Fighting Populism: Doing the right thing and better

Progressives and conservatives feel uncomfortable or paralyzed when populists and other extremists adopt what looks like popular and necessary policies.

It does not need to be so.

When in the 1930s Hitler managed an economic recovery in Germany, through what we would call Keynesian policies of public investment, and in 1940 his finance minister Funk published a plan for a New Economic Order for Europe, John Maynard Keynes was invited by the British Ministry of Information to make a broadcast for American and Dominion audiences to discredit it. Keynes replied that the plan was “excellent and just what we ourselves ought to be thinking of doing. If it is to be attacked, the way to do it would be to cast doubt and suspicion on its bona fides.” For instance, “Funk´s talk of a rational division of labour was merely a cloak for concentrating industry in Germany and pastoralising the rest of Europe.”

Today, progressives face a similar problem in relation to some populist policies. Let me illustrate with three examples.

(1) The migrants’ caravan, which started in the Honduras and reached the Mexico/USA border today is a good example. Whoever started and facilitated the caravan, and it could be anyone from local village demagogues, criminal gangs, left-wing activists, religious idealists, Putin or Trump himself, is irrelevant.
Nobody can accept that a crowd, claiming poverty or whatever, organized in a country, decides to try to invade another country in search of settlement there.
However, how to stop them is a different matter. During the Roman times the army had to fight the armed invaders. But Trump’s decision to deploy the army in the border with an order to shoot unarmed civilians, seems out of proportion and risks causing a slaughter.

There are obviously more humane and efficient ways to stop the invaders and punish the organizers. For instance, by moving them into a refugee camp where the children and sick will be fed and treated prior being repatriated with a little bit of pocket money to help them settle back in their country of origin. Meanwhile, while in the camp, they need to be taught a lesson to dissuade further incursions. For instance, the leaders and organizers could be separated and taken into custody where they would remain until earning the money necessary to reimburse their deportation costs, while the remaining could be registered into a DNA database to prevent them from applying legally for residence in the USA during the next 10 years.

(2) The USA-China trade conflict is another example where the populist approach is wrong. Again, there is no doubt that China has often misbehaved in international trade, namely in relation to intellectual property.
However, Trump’s policy of imposing selective import tariffs and trying to negotiate some “deal” with Xi Ping is not only chimerical but also risks to backfire. For starters, it is an unprecedented reversal of roles, the USA has become the protectionist and China the free trader.

Yet, there are better solutions to lead China into behaving in accordance with international trade rules. For instance, the Trans Pacific Agreement, abandoned by Trump, had an important role in this regard. Likewise, encouraging China to join the OECD and follow its rules in terms of international competition and transparency is a better way. In the end, having China as part of the current liberal international order is better than driving them into trying to create a rival alternative.

(3) Finally, Bolsonaro’s decision to stop the use of Cuban medical slaves in Brazil is another example. Shamefully, for many years western countries (including Portugal) have tolerated the hiring of medical staff to the Cuban government, while ignoring that the doctors were forced to leave their families in Cuba as hostages and received only a pittance of the fees contracted with the Cuban government. So, Bolsonaro’s intention is laudable, but is it the best solution?
Of course, no. There are better ways to achieve the same result, without repatriation.
For instance, renegotiating the contracts to force Cuba to allow the doctors’ families to join them in Brazil would preserve their jobs and benefit their patients. Likewise, paying directly to the doctors. The slave doctors ended up being the victims of two extremists.

These examples and many others show why progressives and conservatives cannot be complacent with the populists. More than ever, they need to show the shortcomings of such policies and how they can do better. They must show that there are humane, liberal and civilized ways of dealing with such problems and the anxiety and fear associated with them.