Why some see Latin America's populists in Donald Trump

Why some in Latin America look at their own history of populism and draw conclusions about Donald Trump.

AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills, File
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump walks with Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto at Los Pinos, the presidential official residence, in Mexico City in August 2016. President Pena Nieto said Oct. 23, that he could have done a better job handling the controversial meeting with the Republican candidate.

Donald Trump might not be terribly well regarded in Latin America. Still, to understand el pelo de elote, some say, one should look south.

As the US election season has unfolded, a mounting number of academics, commentators, and assorted Latin Americanists have reflected upon what they see as uncanny parallels between Mr. Trump and the continent's long line of caudillos and populist leaders.

It’s generally not meant as flattery.

“For the first time, this feels like an election in a populist Latin American country,” lamented the Miami Herald’s Andrés Oppenheimer in a column last week. “Until now, political civility was a distinctive American trait.... I have seen too many of these improvised ‘saviors of the fatherland’ in Latin America, and they always end up destroying their countries.”

A notoriously slippery category, the term “populism” suffers from the same problem as “fascism”: as the Argentine political theorist Ernesto Laclau wrote in his seminal 2005 book “On Populist Reason,” it’s rarely given precise meaning, often deployed as a pejorative, and at best, reduced to a series of general traits that can sometimes grow to include just about any politician or associated movement. And groundswells of anti-elite movements from both the left and right of the American political scene largely lead back to the problem of deepening inequality – a problem that can’t be airbrushed over, whatever the flaws of any single candidate.

“Populism tends to be prevalent in very unequal societies,” Tufts University political economist Katrina Burgess told Politico in March. “Latin America is one of the most unequal regions in the world – we’re no longer so far behind, if you look at our Gini coefficient,” referring to a common measure of income inequality.

Still, many of the voices likening Mr. Trump to figures such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, or historical leaders like Venezuela's Simón Bolívar and the Perons of Argentina consistently point to a clear set of common trademarks in political style. There’s the use of television spectacle to gain and rouse followers; invocations of humiliation at the hand of foreign powers; exaggerated gestures of machismo; violence at rallies; and perhaps most importantly, the claim to holding the secret to lifting the country from its malaise.

“A crucial component of this tradition is the assertion that role of ‘the people’ is less to delegate power to representatives than to give it away to a patrimonial center – king, viceroy, dictator, or president – who organizes social energy through corporatist arrangements and his own charisma,” Mexican historian Enrique Krauze wrote in Slate in September. “The leader promises, in effect, that ‘I alone can fix it’.”

Nor has yawning inequality alone determined the rise of this brand of populists. In a 1991 study, political scientists Robert Kaufman and Barbara Stallings proposed another explanation for populism in the 1930s and 1940s: with regional governments unable to levy taxes on the wealthy, politicians found it easier to mobilize the working classes around policies that sought to replace foreign imports with domestic production.

That policy sounds a lot like Trump’s creed of “America First.” And as much of the Republican Party has grown more deeply opposed to redistribution, this history may suggest that conservatism in a time of such inequality may hinge its viability on similar claims.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.