Blogs

            In Matthijs Rooduijn's 2013 article called "The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator", he identifies a criticism of the elite by the leader. This is a hallmark of populism, often colloquially called an "us versus them" mentality. Rooduijn argues that this is one of the most common techniques that populist leaders use, what he calls "the lowest common denominator". For the purpose of relevancy, I am only looking at Rooduijn's analysis of Perón. 

            Of course, another staple in being a populist leader is charisma, and Perón had plenty of charisma, but Rooduijn mentions that his language was very important. Rather than using flowery language that would alienate his working-class followers, he used language that they would understand with metaphors that made it interesting for the well-educated.

Rooduijn argues that Perón most emphasized the gap between the "good" (the people) and the "bad" (the oligarchy) and created a very large "us versus them" mentality among Argentines. However, I believe he missed out on the opportunity to address the hypocrisy in the sentiment of "us versus them". The people arguing that the people in power are bad often hold positions of power themselves, which can make populism seem disingenuous. 

            Rooduijn also argues that Perón opposed the oligarchy, but he was not polarizing. That is the secret to his success, but also to his downfall. Making everyone comfortable can be good for the image and for overall popularity, but it can also lead to broken promises that are all too common in Latin America. It's possible to straddle the center as Perón successfully did before but to do so is far too dangerous for anyone less charismatic than Perón.

            Although Rooduijn takes the perspective that polarization can be a bad thing, I disagree. It is a stronger stance to stand behind your beliefs rather than taking a middle stance and trying to please everyone. Of course, this is not the way to get elected, which is why I am not a politician, but it is a very effective way of getting one’s message out into the world. If people hate this political view, they will continue to talk about it and spread your message out into the world where more people will be able to access it and decide for themselves. The “us versus them” mentality is a hallmark of populism, and Perón used it effectively during his time as president, but near the end, he too often tried to straddle the line between the beliefs of his supporters.

            The “us versus them” mentality, or the blaming of one group of people, generally the elite, for the problems of the nation is one of the largest hallmarks of populism. This trope can be seen all the way from Perón to today, with the largest and most widely known example being the United States current political climate.