Naomi Girson | staff writer |

Populism is defined as the political philosophy or movement that represents the interests of ordinary people, according to Merriam-Webster, but arguments between political experts Thomas Frank and Daniel Ziblatt reveal populism isn’t black or white.

Organized by the Department of Political Science, the two speakers presented their arguments on two different days.

Clifford Bob, Duquesne’s chair of political science, acted as pseudo-moderator of the non-traditional debate.

Despite both Ziblatt and Frank not wanting to debate at the same time or in-person, the presentations were still beneficial, Bob said.

“The issues are so timely with our country and the upcoming elections,” Bob said. “And we are seeing other countries labeled as populist rising in power.”

The populism debate is just one in a series of presentations as part of the department’s “New Perspectives” speaker series.

Bob said the two of them talked to each other effectively even though they were debating on different days.

“We had some excellent points made by both sides,” Bob said.

The two debaters’ fundamental differences in their definitions of populism was the root of their opposing stances.

During their speeches Ziblatt and Frank danced around the definition, looking at how the word has been applied in society, especially in American politics.

Frank started his presentation with the history of populism, focusing on its origin in the 1890s. Created by farmers with the intent of reforming from the bottom up. He also dissected the 1950s resurgence of populism, or rather anti-populism in which he cited Joseph McCarthy.

Frank spent much of his time discussing the roots of populism, in the 1890s, with the farmers of the south aligning on the basis of a louder voice for the people as well as the resurgence of populism in the 1950s. To him, populism is the solution to the problems in American democracy today. He placed the blame for the hatred and fear of populism on the intellectuals who took the word and changed its meaning.

“These intellectuals in the ’50s took its name, populism, and made it a generic noun for the unreasoning folly of mass democracy, “ Frank said. “Populism became the intellectuals’ word for the opposite of themselves.”

Ziblatt gave examples of populist authoritarian governments in other countries, honing in on a former president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, and his downfall while holding political power.

He then gave some strategies for how to combat against a populist authoritarian ruler.

“There’s no fail-safe mechanism to see if somebody’s just a Democratic caucus or authoritarian caucus, but, using these criteria, we can see the signs of authoritarianism,” Ziblatt said.

He also cautioned against the idea of anti-pluralism, tying back to populism, using the example of Donald Trump.

“Not all populists claim to be exclusively speaking, the problem is when populism takes off again, what’s called anti-pluralism cast,” Ziblatt said. “So what’s that mean exactly? Well, you can think of the presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016 who says, ‘I, alone, can fix this.’”

Frank, however, used Trump as an example to make his opposing argument.

“[Trump] achieved new heights of deregulation. Just the other day, he gave a speech describing his admiration for William McKinley, the man who crushed populism back in 1896,” Frank said. “He is not a populist. He is a total fraud.”

The debate became more question-provoking for the audience when it was acknowledged by Ziblatt himself that populism is not in of itself a hindrance to democracy.

“I wanted to point out that populism can be … for democracy. That it becomes concerning when it takes on these anti-pluralist and authoritarian tendencies,” Ziblatt said as an answer to a question from Michael Goodhart, a political science professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Frank focused his argument on what populism was originally and where it came from, while Ziblatt focused on its effects in other nations and its possible impact on the U.S.

After hearing Frank and Ziblatt’s debates, students were weary on where they aligned. The two political experts did not disagree on populism’s effects but on the definition of populism itself.

Alex Fusca and Sage Cunningham, two secondary education history majors attended as a part of extra credit for an exam.

They were surprised at the amount of details in Frank’s speech.

“I definitely didn’t expect him to go that in-depth talking about specific historic political events,” Cunningham said.

After the first debate Fusca said he planned on attending the second part and could see himself leaning on the other side.

After both parts of the debate, junior Tom Cummings, a political science major, had some trouble choosing a side definitively.

“I don’t think populism itself is to blame for that [authoritarian power] but I think that it you know really provides a slippery slope when you know you’re trying to appeal to people en masse that sometimes actors can come along and take advantage of the momentum to be had in popular movements and can use it for their own personal benefit.”

As a member of the Green Party, Cummings believes many Americans are ready for a change from the two-party system and are looking for alternatives.

“When it’s an elitist political system people are going to get fed up eventually. And if left-leaning parties can’t harness that, then right-wing parties sure as hell will.”