”

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