Just as state action is a zero-sum game, so is politics: some win and others lose. But if the term “populism” is supposed to be meaningful, populism must have some distinctive elements for it not to be confused with mere democracy.

Although politics occur in different contexts, patterns emerge anyway—the idea of a class struggle is one. So, in the populist struggle, besides antagonism, the people and their political leaders denounce the established order of things—that is, the status quo. Populism thus stands in the midst of a class struggle. The struggle between the people’s concerns and those of the ruling elites.

Seen from populism, the traditional political parties cease to be representative of the people, for they have proven that their true goal is to maintain their own dominance for their own interests. Hence the recurrent emergence of new populist leaders, sometimes alien to political life, who break with partisan customs and confront the established political authorities. Often, the emergence of newcomers expresses popular weariness. Nonetheless, even more often, the term “populism” is used to obscure all kinds of criticism, or is rejected by those considered populists. Then, the term becomes increasingly vague and futile for any sensible analysis. And yet, though the ruling elites often denounce populism as a bad thing, while viewing democracy as always good, populist movements are commonplace and are not much more than a recurrent phenomenon of democracy itself.

Libertarian author Jeff Deist sees populism “as a political, social, and economic tactic, rather than an ideology per se,” which can be “left, right, or even libertarian, imbued with the worldview of the populists themselves.” Therefore, from this definition, since populism can take different forms in its content, populism in itself is not necessarily bad or good.

In addition, Deist proposes some elements for populist definition:

• anti-elite;
• anti-establishment;
• anti-technocratic;
• hostile to established political parties;
• synthesizes old conceptions of left and right into sometimes schizophrenic hybrid policy views; and
• often led by a charismatic figure.

But there is one more element that is actually as, if not more, essential than the previous ones, and that explains why populism keeps emerging again and again. It is the fact that populism is a strategy to reach the highest place of political power, regardless of the promises that vanish once populist leaders take power.

Libertarian Populism

The people’s demands in populism do not have to be always in favor of increasing the role of the state—they can certainly mean the opposite and be demands for freedom. In this sense, according to Deist, libertarians “should support populist sentiments or movements when they are pro-liberty/anti-state, and oppose them when they are not.” Deist presents several questions regarding how a libertarian populism should look like:

What must be done to reduce the size and scope of the state? How can we realistically create a more libertarian society here and now, given the resources available and the range of tactical options? Is our primary task intellectual, with the goal of converting academic, financial, and political elites to our point of view? Or is a bottom-up strategy superior, one that focuses on populist messages and grassroots political activism?

Since statism leaves practically no parcel of social life free from its intrusion, the easiest way to answer these questions is that libertarians should counter statism in every such parcel. This includes political action as one more way to fight statism. But given that the ordinary politician is nothing more than a hustler, the moral attributes of libertarian leaders for political action should clearly be far above those of ordinary politicians. Otherwise, to believe that they would not cheat like most politicians is imprudent.

Rothbardian Populism

Murray Rothbard, perhaps the greatest libertarian thinker of all time, thought of a right-wing populism imbued with libertarian spirit. And Ron Paul, as Deist points out, successfully used “End the Fed” as a populist and ideologically correct message. Drawing on Rothbard’s wisdom, the process of change toward freeing humanity from statism may seem too long. But a long-term strategy is crucial for actual and significant success, and contrasts with the tragic futility of constant interest in the lesser of two evils, which fails in both the medium and long terms. With regard to the proposal of economist Friedrich A. Hayek for social change, Rothbard wrote:

The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, is interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way. Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-molders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system.

Further on, Rothbard warns that relying only on educating elites in the right ideas “will mean that our own statist system will not end until our entire society, like that of the Soviet Union, has been reduced to rubble.” Libertarian strategy, rather, must be more active and assertive. Following Rothbard, libertarians must be ripping off the masks of the elites as “negative campaigning” at its finest:

…to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically… this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes.

In Rothbard’s view, in order to be relevant politically, libertarians must concentrate strategically on those groups “who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.” Likewise, adding to Rothbard’s words, advantage should be sought wherever it is possible to build relevant anti-statist majorities, meaning that groups where libertarian ideas are most likely to be quickly and radically embraced can be prioritized.

Political Decentralization

While rights are necessarily universal, Rothbard believed that the enforcement of rights needed to be as local as is necessary to ensure consent. He never excluded the legal rights of groups like families and communities. Rothbard’s libertarianism, as Lew Rockwell noted, “can be found in any stateless, self-governing community that recognizes property rights, including a huge plantation, an authoritarian monastery, or a company town.” Thus, Rothbard was against the common error of thinking that the enforcement of rights should be centralized in the name of protecting rights. Additionally, Rothbard rejected the view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. To explain further, in the absence of privatization, government facilities should be operated “in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control.” This way, Rothbard called for a return “to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.”

On the other hand, Rothbard’s right-wing populism was consistent with a libertarian position on decentralization. He considered that there were areas where libertarians might well compromise with their partners in a populist coalition, and thus leave things up to states and, better yet, localities and neighborhoods. Take, for example, abortion. Rothbard held that “a ban on something as murder is not going to be enforceable if only a minority considers it as murder.” His message to pro-lifers was to stop trying to pass a constitutional amendment and instead work to radically decentralize political and judicial decisions to state and local levels. Consequently, Rothbard, who was pro-choice, favored a coalition to decentralize. In this way, if there are localities within each state that make these decisions, the problem would be greatly reduced.

Furthermore, since it is wrong to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions and libertarians are against taxpayer-funded healthcare anyway, Rothbard proposed a union with the pro-life religious right to uphold “the freedom to choose of taxpayers, and of gynecologists, who are under increasing pressure by pro-abortionists to commit abortions, or else.”

In sum, doing away with the despotism of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary was more important to Rothbard than protecting women’s right to abortion through the federal government. However, even if Rothbard agreed to compromise on a decentralist stance, this never stopped him from defending and spreading what he thought to be true and essential regarding each issue.

What Must be Done

Whatever the ideas of the populist leaders, there is no guarantee that they will meet all the expectations that bring them to power. Of course, some forms of populism will always be worse than others and radically contrary to libertarian goals and principles. Yet, in any event, given the virtues of a Rothbardian populism, a libertarian starting point against statism must always be to distrust the ruling elites. Everyone, not only libertarians, must always expect the worst from politicians, because lying and conspiring against the people is precisely what they live on. For this reason, libertarians must dedicate their greatest efforts to voicing the truth against statism and its flesh-and-blood representations at all times. Notwithstanding the opportunities that the status quo may circumstantially offer to further some specific libertarian goals.

Unfortunately, the usual democracy is of little use in the struggle against statism. So it has become clearer than ever that political decentralization remains the best political route to a more libertarian society. In other words, secession remains the best option to fight statism and improve the legal and political conditions of any people, and thus make political accountability as viable as possible to curb and diminish the aggression and economic waste of statism. And thus, by this route, to keep alive forever the flame of the ultimate goal of a stateless society.

Fair enough, it is reasonable to prefer a “lesser” evil to a “greater” evil. However, this can be highly misleading. Politics has infinite implications, and circumstances are not entirely predictable for libertarians to be guided by either of two evils in the statist order and continue to do so every four years. Besides, in preferring a lesser evil, it does not follow that this evil must be defended or promoted, for even this evil must be confronted.

The more libertarians stop opposing evils as much as they could, if only for the fact that they want to feel good about their votes, the more the long-term victory of libertarians immediately loses steam. But from the very beginning, inspired by the teachings of Rothbard, it is not enough to disseminate the right ideas against the statist ideology. To truly fight statism, it is imperative to unmask the ruling elites and show how they deceive the people—even if the rulers declare themselves to be libertarians and regardless of any populist hope.