Abstract

Modern philosophical theory informs the nature of populism and what it means to be a good, in the sense of beneficial to the people, populist from antiquity to the modern world. An analysis of three famous populists, Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, through the theoretical lens of Harry G. Frankfurt’s books On Bullshit and On Truth elaborates on his ideas of truth and technical use of bullshit as information not committed to any truth in relation to the development of populism. Analysis is divided into two sections: a consideration of how they reached the climax at which their populism was truly beneficial, and a consideration of how they experienced a fall from grace or the shortcomings of their populist vision. What differentiates the good and the bad populist is the conflict between giving a populus truth by the populist who is considered good and the production of bullshit by the populist deemed bad. Throughout the paper, the ideas of the good and bad populist are held as just that, ideas, not necessarily concrete entities. However, concrete actors are believed to be able to shift between the various categories presented. This creates a definition of populism internal to the paper and tied to the consideration of truth and what responsibilities come with power of office. By analyzing the actions of these three men who can be considered populists by the aforementioned internal definition a new picture of what makes a good populist and the course that must be maintained by a populist to remain in that state of beneficiality is created.

How to Cite