news in
the United States from falling
into the problematic biased
coverage tendency. Its repeal
in 1987 was driven by the rising
notion that such a mandate was
a violation of free speech and a
government infringement on
the expression of ideas.

The heart of the debate

surrounding
the
Fairness

Doctrine, both up to and
since its repeal, has been
whether
the
regulation
of

licensed broadcasters would
“enhance” or “reduce” the
public discourse — a struggle

between enforced objectivity
being in the public interest or
a violation of First Amendment
rights.
The
question
then

remains: Has the degree to
which
broadcasters
inform

the
U.S.
public
increased

or
decreased
since
the

elimination of this doctrine?

The most recent efforts to

revive the Fairness Doctrine
have — as shown by the
individuals who’ve resurfaced
it
—
undoubtedly
been
a

response to the emergence of
conservative talk radio in the
past two decades. Despite the
conspicuousness of this fact,
one shouldn’t discard these
efforts as partisan squabbling.
The Fairness Doctrine was, in
its conception and subsequent
defenses,
a
bipartisan

effort
to
prevent
licensed

broadcasters from propagating
and capitalizing on the very
narratives
that
have
now

reached extensive audiences.
Regardless of where one stands
on
the
Fairness
Doctrine,

it is undeniable that now-
prominent broadcasters have
upheld a distinct perspective
of the country we live in.

Through both observation

and research, I’ve become
convinced that the direction
in which a substantial segment
of the modern U.S. media
has evolved is detrimental
to our civil discourse and,
consequently, to the public
interest.
A
once-marginal

narrative wherein our country
is
constantly
jeopardized

or under attack by a violent
religion, criminal migrants,
the parasitic poor, delusional
environmentalists
and
a

duplicitous left-wing media
has
become
normalized

and helped to galvanize an
electorate that was justifiably
disillusioned (albeit due to
different actualities).

The
response
by
the

powerful
broadcasting

conglomerates has not been
to defend their legitimacy and
denounce views unsupported
by fact. They have instead
exhibited
such
stances
as

a legitimate counterpart to
the modern conservative and
liberal platforms. At the same
time, these multimedia powers
have paired an inability to
provide much-needed clarity
with a dilution of content.

Given the option between a

steady flow of curated opinions
or pure entertainment, it’s
no surprise that many people
have chosen the latter. Those
who do choose to pursue
informative content are now
faced with outlets that only

seek to further entrench them
in whatever partisan leaning
they’re already predisposed to.
The alignment of once-reliable
media sources with political
factions and more lucrative
entertainment
platforms

has devastated investigative
journalism and helped to halt
constructive discourse.

The result has been nuanced

issues
becoming
distinctly

two-sided struggles. On one
end, the urgency of climate
change is simply a part of
the
“alarmist”
narrative.

Legislation
to
keep
high-

capacity guns out of the hands
of
unvetted
or
potentially

dangerous individuals is a
liberal infringement upon all
of our rights. Police brutality
and the larger inequities it
points to can be unilaterally
disproved by the folly of Colin
Kaepernick. At the same time,
those aligned with an opposing
narrative might be convinced
that anyone involved in the
natural gas industry is evil,
anyone who owns a gun is crazy
and cops are predominantly
malicious. Both perspectives
are destructive to the dialogue
in this country, yet each has
been augmented by media and
political frameworks that too
often benefit from keeping
the truth (which usually falls
somewhere in the middle)
opaque.

By fortifying two distinct,

simplified sides of complex
issues, we have become almost
willfully ignorant. In a country
that
has
progressed
for

centuries through discourse
and compromise, the solutions
to our problems will continue
to elude us until a willingness
for ideological coexistence and
cooperation returns.

Reinvigorating
a
truly

informative
media
is,
in

my eyes, the best place to
start. Whether such change
should be rooted in a revival
of
investigative
journalism,

media-ownership
caps,

more
conspicuous
public

broadcasting,
network

neutrality
or
“fairness”

legislation of some kind is a
discussion for experts to have.
But to a novice like myself, one
thing couldn’t be clearer: Until
those charged with informing
us return to valuing objectivity
over the narrative they want to
convey, we will never mend the
ever-widening divide that has
gradually suppressed our great
country.

A broken media

ANU

ROY-CHAUDHURY

Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached

at anuroy@umich.edu

I

’ve been a columnist for three
semesters, expounding upon
nearly
every
substantive

opinion I’ve had over that time and
putting it to words. It has made
me challenge every thought and
better articulate why I believe in the
causes that I support, and
sometimes, want to fight
for. I’m sure many others
have felt the same way
— having to voice their
opinions in the face of
opposition and having
to keep pushing until
the change what they’re
looking for is enacted.
But at the same time,
writing and talking and
thinking about things
over and over can be exhausting.
I’ve been asked to talk more
extensively about my opinions
with little impetus to do so.

Nevertheless,
both
words

and actions supporting various
convictions have proven to be
monumental in history. Take the
protesters against the Dakota
Access
Pipeline, for example.

Many people — including those
potentially affected and others
coming from outside the tribe
— rallied to make a difference in
order to reroute the pipeline. They
recently achieved their goal, but
I’m sure that the protestors felt
dejected, hopeless and just plain
tired. It takes a tireless effort to
do great things in this world, and
determination
similar
to
this

must be adopted by those who are
passionate about a cause.

Situations can be as dire as the

DAPL situation or as simple as
standing up for a friend. I’m still
inspired by the nonviolent protests
of Martin Luther King Jr. in the
civil rights movement. King could
have given up or felt like he was
fighting a losing battle when he was
in jail, in the hospital or marching in

the streets. But he and many other
leaders and freedom fighters around
him never lost hope and kept going,
always persisting in order to make a
change that would impact the world
in an astounding way.

Whatever the situation is, we

cannot
be
silent

in fighting for our
beliefs.
We
must

make a choice to keep
fighting amid fatigue.
Too
many
others

across the world have
lost their lives or been
hurt while protesting
for their inalienable
rights. We’re lucky
to live in a country
where
change
is

possible even if ordinary citizens
are leading the charge.

In one of my classes, we watched

videos of the protests of the Arab
Spring in Egypt, seeing thousands
of people congregate in Tahrir
Square. The unity of the people
there was a spectacle of beauty. The
president they opposed resigned as
a result of the protests, but many of
those protesters either ended up
missing or were martyrs for their
cause. These people didn’t have
time to be tired because their lives
were on the line. Their time was
only the present.

Situations can be less dire in the

United States. But crises such as
the Flint water crisis are scenarios
in which people must keep fighting
to receive what we would think is
a basic need: water. Sadly, many
areas in my hometown still don’t
have clean water. Babies continue
to scream, and mothers have to
remind the world that help is
still needed. Many news stations
have come and gone, tired of
reporting on the same coverage.
I’ve written many papers on this
topic, donated time, read countless
articles, given money to this cause

and become increasingly fatigued
from the constant coverage. I only
felt that way because my home
wasn’t directly affected; I can’t
imagine how hard I would fight
if it was. While people lose sleep
over making their voices heard and
going through their now-altered
routines, the lead-ridden pipes stop
running a block from my house.

Whatever the topic may be, we

must attempt to adopt complete
empathy for those who are directly
affected by any injustice. If we want
something to change, we must act as
if something wrong is happening
to us or to someone we love. It is
worth it to fight through feeling
exhuasted
and
conversations

about important issues that sound
like broken records. Love alone is
worth the fight.

It’s completely OK to be tired

of talking about President-elect
Donald Trump and related issues,
for example, but that shouldn’t
lead to an end to discussion.
Perhaps the fact that conversations
about
certain
topics
become

exhaustive is good because it
allows for breaks, giving people
the opportunity to pause and
think. This way, ideas can be more
nuanced and developed, setting
the groundwork for substantive
conversation later on. Breaks from
debate and thinking are needed as
well, because we wouldn’t be able
to function properly if we spent all
our time focusing on a single issue.
Nonetheless, we must come back
quickly in dire situations because
there are people out there such as
the DAPL protesters who have to
spend all their time fighting — it’s
their well-being on the line.

So whatever it is that you are

passionate about, fight for it with
as much energy as you can give out.

DAVID DONNANTUONO | OP-ED

— Congressman Dan Kildee (D) said in a press

release after the House passed Flint Aid Package

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Flint families have waited far

too long for their government to
act but I am pleased that over a
hundred million dollars in real
federal aid for Flint is a big step

closer to becoming a reality.

Keep talking

CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN

CHRIS

CROWDER

David Donnatuono is an LSA junior.

Chris Crowder can be reached at

ccrowd@umich.edu