Populism in the United States: Trumpism and its challenge to institutions

For most of its history, the United States remained among the few countries where populism never governed. Its unrivaled prosperity along 250 years should at least demonstrate that prosperity at that level can be achieved without the classical populist recipes: 

1. Protectionism - high tariffs - restrictions to trade
2. Anti-immigration measures 
3. Dictatorial powers vested and concentrated in the Executive
4. Government - state property monopolies
5. Large subsidies and government payroll
6. Closed economy - crony capitalism
7. Debt default, monetary emission and debasing (devaluations)

These are the reasons why populists around the world unanimously hate international monetary controls (such as IMF or WTO) , free trade and trade agreements. Anything that limits their power and control over "their" people gets in the way of populist governments and politicians.

The rule of law is also resisted by populists by the same reason. Unlike King James I that accepted in 1215 that monarchs had to obey their own laws, populists reject such limitations.

The "will of the people", understood as the "will of the leader of the people" is for populists the only law of the land.

Once they gain enough control, populist leaders invert the governed-government equation: the government chooses the people, not the other way around. 

In Peron's Argentina, Castro's Cuba or Mugabe's Zimbabwe, people must join the Leader's Party (usually called on his/her name or as "Revolution" or "People's" Party) to be able to get jobs, subsidies and benefits.

Populists systems require a steady system of patronage (think of Chicago's "Daley machine") that trades jobs for votes on a regular basis. That's how populist leaders get re-elected almost for life. Or, alternatively, they establish a dynastic rule (like North Korea) or a "rotative" scheme to circumvent term limits (like Peron and his wife Isabel, Kirchner and his wife Cristina in Argentina or Putin and his teammate Mevdevev, who rotate as PM and President, with Putin holding power in both positions).

A third way to get the populist regime perpetually in power is the single Party system, like in the case of China, South Africa or Singapore. The original economic model can vary from extreme communism (like China) to freewheeling capitalism (like Singapore). Populism is not ideology-dependent. It can switch and mutate as required (think of Deng Xiaoping "market communism").

To get to this point with the US system it is necessary to change the Constitution drastically, or circumvent it with a vast network of cronyism installed in the three powers to override their "checks and balances". Another component is frequently using "referendums" to impose as law of the land a circumstantial majority. California is a good example of the consequences of the referendum and recall systems.

Bannon and his Alt Right followers want precisely this when they speak of "deep state" in their efforts to make a "political cleansing" of the Federal Government, the Judiciary, the Intelligence and Security cadres.

Traditional Republicans and Democrats might fight those efforts if not out of conviction, for necessity, because they are the "incumbents" to be replaced. 

In a pluralistic open economy like the US, private companies create an much more extensive set of multiple interests and can also offer resistance.

Trump, finally, might not be interested in such far-reaching changes in the system, nor be in power long enough. He has neither electable heirs nor reliable allies outside his own family, which creates another obstacle. No cunning wives or younger brothers with popular appeal.

And, of course all these plans ignore the existence of a growing number of rivals and enemies, and a deeply divided electorate.

Here, as usual, some additional civil and informed debates about the populist phenomenon:

Europe (Inteligence squared)

Niall Ferguson (global)

Latin America (Mary Anastasia O'Grady)