Thread by @CasMudde

In past months I’ve criticized high-profile initiatives on populism at Harvard & Stanford. Let me clarify why. #thread

1. I am happy that populism is (finally) taken serious by US mainstream political and social science.

2. Although I wish “populism” was used more carefully and not as short hand for anti-establishment, nativist, or protest politics.

3. I am also happy established scholars bring their specific insights from other field to the study of populism.

4. It was particularly because of Ignazi’s insights on party politics and Betz and Kitchelt’s knowledge of green parties that study of radical right parties advanced.

5. I am unhappy, however, with how insular and pedigree-related some of the initiatives are.

6. I think you should invite the best scholars for that specific research agenda, not the most famous political scientists or the ones from the most prestigious institutions.

7. Given that “populism studies” has long been ignored by mainstream US political science, most of its scholars are not among the most famous or at most prestigious institutions.

8. While the foundational scholars of populism have died (Laclau) or retired (Canovan), most of important populism scholars reside outside of US.

9. I’m thinking of Paul Taggart, Chantal Mouffe, Matthias Rooduijn, Yannis Stavrakakis, Sarah de Lange, Duncan McDonnell, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Yves Mény, Benjamin Moffit.

10. And, given that most US “populism” is treating a Trump (and Brexit) as pinnacles of populism - wrongly, in my opinion, three decades of research on European radical right is crucial.

11. Which leads to many, many other great scholars, who have been working on radical right for 10+ years.

12. Among the many not yet mentioned are Ann-Cathrine Jungar, Jens Rydgren, Michael Minkenberg, Elizabeth Ivarsflaten, Roger Eatwell, Elisabeth Carter, Kia Arzheimer etc

13. The main points are: first, WE ALL STAND ON SHOULDERS OF GIANTS. We should give them credit and not just their “translators”.

14. Second, WITH GREAT RESOURCES COME GREST RESPONSIBILITIES!

15. Academia is an extremely unequal profession, nowhere more do than in the US. Particularly liberal academics at resource-plenty institutions should acknowledge their privilege and spread the wealth.

16. Bring in good scholars from not-so-good institutions, help them be even better.

17. Have younger populism scholars present truly original and new research and more established general scholars provide feedback. This profits both and the field as a whole.

18. Help improve the number and visibility of female scholars and scholars of color, who are remarkably underrepresented in populism studies ((also compared to radical right!).

19. On this point, Both APSA panel and Stanford workshop had great female participation! Bravo! 👏

20. Be careful to claim innovations and new insights. Most has been written before, you just haven’t read it (yet).

21. New scholars of populism, engage with existing scholarship, don’t just adopt definition or set it up as consensus to challenge.

22. Old(er) scholars of populism, embrace the new insights from new scholars and other fields. Don’t treat them as “invaders”.

23. Finally, to be clear, there is much academic privilege in parts of Europe, with massively funded research projects on populism and related issues. The same holds for you! 😉

24. If anything, I hope populism studies will improve, as we all know there is much space for improvement. However, it should not become “mainstreamed”, as it would lose it vibrancy.

25. All of this will largely happen without me, as I’m too busy and tired (and hate to travel), so invite my many smart colleagues instead. I’ll definitely read y’all’s best work. 😀 #TheEnd